Articles Comments

SENTRY JOURNAL » Uncategorized » GayCons: Defusing the Bomb

GayCons: Defusing the Bomb

Conservatism encompasses many things, and morality is one of them.  Conservatives proudly subscribe to John Adams’ quote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  The Constitution requires moral people because liberty is dangerous when supplied to the immoral.  Conservatism, a lover of liberty and constitutionalism, absolutely requires moral foundations in order to survive.  When the moral fabric of a people erodes they begin to place responsibility on governments to control the behavior of men.

The left in this nation has long subscribed to the fallacy of individuals and the superiority of a centralized few.  When misdeeds are carried out by citizens the left runs to government and liberty fades.  The outcome is a regulated whole.  When the regulators’ morals drift, the nation is forced to comply accordingly.  If the few in charge are amoral then a completely dependent people are segregated from that which is good. 

It concerns me when I see bloggers buy into the left’s lie that conservatism doesn’t accept individuals for who they are.  Over the past week much has been made of certain social conservative groups protesting CPAC due to the inclusion of GOProud, a gay conservative organization.  Words like “civil war” and “crossroads” have been used to describe the rift.  I’m not buying it.

Let me start out by saying that I am the strictest of Social Conservatives.  I challenge anyone to search my blog to find anything contrary to that statement.  I know, however, that conservatism in its truest nature is accepting of a broad range of individuals rather than patronizing them for power as the left does.  At the same time, I do not support or approve of homosexual behavior.  Until now, I have never made that statement on a political blog – and there’s a reason.

Many people of the Christian faith have a problem with my political stance in regards to homosexuality.  I was against DADT and I was against the “marriage amendment” for the simple reason that they contradict conservative political principles.  Many social conservatives have fled to the federal government due to what is viewed by many as a moral decline.  The glitch in this campaign is that government can neither stop nor thwart homosexuality.  Further, by creating such an amendment to the Constitution, we will have given in to the notion that Government, not G-d or man, is the ultimate authority to marriage, relationships, and personal contracts.  The truth is that government shouldn’t be able to define marriage or have any standing in the matter – it should be between people and their religious beliefs.  Centralizing our moral authority, or worse, giving them the keys to defining what is moral, is the reaction of liberals, not conservatives. 

That said, not all who have come to the defense of GOProud have done so in the purist form.  Most tout the left’s mantra of the “hate filled right” and speak of equality in tones that could be mistaken for Gloria Allred.  Somewhere in all of this the rights of the social conservatives were forgotten.  In a fairly recent debate over homosexual marriage I found myself in the corner of supporting gay marriage (I support the lack of government inclusion in the process as mentioned above, not the act itself).  When I gave my view, never before heard by this left leaning crowd, I became their hero; but I was soon an island.  I found myself disgusted with the hypocrisy with regard to acceptance and respect.  Anyone from the right who prefaced their view with a strong Christian foundation was mocked and ridiculed as if such a base were invalid or infantile.

The same can be said of some who have spoken against the groups pulling from CPAC in protest.  Is their Christian-based argument not valid?  If their view, according to principles rooted deeper than political alignment, defines homosexuals as people akin to participants of incest or bestiality, would you expect less than a protest?  Would you support the speech of a strict conservative at CPAC who also happens to have 15 wives in Utah? 

I think that we must all tread lighter than we currently are.  I would be willing to bet that if we could reanimate Thomas Jefferson to speak at CPAC there would be countless numbers from every social conservative group out there.  I’m sure most would overlook the affections he shared with the married Maria Cosway or the rumored relationship with Sally Hemings in hopes that he would set his “separation of church and state” statement straight. 

In fact, I don’t remember the social protests in response to Newt Gingrich’s participation last year.  Newt did, in fact, cheat on his wife and then marry his adulterous lover.  Is that less egregious than being gay?  Granted, Newt isn’t defending his affair, but then nobody is trying to write legislation to refute the legitimacy of his third marriage.  I also do not recall hearing such moral outrage in some of the top blogs that adhere to “rule #5” – that is, posting pictures of barely clothed women for boosts in site traffic.

The fact is that our social behavior and political positions aren’t always going to align.  Ideally we should separate that which is behavioral and that which is political.  My personal relationships and responsibilities take on a far different approach than that of my political ideology.  Any gay friend of mine would certainly know where I stand in regards to sin and homosexuality; but never would they find me shirking my religious and moral obligations to a system of government.  Ironically, groups like GOProud wouldn’t likely exist if it weren’t prompted to in response to such forces.    

My advice is that we defuse this explosive situation by taking the politics out of it.  Social Conservatives shouldn’t use politics to promote heterosexuality any more than GOProud should use politics to promote homosexuality.  It should be a private matter settled outside of the halls of government.  I assure you that if we continue to parade in this storm under this political umbrella, the umbrella will become a lightening rod and we will all burn.

Now go back and read that Danbury Baptist association letter.


