TAKING OVER THE CRA/NFRA AND THE CHALCEDON FOUNDATION - ARE WE BEING MANIPULATED?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

This California recall has enabled us to take a close look at the inner workings of California politics, and of some of the shadowy interests which manipulate teh GOP to serve the interests of a numerically small but very noisily ideological group of malcontents from within the party. I have taken the time to come up with links to articles and excerpts of what is contained within so as to provide FReepers with some of the connections which exist between various individuals and groups within the California Republican Party, as well as the beliefs espoused by each.

When reviewing these excerpts (and they are all fairly lenghty, be forewarned), keep this working set of names and definitions in mind:

Howard Ahmanson, Jr. - Heir to vast savings and loan fortune, a 20 year contributor and former board member of the Chalcedon Institute. Prolific donor to campaigns of CRA members, and a particular patron of Tom McClintock.

Mark Rushdoony - Dead pseudotheologian and proponent of doctrine of Christian Dominionism.

Chalcedon Foundation/Institute - "Think tank" which advances the cause of Christian Dominionism in America.

Christian Dominionism - an ideology that the United States shall be governed under a Christian moral code with heavy emphasis on Old Testament rules as a matter of civil and criminal law.

California Republican Assembly - an organization which claims to consist of grassroots California Republicans

John Stoos - Former Vice President of the California Republican Asssembly, long time Chalcedon contributing writer and staffer and now a political aide to Tom McClintock.

Rod Martin - Eastern Region Vice President of the NFRA, Editor-Director of the Vanguard.

NFRA - National Federation of Republican Assemblies, the umbrella organization set up by the founders of the CRA, which is to give the movement a nationwide focus.

Stoos describes how the Dominionists took over the CRA.

Writing in the February 1997 issue [of Chalcedon Magazine], Stoos described how "a small group of Christians" first began to take over the California Republican Assembly in 1988 and came to dominate the state Republican Party itself. Stoos said what happened with the CRA "may well be a good model" to export "to facilitate the same type of successes across the country."

"In recent issues, Chalcedon writers have considered how those who believe in the Lordship of Christ and dominion mandate should involve themselves in American politics," Stoos wrote. "We agreed that Christians should not approach politics as 'wanting a seat at the table' as if the Creator of the Universe or his vice regents need to ask permission to be involved."

Political involvement in a constitutional republic, he continued, "is a natural obligation" for Christians who want the freedom to "preach the Gospel and further God's Kingdom."

How ordinary Republicans see that takeover, and what it means to them, together with their organizational efforts to combat it. (this consists of several excerpts, if I err in splitting them up, accept my apologies in advance):

The CRP debacle began in 1988 when Pat Robertson challenged President Bush in the Republican Primary. Although Robertson lost, he energized the Christian Coalition nationwide. In California they joined with the large and powerful California Republican Assembly and ran an effective though losing grassroots campaign.

After Robertsons loss to Bush, the leaders of the two groups had a meeting to discuss starting a third party. (Well documented in the Chalcedon Magazine by John Stoos.) They decided that as a third party, they could have a lot to say about philosophy but little or nothing to say about governance. They decided instead to take over the California Republican Party, control the party platform and the $20 million budget during each election cycle. The CRA-dominated coalition ran a stealth campaign in County Central Committee elections and was successful at winning a majority. They elected a Chairman and Board of Directors that was so dominated by the radical-right that they did not invite Governor Wilson to the 1992 convention, would not let him attend and demonstrated against our sitting Republican U.S. Senator when he was the keynote speaker. The CRA continued to consolidate its control of the CRP to such an extent that by 1994, every office and board member of the CRP was a member of the CRA and no one else was allowed to run. During the six years they had absolute control, the party suffered the worst three defeats in its history. During that time, CRA members and even officers of the party attacked Republican candidates in General Elections, costing us several seats. Although there were many such attacks, including the CRP Chairman initiating lawsuits against Republican Assembly candidates, the ones that could be the most costly were the attacks by a CRA Unit President and his associates on Congressman Steve Kuykendall and candidate Jim Cuneen. While Republicans in the rest of the country were trying to save our Speakership in the House, they were trying to hand it to the Democrats.

