Posted on 01/27/2014 3:28:50 PM PST by Kaslin
It is Super Bowl week; Time for a football analogy to politics: The best defense is a good offense. Yep. Perhaps the most successful head-fake tactic of the left has been political correctness and I think that it is high time that we got our defense off the field and start throwing some play-action post routes of our own.
The leftist playbook includes instructions to accuse the right of being cruelly unfair in response to every assertion of a conservative standard. Reducing taxes is to “fund the government on the backs of the poor.” Opposing Obama’s takeover of health care is to “reveal racist contempt towards a black president.” Contending for the right to life is to “wage war on women.”
Democrats win many elections by painting Republican candidates as insensitive puritans who are absent one heart and the right side of their brain. What the Republican candidates are actually missing is a GOP playbook with instructions to avoid trying to be loved by everybody. Democrats have become experts at tapping Republicans with a small rubber hammer just below the knee. Watching the Republican kick his own legs out from under himself has become so predictable that it is not even humerus (rim shot, please).
You may have heard of one of my fellow Townhall.com contributors, an up-and-comer named Dennis Prager. Dennis effectively explores the tension between standards and compassion on his radio broadcast (see http://townhall.com/talkradio/dennisprager/438233). “The liberal tendency is to apply compassion to social policy when standards should prevail and conservatives’ tendency … is to place standards over compassion in personal life and they end up looking cold…”
Playing defense most of the time scores zero points. And decades of compromise just moves you closer to the opposition’s end zone. But we are beginning to see some bold maneuvers by the Republicans recently that have me very encouraged; Two examples:
Across Colorado, conservative communities have begun to take control of their local school boards. In 2013, Douglas County residents fended off a $1MM+ campaign by the union to re-take control of their school board. The first resolution passed after conservatives were elected in 2009 was to declare that the Boy Scouts were welcome on campus, reversing the prevailing attitude. This was followed by instituting merit pay for teachers, implementing a real voucher system, and disengaging the teachers union. The courage began to spread last year as inspired neighboring communities sought coaching from the battle-hardened Douglas County school board members and began replacing their liberal boards with conservative parents.
Now is the time for the Douglas County School Board to drive the conservative stratagem even further. By privatizing a high school, wholesale replacing the curricula with patriotic, anti-common-core syllabi, and banning radical environmentalism as a state sponsored religion, the board could keep the liberals playing prevent-defense. A good measure of success would be when liberal complaining turns into a thousand screams.
In Oklahoma this past Friday, State Representative Mike Turner boldly challenged, “whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all.” He floated a bill that would remove the state’s role of licensing matrimony. This was in response to a recent court order that strikes down Oklahoma’s definition of marriage as traditional one-man-one-woman.
Getting the state out of marriage is certainly not a new idea. But now that a state legislator has actually taken the first tangible step in that direction, the left finds itself backpedalling fast. Who would ever have thought that we would see the ACLU coming to the defense of marriage? But that is exactly the awkward role that the ACLU of Oklahoma has stepped up to. Now that they have marriage defined the way they like it, they are on their heels in a panic to keep the state involved.
America’s first Vice President and second President, John Adams, wrote in one of his many intellectual exchanges with his wife, Abigail: “I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics andphilosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture,navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their childrena right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary,tapestry and porcelain."
I have long been intrigued by Adams’ sociopolitical graduation, captured 163 years later in Abraham Maslow's model, the Hierarchy of Needs. Through sacrifice, hard work, intelligence and war, conservatives build the foundations on which liberty can flourish. Subsequently, the compromises of majority rule naturally tend toward losses in that liberty. And when their sons’ sons focus all their attentions on self-actualizing, conservatives come to realize that the foundations need adjusting.
So back to my football analogy; I hope to see conservatives rain aggressive plays all over the field like a million short passes from Peyton Manning. We have surrendered far too much ground. It is time that Americans remember the basics and become champions once again.
Go Broncos!
Because your religious rite is not everyone else’s religious rite, this is America, we don’t have to have a religion at all, and they really don’t have to stay in that religion forever, and depend on it to decide on their divorce and property rights and child custody, for instance an FLDS woman.
There is legal marriage, and then there are religions that don’t agree with American law, the FLDS for instance, or the 4 wife Muslims, or gay churches.
Wrong again and I am talking about legal marriage long before the federal laws. The laws were created specifically for the legal benefit of children and women (inheritance, financial support, etc) because marriage was what determined paternity and women had fewer rights. That is why the laws were created back in Antiquity and the middle ages (depending upon the country). “legal Marriage” existed LONG before the founding of the US government and that is why. Try reading a history book that deals with things before 1770.
