Posted on 10/21/2007 10:09:49 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
I, a conservative Christian, am partly responsible for passing one of the most pro-gay agendas in American history.
Starting January 1, 2008, California will implement SB-777, a bill that goes far beyond the old standard of public schools not being able to do anything that would “reflect adversely” on homosexuality. Now, the new standard is you can’t do anything that would show either a “discriminatory bias” against homosexuality or anything that would favor heterosexuality.
Let me put this in simple terms.
Textbooks that now refer to “mother and father” or “mom and dad” or “King and Queen” will soon have to also include—with equal emphasis—“mom and mom,” “dad and dad” and “king and king.” There shall be no preference of any kind shown to heterosexuality. Kids, K-12, will learn that every form of family is just as “normal” as every other form. The textbooks that comply will no longer elevate as the ideal that children have both a loving mom and a loving dad, all they’ll need is “a nurturing caregiver”—or maybe a village. They’ll be taught “male” and “female” are mere social constructs that have nothing to do with sexuality or “plumbing.” Increasingly, children will be encouraged to explore their own “gender,” which means they’ll be encouraged to experiment with all forms of sexuality since nothing is “abnormal.” We’ll throw them condoms, pass out Plan B in the health center, and even put 6th grade middle school girls on the pill to ensure that we make sex “safe.” And when some get pregnant, and others get the inevitable diseases, we’ll just take them for an abortion or for treatments under HillaryCare—all during school hours, and all without their parents having a clue.
All this will happen because I—like millions of other conservative Christians in California—voted for Arnold. I voted for the Republican Arnold in order to avoid the Democrat Bustamante—but ended up getting quite of bit of Bustamante anyway. I’m not mad at Arnold, really. He told us who he was and what he believed in, and we were just glad we could vote for a candidate that had a real shot at “winning,” who could “stop Bustamante.”
Sound familiar? Now we’re told again that we have to vote for a candidate that can “win,” because we have to “stop Hillary.”
Consider this.
How many people do you know who still proudly call themselves “Republicans?” I know of increasingly few. There was a time when I was so proud of being part of the GOP. That was before all the scandals, the earmarks and the spending of “Compassionate Conservatism,” before the massive Prescription Drug Benefit and McCain-Feingold, the failure of Social Security reform, the poor communication that still continues regarding the War on Terror, the amnesty of Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the Harriet Miers Moment. I could go on.
It’s like we’ve been watching “How to Destroy a Great Party in Two Administrations.”
And now we have Arnold the Republican signing the most pro-gay agenda in our state’s history and Rudy the Republican who’s supporting abortion on demand, civil unions and gun control.
It’s déjà vu all over again: Beware of an Arnold dressed as a Rudy.
I may no longer be an enthusiastic Republican, but I am a proud conservative who’s angry at the political party that has moved away from me. I haven’t changed these past several years, they have.
In 2008, for a Republican to win, he must have the enthusiastic support of conservative Christians who will raise money, walk precincts, and get out the vote. But the reasons most Christians support the Republican Party are primarily moral, not economic nor even out of national security concerns. If Republicans lose their opposition to abortion and gay marriage they’ll lose much of the Christian vote. Sure, some will vote for the “lesser of two evils,” but it won’t be enough to win the election.
I just don’t see how Rudy can beat Hillary without a big Christian turnout—and he won’t get it.
In the end, if Republicans are foolish enough to nominate Rudy, I doubt many conservative Christians will make the mistake we did in California.
When I look at Rudy, all I see is Arnold.
The Frank Pastore Show is heard in Los Angeles weekday afternoons on 99.5 KKLA and on the web at kkla.com, and is the winner of the 2006 National Religious Broadcasters Talk Show of the Year. Frank is a former major league pitcher with graduate degrees in both philosophy of religion and political philosophy.
Compared to the democrat candidates, we have a great group of candidates, each having unique beliefs and positions on the issues of the day. Some of their positions might not be agreeable with you, but that is no reason to resort to the sort of smears we get daily from the democrat party.
I've been around here since 1998 and I've never seen such garbage thrown at our candidates from our own site.
Grow up and focus your ill will on the democrat party candidates.
We told you so.
Listen to our wisdom NOW.