________________________________________

While the CCR was busy getting started and growing to over 25 Chapters around the state by 1997, the CRA had completed its takeover of the CRP to the extent that they outnumbered Mainstream Republicans by about 1200 to 400, and the counties by about 50 to 8.

Chalcedon's notion of religious life in its ideal society:

While belief could not be mandatory in a Biblical society, and unbelievers could live and work among the people of God, not all religious practices would be permitted. A Biblical society would have to restrain religions based on murder, aggressive revolution, or other civilization-destroying practices. Exodus 22:18, 20 and Deuteronomy 18:10-12 indicate that the practice of occultist religions or religions involving sacrifice to idols was a capital crime under the civil law given to Moses. I did not mention this fact in my reply because it would invite hysterics over witch trials rather than an understanding of my broader point — that the state, and therefore the idea of "crime," is necessarily religious. My correspondent evidently wants official state toleration for all religions, including outright paganism, Satanism, and witchcraft. I wanted her to see the impossibility of this pluralism.

Pagans and occultists should not be ignored by Christians as fringe groups of little significance. R. J. Rushdoony, in The Institutes of Biblical Law, pointed out the danger posed by such groups in the past:

At the end of the Middle Ages and in the early years of the modern era, a widespread outbreak and revival of pagan and anti-Christian occultism was responsible for a massive assault on Christianity, an attack on tithing, the mainstay of Christian society, a sexual revolution aimed at destroying the family, and a revival of cannibalism, human sacrifice, and related acts.

John Stoos, on Sacramento bargaining:

A conference committee drew up an agreed-on list of reforms, everyone shook on the deal and it appeared that conservatives had won an impressive victory. The conservative leadership still managed, however, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

First, they sent liberal staff off to draft the details of the reforms, creating over four hundred pages of legal jargon to implement the few simple reforms. The final product actually moved California to the Left of the reforms signed by President Bill Clinton! When this was pointed out to the conservative leadership, they simply said it was the best they could get!

Next came their favorite legislative game: Announcing major reforms, while voting to do just the opposite. There were the obligatory debates, and when the dust had settled, only Senator Dick Mountjoy and Assemblyman Tom McClintock were willing to vote NO, after speaking against the phony reforms in the public debates.

More on Chalcedon's intentions:

Chalcedon and most other orthodox Christian reformers do not undertake to establish a national or state church (and thus do not deny the validity of the separation of church and state, properly understood); rather, we endorse and practice Christian establishmentarianism: the prevalence of historic, Biblical Christianity in all areas of modern life. We advocate a disestablished church but an established Faith.

All consistent Christians are thus intently disestablishmentarian and establishmentarian: To press the claims of Christ in all spheres is necessarily and simultaneously to disestablish Satan’s kingdom and establish Christ’s kingdom.

And it is the establishment of Christ’s kingdom which is destined to prevail.

Lest it be unclear what they believe:

Chalcedon supports only one form of "racism": God blesses, nourishes, and honors the Royal Race of the Redeemed, all of those of whatever physical race that have placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ, and God curses the race of the First Adam, all of those who live in unbelief, rebellion, and work-righteousness (Rom. 5:12-21). This is the only "racial discrimination" the Bible knows anything about. God discriminates in favor of covenant-keepers, and discriminates against covenant-breakers (Dt. 28). Some may object that He favors the race of Israel in the Old Testament era, but it must be immediately noted that His choice was not fundamentally racial, but religious. For this reason, Gentiles could become a part of the Jewish race, and thus a part of the covenant people of God (Gen. 17:12-13). The non-racial aspect of Biblical Faith is clear from Ephesians 2:11-15:

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace....

All converted Jews and Gentiles stand on the same plane of blessing in God's sight, just as all unconverted Jews and Gentiles stand on the same plane of judgment in God's sight. The race God favors is the race of the Second Adam; the race He disfavors is the race of the First Adam. And this has nothing to do with physical race.

John Stoos allows Mother Jones (!) to interview him:

Plan Ahead

From radical fringe to kingmakers in a decade — how did they do it? "Basically, there's two places you have influence: one is in the nominating process in the primaries, where you can elect people in ideological agreement with your views, and the other is in the party structure," says former CRA vice president John Stoos, a former gun lobbyist, member of the fundamentalist Christian Reconstructionist movement, and senior consultant to the State Assembly. "And who pays attention to this stuff? You literally have to plan months and years ahead to know where the openings are."