That has changed legally as you can determine parentage and require support outside of ‘legal marriage’ through DNA and women have more rights. The purpose of ‘legal marriage’ no longer exists because the determinants have changed. Women can now own property and fathers can be determined through science, not an assumption that the ‘husband’ is the father.
And you are funny, you say I am wrong yet claim you have no idea what I was saying. You are blinded by this.
I’m already married in according to the state (for now), but if I had to do it over again, I wouldn’t bother with the state. I would still be married in the ONLY way it counts - by God.
And we keep pointing out that state sanction does not make a Marriage.
It is a distraction because it is just childish ranting, America is not going to vote to make religions and cults in charge of writing marriage and divorce laws for each religion and cult, and individual.
We vote on our laws, and I don’t want to be paying widow benefits to some navy SEAL’s 10 wives and have them living on base.
Then it isn’t marriage in the true sense if they are not married in the eyes of God.
And they can determine property rights, child custody already without the state sanction of marriage and divorce would become a non-issue.
So tell other people to that if you want, but in the meantime let’s figure out some real world politics and strategies for the next couple of years to deal with what is facing us right now.
That’s nice, you have a personal opinion and a religion, I’m sure we have a lot of different opinions in a free nation, FLDS has their opinions, the Muslims have theirs, the gay churches have theirs, the atheists who want to marry, and have the right to, have theirs.
//Would you read the thread before you keep posting nonsense, you don’t a marriage license to marry in America, not even for a legal marriage.//.
I DID read the thread Ansel. And you are the one posting nonsense. You keep saying that you don’t need a marriage license to marry and yes there is a covenant marriage but that is usually not recognized legally and you do not get some of the same government ‘benefits’.
You are the one who is giving the gays their power and control, by insisting that the only ‘real’ marriage is one sanctioned by the state. Who cares what the state wants? My marriage does not depend on the state. My morality wouldn’t change because I would still be married in the eyes of God
Getting rid of the ‘carrot’ of legal marriage and putting back in the churches takes away the control of the gay agenda. Marriage should not be a legal contract but a religious one.
I also find it ironic that several places in this thread you have said this is a ‘distraction’ yet you still keep pushing the government line.
I did read it and RBKA is correct. You are the one that is wrong and being rather stupid about it as well.
Too bad the post that you had responded to so inaccurately, had specific dates and was about our nation, and our laws.
Marriage law is about a heck of a lot more than DNA, and it always has been.
But again, more distractions, I guess this last few months of the gay agenda advancement just over whelmed most of the people here, so they just moved into a fantasy of escapism, rather than seeking political strategies.
//””I’m not aware of a state that allows clergy to perform “legal” marriages without a marriage license (or marriage certificate, or formal notice, to be recorded by the govt.) required.””//
And you are wrong on that. He didn’t say what you are attributing to him.
Yet the religious rite is the only one that truly matters. Why are you putting Caesar over God?
And I am quite aware of the plight of FLDS women which is why Utah struck down the anti-polygamy law.
It didn’t take you long to go personal, but where am I wrong, which states do not require some form of paperwork or registration by clergy?
I was also correct about the reference to “solemnize their marriage”.
//It is a distraction because it is just childish ranting, America is not going to vote to make religions and cults in charge of writing marriage and divorce laws for each religion and cult, and individual.//
No one is saying that they should. You are completely missing the point and creating a strawman.
Laws are different than religious rites. The laws regarding division of property can still stand as well as custody, without the government saying who is married or not.
This is a real world policy that deals with what we are facing. Don’t like gay marriage? then get rid of the legal category of marriage and take away the cornerstone of the gay agenda.
If you want to be married, do so in a church, a covenant with God. If you want certain legal contracts you can do those without the government giving its approval.
//That’s nice, you have a personal opinion and a religion//
Not personal opinion, the BIBLE states what marriage is, not the state and that doesn’t change. Marriage is only true marriage if it is one in the eyes of God, not the state.
You need to read your bible more.
God this is silly.
If you don’t care if it is legal or not, then do what you want, you are arguing for ending marriage.
In your fantasy world, everyone just makes up their own concepts and rules, every cult, every religion, everyone, as long as it is a religion.
Where do you even get the votes for such a fantasy?
Great, Obama issues gay marriage for the military and federal employees, and this is what we get.
You want to talk about me not reading the bible enough, this is America, we don’t win the political battles by dropping out and letting the left have free rein with marriage and the gay agenda.
I’m about ready to throw in the towel, there just isn’t any conservative resistance to gay marriage and the upcoming polygamy.
Dunno
Why do we let you gals control us?
LOL
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.