Posted on 02/22/2010 9:06:23 PM PST by DesertRenegade
California Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) chairman Ryan Sorba generated a media controversy when he was shown at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) denouncing the organizers for inviting a homosexual Republican group, GOProud, into the event as an official sponsor. In "controversial" remarks, Sorba said homosexuality was unnatural and that he welcomed more debate and discussion about the subject from his political adversaries.
But what many people don't realize is that Sorba's "outburst" was provoked by a speaker who preceded him, Alexander McCobin of Students For Liberty (SFL).
McCobin went out of his way to use valuable time from the podium to thank the American Conservative Union, the main CPAC organizer, for making the controversial decision to approve GOProud's participation.
David Keene, a lobbyist, is the chairman of the ACU and personally approved GOProud's involvement in CPAC.
Sorba told AIM, "I think CPAC went overboard this year. I don't think he [Keene] should be sitting at the top of CPAC." He noted that CPAC over the last several years has also allowed groups such as the ACLU to have exhibits at the event.
"What's next?," Sorba asked. "Are they going to have Republicans for Obamacare? Republicans for free abortions?"
Incredibly, McCobin of SFL told me that his group "is not a conservative organization" and that "We spent this past weekend reaching out to the left and the right at both the Young Democrats of America's convention and the Conservative Political Action Conference. We are not left or right."
If they are not conservative, Sorba asked, "What are they doing at CPAC?"
No stranger to controversy, Sorba is the author of the book, The Born Gay Hoax (this is a working draft) and was shouted down at Smith College by lesbian activists because of his support for traditional values.
I think your first mistake is that you believe that conservatives have tents. We don’t. Republicans have tents. Conservatives have principles. We don’t sell out our principles. If anyone supports our principles that’s fine. But when they try to peddle their liberal ideas as able to co-exist with conservative principles we have a problem.
Conservatism stands for something. If you stand for the things conservatism stands for fine. But when people try to pretend filth and degenerate behavior makes up conservative principle, someone must be in the wrong place.
There is nothing conservative about people jumping up and down screaming that their bedroom practices deserve special rights, special treatment, special money. Anyone who is conservative should be able to see that this is clearly an infiltration. An attempt to water down conservatism and give legitimacy to deviancy. There is nothing good or conservative about it.
As for CPAC the idea that a non conservative group GOProud can be given a platform to boo conservatives at a conservative convention is beyond political correctness. Let them boo at their own convention. If they can give up worshipping their privates, they can follow us as we stand for conservative principles. But if they have a problem with those principles, they need to go back to their hidey holes and keep their liberal ideas to themselves. They don’t need to lead us or push their lib garbage down our throats.
“I agree when they want codification of homosexuality”
So, what is your position on the codifiction of homosexual marriage and the repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell?
well!
I would be very careful interpreting their screams as promoting gay-ism versus just wanting to be accepted as normal flawed human beings. Not that I accept gay marriage...I don’t.
We don’t jump up and down when the catholic church has a bingo hall to take advantage of gamblers.
We don’t freak out when whatshisname from massechussettes posed nude. We don’t freak out when rush limbaugh gets engaged over and over again.
We don’t freak out when ted nugent is a promiscuous rock and roller.
So what the hell?
I agree with your proposition that law is a reflection of morality.
If I come hit you in the face, that is battery, right?
If I hit myself in the face, that is not battery. And if we agree to hit hit each other in the face in the privacy of a bedroom, that is not battery either, is it? And there is no basis for the government to promote or disparage it though it may do neither of us much good.
At this time, a weary America is about ready to tell them that if they keep their closet doors shut, they won’t be bothered even if all kinds of weird sounds come from behind those doors.
They won’t even do that much.
The progressives want to destroy all of our cherished institutions: the constitution, the military, our Judeo-Christian morality and the traditional family and our national culture and identity. They promote an anti-intellectual popular culture that places charisma and image over substance and reason. They are so successful that they’ve even convinced many conservatives to accept their premises.
see #167
Well as a former ground pounder, I can speak for many of not a vast majority of groundpounders when I say that most do not want them in the military period.
That’s just the way it is. “Don’t ask was a political compromise from Clinton. Like many detractos stated, it would be a first step down the slippery road to nomralization of homosexuals.
So, here we go with Obama’s Executive Order, issued in time of war. The Brass can kiss off, they have no idea, what the line soldier or marine think about on this issue. They are playing for Pentagon and chablis in DC.
I don’t like women in the military, at least not with their bodies in combat zones even if their minds can be put to military use elsewhere. No one has a right to serve. So I have no problem with your position. But if our ultimate positions are not carried, the issues are how to deal with it. They are not going to ask who you want to serve with either. They just expect discipline and good order.
CPAC sucks...
Because, like muslims, gay terrorists will claim anything during their infiltration of a group or organization. Once they have established sufficient hooks, they begin exerting control of the group or organization, until it becomes primarily an organization to promote gay (or muslim, socialist, commie, etc.) control, and all other previous objectives of the organizations become secondary or non-existent.
And guess what. The next group or organization targeted for takeover will swear adamantly that, "they aren't really that different from us," and "we need to show that we can be tolerant." Then that group or organization becomes another arm of gay (or muslim) control, and on and on, like some mutant zombie vampire nightmare.
It's Gramsci's Long March through the Institutions.
“expect order and discipline”
Well, the reality of what they expect and what they get will not meet expectation over time. Especially in combat arms units.
Thank you for that info about the Huffingtons.
splains a lot...
Soros is funding Cato!
Well, the reality of what they expect and what they get will not meet expectation over time.
“When did it ever? At the start of a battle, the first casualty is the plan.”
This is not battle is it?
It is social engineering.
As I said in post 167, I give wide deference to the opinion of the military. Militaries have had diverse experience with gays over the last 2500 years or so.
It’s no big deal, when Obama is outed in 2012(pun not intended), the policy will be reversed.
Then the same Pentagon kiss azz brass will claim after review they didn want the policy repealed.
Then, I’m sure you’ll still trust the military’s opinion on this policy.
But there very definitely are "movement homosexuals" (who are themselves being wielded and abetted by Communists) in order to take down this country; even if the homosexuals explicitly deny that that is what will happen -- see my post on that other thread about social externalities.
The problem politically is that the libertarians are used by the libertines to get the camel's nose into the tent.
As you say, the problem is more complex than gay rights advocates want to admit.
The problem morally is that there is a millenia-old tradition among several major faith groups that such practices are intrinsically abhorrent to God, and demean the individuals involved and the whole society. Our culture and laws are in large part derived from that moral structure: and so by definition, to seek to overthrow the strictures on that behaviour, by definition of the word CANNOT be "conservative" since you are trying to allow decay rather than conserve.
I can often be caustically sarcastic, but not "vile" and "hateful" (and look, there you go using those liberal knee-jerk buzzwords again).
As far as debate, you seem to be one of those fine upstanding "open-minded" people who calls anyone who disagrees with them hatemongers: and who also starts debate by declaring ab initio and ex cathedra that the philisophical underpinnings of his opponents are null and void: and then explains that he is really tolerant and open-minded (your petitio principii on the other thread).
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.