Larkin felt the wrath of the CRA when he ran for the California Assembly in 1996. In 1992 he had angered the CRA by launching a campaign to wrest control of the party's Ventura County Central Committee away from the conservatives. In reprisal, the CRA backed conservative Tom McClintock, who defeated Larkin in the 1996 primary and ultimately won the general election.

"They're organized and dedicated," says Larkin, "and mainstream Republicans are neither, so a very small group can take over."

Ahmanson's tentacles:

Ahmanson's patronage benefits several nonprofit think tanks, including the Claremont Institute, where McClintock worked for two years after losing his 1994 run for state controller, and the Chalcedon Foundation, which promotes a brand of Christianity known as Christian Reconstructionism. Chalcedon produces journals for which McClintock political aide John Stoos routinely writes.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Ahmanson served on Chalcedon's board of directors and was its largest benefactor, giving it at least $733,000. He remains a donor to the nonprofit organization, which was founded by Rousas John Rushdoony. Often called theologian to the religious right, Rushdoony, who died in 2001, advocated a nation ruled by Biblical law, a vision that assigned the death penalty for 18 sins, including murder, rape of a betrothed virgin, adultery and sodomy.

[hang on, this is my favorite part]

Ahmanson could not be reached for comment. But at a news conference this week, McClintock said he knew nothing about Ahmanson's theology, other than that he is a Christian. [compiler's note - take from that what you will]

An extract from a statement of the NFRA:

Our Founding Fathers firmly held to the conviction that religious freedom was fundamental to a free society. We also express the conviction that we are a God-fearing people, according one another the equal right of religious freedom and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God.

Parents bear the final responsibility before God in the rearing of their children. Parents have been commanded by God to love their children and lead them in the paths of truth. Parents must be free to discipline their children in love and direct their education without government intrusion.

The CRA speaks:

We believe with the framers of that document when President Adams stated, "This Constitution will not work except with a religious people."

An official of the NFRA in a candid gleeful boast:

Even these numbers understate the case. In California, for instance, where the study rightly noted reverses, Christian conservatives in the powerful California Republican Assembly were nevertheless able to overturn the “foreordained” outcome of their party’s gubernatorial primary, badly upsetting left-wing Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan with conservative underdog Bill Simon. A Simon win in November would guarantee their dominance in the party, and dramatically increase their influence in both state and nation.

[hchutch]

Yep - John Warner did that in 1994 to Ollie North. Cost Warner my support. I have written Ollie's name in for TWO Senate elections. If Warner runs again in 2008, I'll make it a third.

Similarly, I was disgusted by the treatment Bret Schundler received from the DiFrancesco bunch in New Jersey. The "scorched earth" attacks that have been occuring from ideological purists in California are equally disgusting, IMHO.

[Spiff]

I don't believe a single one of my ancestors wanted preachers calling the shots in government. I think they all wanted to get away from that. That's the way I was brought up, anyway.

I don't believe that Chalcedon wants preachers calling the shots in government either. You're equating a government founded upon Judeo-Christian values with a theocracy. It isn't so. Just because our nation was founded on a certain moral code doesn't mean that preachers or any one church controls the government. Just because our founding documents acknowledge (DofI) or reflect (Constitution) that value system, doesn't mean that we have a form of government that precludes all other faiths. X does not equal Y.

[billbears]

And, of course, the Catholic Church being the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, what any Protestant says to the contrary is, well, without merit.

Well that's a good thing I'm not Protestant. I'm a Baptist

[CobaltBlue]

our founding documents acknowledge (DofI) or reflect (Constitution) that value system

I am sincere when I say that I wish I understood what you mean by the above.

I know you know what you mean, but it's just not coming across.

Let me try it like this. Most of the present justices on the United States Supreme Court are Christians. Would you say that their rulings reflect that value system?

[jmc813]

Have you noticed the amount of spin going on when we dare question what is going on?

Like in post #315?