Written by

Yeah, I tweet. If you want to follow me on Twitter, just click on the link below. I hope you do.

Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: , , , ,

opinions powered by
  • STEVE January 2, 2011 at 9:29 PM


    Common Cents

    • John Carey January 3, 2011 at 9:22 PM

      Thanks Steve. We’re still a work in-progress.

  • John Carey January 2, 2011 at 10:16 PM

    Great post RHM. I agree that I think we politicize this issue way to much and that many conservatives have fallen into the the left’s trap that the conservative movement is non-inclusive. An example of this can be found in the civil rights movement. The left invested a great deal of time rewriting the history of the civil rights movement to paint a picture that conservatives were against civil rights when the truth is exactly the opposite. Some of the staunchest opposition came from the left. I believe it was Democratic Senator Robert Byrd that staged a filibuster of the Civil Rights bill in 1964. As a matter of fact it wasn’t until different version of the bill was introduced by two Republicans and two Democrats that he decided to end his filibuster. Hey wasn’t this the guy that the left raised so high on a pedestal after his death?

    Additionally what many people don’t realize is that the African American community was actually more politically aligned with the Republican Party prior to JFK’s 1963 civil rights speech. Today most people don’t even realize this because the left are masters of deception and misdirection. They would have you believe that it was the Republicans were responsible for holding up the passage of civil rights bill in the 1960s when it was actually a block of Southern Democrats. They have indeed been successful in duping the people with conditioning and lies, just as they have been successful on politicizing this issue painting conservatives as haters. The sad thing is many conservatives fell into this trap. So much so that they’re willing to choose sides within the movement and prepare for war. Why conservatives are so willing to fall on their swords over this issue is beyond me.

    Anyway I went off on a tangent. Once again great post.
    John Carey recently posted..Abortion’s VictimsMy Profile

  • LD Jackson January 2, 2011 at 10:31 PM

    Another great post, RHM. For the most part, I agree with what you have said. I am also a very strict social conservative and like you, I do not approve of or support homosexual behavior. However, I have come to the realization that we can not hope to legislate morality. Trying to do so simply does not work and in fact, I think it works against our cause. We are not going to stop it from happening, plain and simple, because it is a private matter between two consenting adults. Again, trying to legislate it from existence will never work.

    At the beginning, I said I agreed with you, for the most part. Here is where I may differ from you, although I am not for sure. There is one area where I really have a problem with homosexual and that is when they try to pass their behavior off as being normal behavior, akin to the behavior between a man and a woman. As long as they keep it between themselves, I really don’t think we have a right to say a lot, even though we disagree with what they are doing. When they start trying to normalize their behavior, I don’t mind telling you, my hackles go up and I start digging in my heels. That might not be the right response, but it’s hard for me to keep my mouth shut when that happens.
    LD Jackson recently posted..Sunday Hunt For Links – North American Beaver EditionMy Profile

    • John Carey January 2, 2011 at 10:37 PM

      I agree with you on this Larry. The left has invested a great deal of time conditioning society through TVs sitcoms and so forth trying to sell people on the notion that it is normal. Unfortunately it has been a successful effort.
      John Carey recently posted..Abortion’s VictimsMy Profile

      • LD Jackson January 2, 2011 at 10:40 PM

        How right you are, John. I am of the personal opinion that we will see same-sex marriage and probably sooner, rather than later. As you said, the left has spent a great deal of time, effort, and money to sell the notion that homosexual behavior is normal. At this point in the game, I am not sure we can stop it.
        LD Jackson recently posted..Sunday Hunt For Links – North American Beaver EditionMy Profile

    • RightHandMan
      RightHandMan January 3, 2011 at 8:56 AM

      LD, you actually don’t disagree with me there either. As I said, when either side uses politics to push their agenda in regards to sexual preference it harms America.

  • […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Dr. Bill Smith and righthandmansj. righthandmansj said: GayCons: Defusing the Bomb – My latest post deals with the conservative rift in relation to homosexuals. […]

  • Steve Dennis January 3, 2011 at 5:41 AM

    Great post RHM! I am probably more moderate than most conservatives on social issues–I think I would call it more like being socially libertarian. I personally disagree with homosexuality but I don’t think that it is an of my business what two adults do in the privacy of their own home. As someone who believes in a smaller, less intrusive, limited government I would find myself being hypocritical if I were to suddenly say this is an issue the government should intrude upon just because I felt it was wrong.
    I think that there are much more pressing matters facing this country in the years ahead than gay marriage and the gay agenda abd I hope that we do not lose focus on what we should be focusing on in the upcoming years.
    Steve Dennis recently posted..Merry Christmas everybody!My Profile

    • RightHandMan
      RightHandMan January 3, 2011 at 9:01 AM

      Libertarians tend to care less about this issue than most – and that’s fine. The fact that you can not interject your personal opinion into the politics shows a great deal of control.