The republican elites are going to pull a bait and switch - Rudy will disappear and Mitt will be the nominee. Conservatives, once more, will be suckered.
Mitt is a Rudy - internally.
(...gay couples raising kids. That’s the American way... -Mitt Romney)
I’d vote for Rudy before I voted for a Rudy that lies about who he is like Romney. That’s an even worse choice.
Some people buy his crap, but I don’t.
Whereas if Rudy won (and I don't think he can) he'd be a razor's edge win, a squeaker-win facing 2 houses packed with Democrats. Which way is he going to reach to get any political aims accomplished? Left, left, and left.
And then who will lead the charge to oppose his liberal policies? Nobody. We'll be in a country with two liberal parties, and the conservatives scattered like leaves in the wind.
You wouldn't even oppose his liberal policies now. After he should win, then you'd dig in your heels to resist?
I doubt it. I seriously doubt it.
I was only one of MANY trying to warn freepers about the Trojan Horse chameleon Schwarzenegger; unfortunately, the FO's of the world had louder voices. They were supported by a huge propaganda machine, phony polls, and shilling Radio hosts (thanks for nuttin! Sean Hannity, et al). More recently, that same brigade was here trying to push Rudy and mostly outed themselves for being supporters of liberalism and most have since been banned.
In this election, I can't find a candidate that gives me everything but I will say this: I will NOT, EVER, vote for Rudy. I will vote for whatever candidate I think has the best position on the issues and I will hope that America votes the same way. I do not look at polls or listen to talking heads or buy into the "he can win" philosophy that has disgustingly permeated elections. It is MY vote and I will cast it the way I see fit--and I'll wake up every morning not feeling regretful or embarrassed of who I voted for.
Our candidate? OUR candidate???? Buddy, this is not a liberal site. Rudy Giuliani is not "our" candidate.
WHEW! Fair Opinion talking points?
Although I am supporting FDT in the primaries, I will strongly support the Republican nominee. I share your California concerns. Arnie has been a bitter disappointment although he is better than Gray Davis on a many issues. If Giuliani is elected, I think that he will tilt right in opposition to the rat congress. I think that he would tilt left with a conservative congress. Bush has been more conservative in dealing with a rat majority.
You’re comparing me to FO.
Buzz off!
Look at what you said! You're dissing freepers and saying they aren't conservative, despite a long history to the contrary, because they might not support your preferred candidate and using the same "he can win based on polls" talking points.
Sell your candidate on the issues, not this same FO approach.
That boy has been a Rooty shill. He was even called out by JimRob.
Up yours!
I reacted to two items in your statement 1) "The primary race is between Rooty and Fred" and 2) "Stop pretending, you're no conservative. "
I haven't followed GSP's posts in the last year, so if it is true that he is supporting giuliani, I would agree with your last statement. ( GSP, how about some clarification here? Are you supporting Rudy?)
However, I'm just so tired of the MSM and RNC talking points type statements like the "upper tier" Rudy McRomney or your first statement that the "race is between Rooty and Fred." These statements are attempting to make choices for voters, not let the voters choose the candidate. This race still has many possible outcomes. I'll be voting for the candidate who has the right position on the issues, or most of them as no one has it 100% right, IMO.
That's what I'm talking about! Bring that Universal Healthcare on, Hillary baby, YEAH! < /Dominatrix session >
Exactly what I posted the other day. If you like Ah-nold's CA, you'll love the US if Giuliani were to be elected. Only Rudy won't be elected. He's nothing but a pawn to get Her Thighness to the Presidency, but he's Soros' back-up in case something irreparable happens to Hillary.
What do you have on Giuliani amd Soros? Please put it on this thread, if you would.
I know! Let’s not vote for either of them!
Oh please. Now's the time to vet these candidates & put them through the fire. Conservatives have always endured bruising, bare-knuckle brawls because we aren't liberals who lock in marchstep and blindly vote for the Democrat.
POS liberals such as Rudy have no business running as a Republican and needs to get kicked out before he causes permanent damage to both the GOP and the conservative movement.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1912491/posts
A Past Assoc. Giuliani Would Rather People Forgot (Rudy Giuliani Joins Forces With George Soros)
Easy Reagan Man...
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.