[billbears]

Well, you see, that's completely contrary to what Pope John Paul XXII and Pope Paul VI said in Vatican II (see Lumen Genitium; Unitatis Redintegratio; Nostra Aetate).

Secondly I don't need edicts coming from nice old men to tell me what the Word means. The Holy Spirit speaks through God's Word directly to us and allows us to understand it, not through a interpretation pyramid, of which establishment is not covered in the Bible

[CobaltBlue]

When Christ established His Church, not only was there not a New Testament, there wasn't even a well-established version of what we call the Old Testament.

The Church Fathers didn't need to explain how the Church was set up in the Bible because they all belonged to it.

Now, hundreds of years later, you can't read about it in the Bible so you disrespect it, but you do so at your peril, at the peril of your immortal soul.

[billbears]

When Christ established His Church, not only was there not a New Testament, there wasn't even a well-established version of what we call the Old Testament.

And there wasn't a Catholic church either. Just a bunch of believers in Christ who heard the Word and the Holy Spirit worked on their hearts to show them the truth. Neither was there a need to say mantras, of which Christ himself expressly warned against. The Spirit hears our groanings as our prayers are lifted up directly to God. Or do you not understand the meaning of the veil being torn in two? No more priests as we all have a direct line to God when we fall on our knees.

Now, hundreds of years later, you can't read about it in the Bible so you disrespect it, but you do so at your peril, at the peril of your immortal soul.

What am I disrespecting? I'm not the one quoting leaders from a church that state there is more than one way to God. I don't remember seeing that in God's Word. Do you?

[CobaltBlue]

I'm not the one quoting leaders from a church that state there is more than one way to God.

Tsk. You obviously didn't read the things your're talking about, because you've got it exactly backwards.

[My2Cents]

Well put. Expresses my thoughts as well.

[Sabertooth]

Pelham has no ability to honestly debate those he disagrees with.

Well, I waited for Chancellor Palpatine's reply (which came at #575) to Pelaham's at #567. Since even CP allowed as how Pelham might have mixed up different posters, I'm going to wait a bit longer for Pelham to answer #575, if it's all right with you.

All he has are insults and anti-immigrant bigotry.

He, Sabertooth, and the rest of their ilk will have to get used to the cold - Schwarzenegger owes them and their ilk NOTHING.

OK, let's talk about "ilks."

Pelham and I are anti-Illegal Alien. There's an ilk that likes to shade the issue by referring to us as "anti-immigrant." Cruz Bustamante is an example of that particluar ilk. Folks like Bustamante like to demagogue the issue, because they recognize that unless they play the bigot-card, their pro-Illegal Alien position is unpopular with the vast majority of Americans.

Bustamante draws no distinctions between Illegals and legimate immigrants.

Consequently, Bustamante is also in favor of an Amnesty for Illegals.

In the interests of full disclosure, hchutch, aren't you also in favor of some form of Amnesty for millions of the Illegals currently in the United States? You were the last time I looked...

I believe those who have a job and who have committed no crimes other than entering illegally ought to be allowed to remain and tracked into either a bracero program or permanent residence that should not displace those currently going through the process.

< -snip- >

I think Bush is pushing the best proposal for all involved, and I'll back him to the hilt on it.
hchutch - August 22nd, 2002

Is that still your basic position?

The only lesson I draw is that a pro-life and pro-Second Amendment version of Schwarzenegger would have won the second part by an even wider margin - probably closer to the actual votes for the recall.

You drew this lesson? From where?

While you do have the advantage of being 3,000 miles away, I wonder what polls you have to support your contention that the election could have turned on what is, coincidentally I'm sure, an issue that is one of your chief concerns.

McClintock was the most solidly pro-2A of the major candidates in the Recaill election, though it wasn't an issue of emphasis for him. Guns weren't generally a major emphasis in this campaign, one way or the other. I'd certainly like to see more unashamedly pro-2A campaigns here, although I honestly don't know how that would play in the California electorate.

I'm not sure whether Schwarzenegger would have picked more votes on the Right than he would have lost from the center.

I'm unaware, one way or the other, of any information to the effect that California Democrat crossovers for Schwarzenegger were pro-Life and pro-2A... are you?

