Posted on 11/15/2010 3:06:08 PM PST by TCH
Nope, you’re not seeing it. I’d suggest you try again, but I think it’ll be better to spell it out.
On the one hand, you’re agreeing with the concept presented in the article, that Republicans should not press for social issues legislation.
Then you inform us that what they should do instead is get the federal government to return those social issues to the States.
Do you need more help seeing the inconsistency? Or do you suppose that the second one does not require pressing for social issue legislation? The courts aren’t going to volunteer to do the job for them.
Fair enough. But first you have to get either two thirds of the congress to go along or a change at the SCOTUS. Either will take time and lots of effort, as I am sure you realize. All I am trying to say is conservatives made great gains and we should keep the momentum up. Not abandon our convictions at the ballot box but do the ground work first.
My reason for this is I live in Liberal New York and every Tea Party candidate was attacked not on their record but on the scare tactic of those mean Tea Party people will take away your Social Security and your right to choose. It may not be true but they thought it would work and that’s why they drag it out. This time it did not work. We even sent liberal John Hall packing.
To reverse this you must change the minds of voters who think this is OK. The liberals have the upper hand by allowing the argument to be over a “women’s right to choose”. It’s like she would lose the right to vote if abortion was illegal. More than a few people fall for this. The woman’s right to choose is at conception and not at birth. I would say it is the Childs right to life but the phrase seems overused. To liberals it is the code word for religious zealot. Maybe the answer is a Childs civil rights, as guaranteed in the constitution. IE: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You can be convicted for double murder for killing a pregnant woman. Why do liberals support women using capital punishment against a citizen whose only crime is poor timing? Why is one citizens rights more important than another?
So I believe that it should be illegal but is now the time to make it a centerpiece of correcting the course of the United States? I think it is too soon, the ground work is not yet done. If we lose this battle for the United States you can start adding the deaths of old people who are no longer productive to your count of abortions. At this early stage of reversing 50 years of liberalism we can use the model of death from a thousand cuts. Campaign for pro lifers, when cutting government funding make sure pro-abortion groups are on the list, and make the argument about a child’s civil rights VS capital punishment. When debating abortion never call it abortion, call it murder. That then makes the liberals defending a woman’s right to murder.
I hope you now see where I am coming from. When the liberals wanted to legalize abortion do you think they said we want to make murdering an unborn child legal? No they started with arguments about unhealthy pregnancies. Ones that endangered the life of the mother. Then they progressed to sick babies, next thing you know you could abort on a whim. The other dirty little secret about abortion not everyone realizes is the liberals wanted abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods to cull the herds. Like all liberal plans it did not work.
I have enjoyed our spirited discussions and I never thought your goal was wrong. I just know that you will never achieve that goal alone.
Liberals have made an avocation, over the last 60 years, of nationalizing everything while telling conservatives that conservative issues are state issues -- and then suing in federal court to have their own way.
Turn about is fair play, but in the longer run you are right. The problem right now is to subdue the knee-jerk federalizers and internationalizers, who are really just all about amassing power. At some point their creation becomes a black hole of despotism, but they don't care -- they want their fix, like junkies.
Grover Norquist has signed up with GOProud.
Grover has just a whole bunch of interesting friends. His Moslem wife is active in groups connected to Hamas, e.g.
Google Grover and read more -- people have put up plenty of material about Norquist's activities. He isn't just about taxes any more.
Tell that to the Supreme Court.
Then try telling it to the Marxist, "progressive" (neo-Stalinist), and formerly-liberal groups like NARAL and the homosexual Lambda Legal, who exist to run to the federal courthouse for decrees on their pet issues.
"Grover Glenn Norquist (born October 19, 1956) is president of taxpayer advocacy group Americans for Tax Reform. Norquist is a member of the board of directors of the National Rifle Association and the American Conservative Union, as well as the Advisory Council of GOProud.
Background and education
Norquist grew up in Weston, Massachusetts, and became involved with politics at an early age. In his early teenage years, Norquist volunteered for the 1968 Nixon campaign, assisting with get out the vote efforts. He enrolled at Harvard University in 1974, where he would obtain both a BA and MBA. While in school, Norquist was an editor at the Harvard Crimson and helped to publish the libertarian-leaning Harvard Chronicle. Norquist has said that he believes that one's political beliefs are fully developed by the age of 21. He attended the Leadership Institute in Arlington, Virginia, an organization that teaches conservative Americians how to influence public policy through activism and leadership."
We are talking about the politial stand of the Tea Party - not the courts and not the Marxists who will kill everyone in sight if given the chance.
You can't be gay and conservative. That's like being positively and negatively charged, having both a positive valence number and, on Thursday nights, a negative one.
"Baptists for Satan."
"Commies for Jesus."
Other such laughers suggest themselves.
From Wikipedia:
"Norquist, whose wife is Muslim, in 2010 emerged as the most outspoken Republican foe of politicizing the mosque-in-Manhattan issue, saying:
"This is a distraction from a winning game plan.... It is very stupid, when Republicans are poised to win an overwhelming victory in November over Democratic spending, to focus attention on this issue.""
Hmm. Who appointed you the All Knower of the future?
Norquist is pure unadulterated evil already. And now a member of an “all gay” militant organization that wants to make the GOP an arm of the homo-nazi movement.
Sheesh.
Most of his resume looks pretty good, but there are a few inconsistencies that really stand out.
Norquist’s joining the GOProud and his support of Hamas are enough for me to cross him off any list of potential allies!
Also from Wikipedia:
Islamic Free Market Institute
In 1997 Saffuri, along with Grover Norquist, one of the most politically-connected Republican lobbyists, founded the Islamic Free Market Institute (often called simply the Islamic Institute) to build Republican support among Muslim Americans. The Institute operates out of the headquarters of Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform.[2] The start-up money largely comes from Middle Eastern sources. Saffuri’s former boss at the AMC American Muslim Council, Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi, gives at least $35,000. The Safa Trust donates at least $35,000, and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) contributes $11,000. Both organizations are part of the SAAR group and are among the organizations that were subject to a March, 2002 raid under the auspices of Operation Green Quest.
The Operation Green Quest raids led to the convictions of two people, including Abdurahman Alamoudi, who worked for the SAAR Foundation. Alamoudi admitted that he plotted with Libya to assassinate the Saudi ruler and was sentenced to 23 years in jail.[3][4][5]
[edit]
Well, I'll tell you anyway: it's because Tea Party groups refuse to organize into something larger. There's no umbrella organization, and no general standards to define a "Tea Party" group.
And so, to be "Tea Party," pretty much all you have to do, is adopt the name -- it doesn't actually matter what you stand for.
And you folks can't do anything about it, because there's nobody who speaks for all of you.
"Publius" said the same thing about freedom and morality in The Federalist.
Very interesting article, nice work
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.