At any rate, others, like Frank Luntz and the National Review are drawing some different lessons about Democrat crossovers for Schwarzenegger...

There was obviously a lot more going on in this election than immigration, but if the bipartisan consensus had been correct about illegal immigration being radioactive for Republicans, Arnold could not have won. And yet, not only did he win, but he and the other major candidate who had something critical to say about illegal immigration - State Sen. Tom McClintock - got a combined total of 62 percent of the vote.

It would be hard to deny that their opposition to illegal immigration helped energize many voters to go to the polls; a CNN exit poll showed that 70 percent of voters opposed the driver's-license law, while only 24 percent supported it. Another poll found that 30 percent of voters said Davis's support for the driver's-license bill made them more likely to support his recall, while only 8 percent said the opposite. In fact, Arnold's opposition to illegal-alien driver's licenses may well have helped some conservatives overlook his liberal stands on social issues.

< -snip- >

When the illegal-immigration issue was activated by the driver's-license law, blue-collar Democrats were given added reason to turn on Davis. A late September Los Angeles Times poll showed that illegal immigration in general or the driver's-license issue specifically were the top issue for only 6 percent of college-educated Democrats, but among those without a college degree they were the top issue for nearly four times as many. This was part of the reason union voters abandoned Davis; immigration is the ideal Reagan-Democrat issue, tapping as it does into class and social concerns. It's the Democrats who run the risk of irrelevancy if they don't respond to their constituents' concerns on immigration.

Now, Arnold doesn't really have a full-fledged stance on immigration. Repeal of the driver's-license bill is Step 9 in his 10-Step/100-Days agenda, but other than that it's wall-to-wall cliches: "Immigrants contribute to the richness of life in California"; "I will work with federal officials to address this problem"; "Human Traffickers and smugglers exploit and endanger immigrants, and I will crack down on this problem." And, in fact, on one salient immigration-related issue, Arnold is on the wrong side, supporting in-state tuition for illegal aliens going to state universities.
National Review Online - October 9th, 2003

The Luntz Poll (http://capwiz.com/fair/utr/1/NASACDSZKP/MEGUCDSZLJ/ commissioned by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), showed strong disfavor - 68 percent to 21 percent - for granting licenses to illegal aliens, and that disapproval was on the minds of many voters as they went to the polls.

By a large majority, voters who participated in the recall election said they would support a proposed referendum on next March's ballot to block implementation of the law granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Sixty-two percent indicated that were such a referendum to appear on the ballot it would win their vote, while only 25 percent said they would oppose it.

< -snip- >

Davis' decision to sign the driver's license bill, after twice vetoing similar measures, was not the only flip-flop on matters relating to illegal immigration that hurt him with voters. After initially opposing in-state tuition for illegal aliens at state-run universities, Davis ultimately signed legislation allowing illegal aliens to qualify for subsidized tuition rates. That decision was opposed by 73 percent of the people who voted in Tuesday's recall, while only 18 percent said they favored the idea.

During the course of the campaign, the media repeatedly asserted that Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger's support for the 1994 voter initiative, known as Proposition 187, was a political liability for the candidate. The Luntz survey indicates otherwise. By a 65 percent to 26 percent margin, voters said that illegal aliens "should not be eligible for services and benefits provided by state and local governments, except for emergency services." Prop. 187, which included almost identical language, received 59 percent of the vote nine years ago.
Federation for American Immigration Reform - Press Release - October 8th, 2003

Wow, that's a whole lot of "ilk."

In short, right now the Republicans like Bush and Schwarzenegger are holding all the cards at this point..

If that were actually so, they wouldn't have to be so cagey about supporting Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.

Why don't we talk again about all of this after the Save Our License and the Protect Arizona Now ballot propostions are decided?

Fair enough?

[hchutch]

Yeah, that has been my position - it remains my basic position. Governor-elect Schwarzenegger is, from all I have seen, proposed and/or supported something similar in that area, which I believe you have denounced on other threads.

However, to be honest, I never made reference to any polls. However, I feel that it is safe to infer that a significant portion of the defections to McClintock among conservative voters were those who would tend to heavily weigh whether or not a candidate is pro-Life and pro-Second Amendment.

Furthermore, the ballot issues you mention will, in my opinion, also be non-sequitors. In the cvase of repaling SB60, Schwarzenegger is in favor of, albeit he's going to give the legislature a chance to do it first. A tactical difference, but for purists like you, that seems to be an unforgivable sin. The real question is: Do you have enough single-issue voters on this issue to defeat a political candidate over his/her stance on immigration?

Finally, a few comment on "social conservatives" in general. I'll be quite blunt: The way social conservatives have handled the immigration issue in general has pushed me into becoming largely a social libertarian. I read the stuff on VDARE. I've read some of the stuff Sam Francis has written on the topic. In my opinion, Sam Francis is racist, and VDARE treads close to that line. Furthermore, others who write on that issue, including Michelle Malkin, have either decided that it is not a problem OR have taken a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" approach. For me, that is a deal-breaker.

The stuff Chancellor Palpatine originally posted on this thread is another red flag. I remember some of the fuss during last year's gubernatorial campaign over a questionnaire that was sent to Bill Simon where his repsonse did not toe the line for some of these types - and they raised a huge fuss and branded him a sell-out. I saw posts that branded conservatives sell-outs for endorsing Schwarzenegger, including Darrell Issa, who was highly committed to that recall and donated (at a minimumn) hundreds of thousands of dollars for signature gathering.

Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, I think that Chancellor Palpatine has made a pretty strong case in his posts and on his threads. PhiKapMom had done similar research, and she seems to have discovered much of the same stuff. Poohbah has had experience with these folks as well, which he has posted about on this thread.

Also, I have noticed the shots I and others (PRND21, Luis Gonzalez, and daviddennis) who have dissented on how to deal with illegal immigration have been attacked.

Tamsey raised an excellent point on another thread - you might want to think it over - look over the post and the thread before you respond:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/998887/posts?page=30#30

Is that fair enough?

[PhiKapMom]

In short, right now the Republicans like Bush and Schwarzenegger are holding all the cards at this point.

As Republicans we like candidates that can win!

[PhiKapMom]

Very well stated in #592. The more I have researched the more bad feelings I get about all of this. Have several others now researching as well. We need to get to the bottom of this before something comes out and bites us in 2004 or outyears after that!

[djreece]

You are playing fast and loose throwing charges around on this thread without any specifics. Would you kindly name names of CRA leaders who belong to Chalcedon and cite specific races and news stories of "stealth candidates" and attacks from Chalcedon people on Republican candidates who won the primary?

Thank you in advance.

[Poohbah]

You are playing fast and loose throwing charges around on this thread without any specifics. Would you kindly name names of CRA leaders who belong to Chalcedon

RTFA.

and cite specific races and news stories of "stealth candidates" and attacks from Chalcedon people on Republican candidates who won the primary?

The most recent was Brian Bilbray in 2000; we got a Democrat elected in part because of CRA-affiliated mud getting thrown.

[Sabertooth]

Yeah, that has been my position - it remains my basic position. Governor-elect Schwarzenegger is, from all I have seen, proposed and/or supported something similar in that area, which I believe you have denounced on other threads.

True and understood.

However, to be honest, I never made reference to any polls. However, I feel that it is safe to infer that a significant portion of the defections to McClintock among conservative voters were those who would tend to heavily weigh whether or not a candidate is pro-Life and pro-Second Amendment.

Not saying it ain't so, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that. Abortion and 2A got more play on FR than they did in the campaign as a whole. The issues that were high profile during this campaign were the budget disaster, the car tax, and the driver's licenses for Illegals.

Furthermore, the ballot issues you mention will, in my opinion, also be non-sequitors. In the cvase of repaling SB60, Schwarzenegger is in favor of, albeit he's going to give the legislature a chance to do it first. A tactical difference, but for purists like you, that seems to be an unforgivable sin. The real question is: Do you have enough single-issue voters on this issue to defeat a political candidate over his/her stance on immigration?

When the politician is taking positions contrary tho those held by a vast number of Americans, it won't help that politician win elections, will it?

The anti-SB60 referendum won't moot the reality that Schwarzeneggeer's opposition is on the basis of background checks and security, not that he feels the Aliens who entered Illegaly shouldn't have valid CDL's at all.

Nothing Schwarznegger does will have anything at all to do with mooting the Protect Arizona Now initiative, which was polling between 60% and 70% favorably among Arizonans when I last looked.

Finally, a few comment on "social conservatives" in general. I'll be quite blunt: The way social conservatives have handled the immigration issue in general has pushed me into becoming largely a social libertarian. I read the stuff on VDARE. I've read some of the stuff Sam Francis has written on the topic. In my opinion, Sam Francis is racist, and VDARE treads close to that line. Furthermore, others who write on that issue, including Michelle Malkin, have either decided that it is not a problem OR have taken a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" approach. For me, that is a deal-breaker.

Well, you are in the decided minority in your pro-Amnesty views, which amount to a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" approach of your own.

The stuff Chancellor Palpatine originally posted on this thread is another red flag. I remember some of the fuss during last year's gubernatorial campaign over a questionnaire that was sent to Bill Simon where his repsonse did not toe the line for some of these types - and they raised a huge fuss and branded him a sell-out. I saw posts that branded conservatives sell-outs for endorsing Schwarzenegger, including Darrell Issa, who was highly committed to that recall and donated (at a minimumn) hundreds of thousands of dollars for signature gathering.

Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, I think that Chancellor Palpatine has made a pretty strong case in his posts and on his threads. PhiKapMom had done similar research, and she seems to have discovered much of the same stuff. Poohbah has had experience with these folks as well, which he has posted about on this thread.

So far, I've seen an indication that some group of a particular doctrinal viewpoint that I don't share, has claimed influence within the CA GOP that they may or may not have, and that one of them, John Stoos, worked on McClintock's campaign.

There's enough there to warrant some questions of Stoos and McClintock, and some scrutiny of their answers. However, I think much of what has been posted on this thread is prematurely alarmist.

If the CA GOP is overrun by zealous firebrands, why have statewide GOP campaigns (besides Pete Wilson's, and he is a moderate) in California been so tepid from 1994 through 2002?

This has been true of both moderate and conservative Presidential, Senatorial, and Gubernatorial Campaigns here in that time. It doesn't add up to me, therefore, that there has been a wild-eyed takeover by some fringe.

Like I said, though, I'd like to see some answers from Stoos and McClintock as to their account.

Tamsey raised an excellent point on another thread - you might want to think it over - look over the post and the thread before you respond:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/998887/posts?page=30#30

Is that fair enough?

Sure. Here's Tamsey's post, for reference...

Now we have a choice... we can welcome these new moderate GOP voters and slowly convince them that conservatism is the better path for our country... or slam them constantly for the differences that still exist between us and alienate them right back into the left wing.

However, as you can see by the Luntz and CNN polls at #591, as well as every other poll out there, there is no gradualism necessary to get these centrists to the right on Illegal Aliens... they're already here.

[Poohbah]

If the CA GOP is overrun by zealous firebrands, why have statewide GOP campaigns (besides Pete Wilson's, and he is a moderate) in California been so tepid from 1994 through 2002?

We're not overrun by zealous firebrands; the leadership of one particular group with a lot of influence was overrun by zealous firebrands, and when primary races didn't go their way (i.e., those eee-vil moderates won them), they've engaged in Bob Mulholland last-minute puke politics against Republican nominees.

"I am religious right, hear me roar. I can't win an election to save my own neck, but I can sure make sure that the guy closest to my position loses!"

[hchutch]

And polling numbers also show huge numbers support licensing and registration of firearms. Yet no such laws have passed. Why? Politicians have NOT been defeated due to that opposition by voters who voted on that basis. The evidence is stronger to a contrary position. Ask Al Gore about how he lost West Virginia in 2000.

So, I repeat my question:
Do you have enough single-issue voters on this issue to defeat a political candidate over his/her stance on immigration?

[achilles2000]

This guy must be auditioning to do fund raising letters for Morris Dees. As far as Chalcedon is concerned, perhaps it would be well to let them speak for themselves. http://www.chalcedon.edu/desk/what_we_believe.shtml Yep, a really dangerous group of Presbyterians. The next thing you know, they'll be inviting people to covered-dish fellowship dinners.