      • Steve Dennis January 4, 2011 at 5:23 AM

        I have to admit that it is not always easy because I do disagree with homosexuality and I do fear that America is becoming morally corrupt. I do think that the dismantling of the family unit poses a much bigger threat to the future of the county however.
        Steve Dennis recently posted..Merry Christmas everybody!My Profile

  • Doomed January 3, 2011 at 7:22 AM

    Remember what was entered into the congressional record in 1963. Then remember the CIA station chief who defected and in fact held up a copy of this in an interview and said this was in fact their marching orders.

    24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

    25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

    26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

    Then remember Alinsky and Cloward and Piven and then remember what Alinsky said in Not beating down the halls of congress but joining them or infiltrating them….

    And then put all of that together and ask yourself WHY is GOPROUD joining CPAC?

    Isnt it obvious?

    • RightHandMan
      RightHandMan January 3, 2011 at 9:08 AM

      You’re completely wrong Doomed. I haven’t condoned or called homosexuality normal. Even if this was the federal government’s secret evil plan, fighting it politically only perpetuates it. The government doesn’t break down cultural standards, we do. The government doesn’t create pornography, we do. The government doesn’t take part in sexual behavior, we do. If you view homosexuality as a corruption to our society, blame society, not the government.
      RightHandMan recently posted..Abortion’s VictimsMy Profile

  • Doomed January 3, 2011 at 10:02 AM

    Who is blaming government? I was pointing out that the GOPROUD is joinning CPAC for a reason….its not because all of those gay people are conservatives….its because of the basic underlying notion of how infiltration and underminning works.

    Its effective to get inside an organization and work from the inside. Just as we have let progressives get into our school districts and work from the inside.

    If you do not want to fight against homosexuality so be it. I for one am not willing to just concede that its something thats not worth fighting politically. If so…where do we draw the next line in the sand?

  • RightHandMan
    RightHandMan January 3, 2011 at 11:22 AM

    GOProud…working from behind the grassy knoll?

    Draw the line in the sand in your moral and personal life. If you bring it into politics it will become a worm of rot. The more you fight against it politically the more they will defend it politically and I assure you that the anti-gay trend is on the decline. Even if it were capable of winning (which it is not), government cannot dictate morality. Your fight is fruitless and ambition damning.

  • Doomed January 3, 2011 at 12:05 PM

    So now you use Alinsky tactics against even conservatives who reject your line of reasoning? Ridicule me for my disagreeing with you?

    Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

    I was starting to become concerned when all I saw on this site was one blogger patting the back and stroking the ego of another blogger who posted something.

    There seems to be this circle of conservative bloggers all of whom travel around and comment on the others blog….essentially stroking each others ego rather then tackling tough issues.

    I would rather have a solid debate but you simply invoked Alinsky the moment you sensed someone was not going to stroke your ego……not in my make up.

    Good bye.

  • RightHandMan
    RightHandMan January 3, 2011 at 12:37 PM

    I’m pretty sure that you would interpret anything I said into Alinsky tactics Doomed. While I’m sad to see you draw such conclusions I am not surprised at them. At no point did I ridicule you. I disagreed with you to a lesser degree that you did me. If you can’t take that then I suppose you should go.

    Good day Doomed.

    • Doomed January 3, 2011 at 1:34 PM

      No your response was GOProud…working from behind the grassy knoll? or……Even if this was the federal government’s secret evil plan, fighting it politically only perpetuates it.


      I agree that government should have no say in it. If only the other side was not trying to use government to shove it down our throats I would be more then content to let it ROT.

      But because that is not the case then Im not willing to concede the debate to the other side because the Right hand man tells me I must and when I disagree he then ridicules my thought process as some ultimate conspiracy theory.

      So do not use pejoratives in your treatment of those who disagree with you and then expect no rebuttal in response. Your wrong. Totally because your starting premise is wrong.

      You are implying smaller government means not being involved in social issues and yet the opponents are using bigger government to dictate social mores onto society.

      It is because of this feature of the left that makes it a battle that must be fought politically by the right. The fact that you cannot see that does not make you right. You simply posted your reasoning which is not sound and then expected everyone to pat you on the back and stroke your ego.

      Aint happening in my world bud. Your wrong. Simple as that.

      • RightHandMan
        RightHandMan January 3, 2011 at 4:37 PM

        It was a conspiracy theory and my pointing that out in the manner with a rhetorical question is challenging your position – no matter how cheeky. GOProud isn’t some kind of double agent and to present such an argument belittles the entire conservative movement.

        Let me agree with you on something; I am saying that smaller government has little to do with social issues such as the one at hand. If you go back and read my prior post “Abortion’s Victims” you will see that I’m not afraid to take on social issues. So let me prod a moment to work out some possible misreadings.

        I’m not saying that we shouldn’t stand up for limited government. That is a political debate and part of the point in my post. That means if GOProud decides to push for legislation promoting a homosexual agenda, we fight that, not on the front of anti-gay legislation or philosophy, but on the limited government philosophy.

        When the right speaks out of one side of their mouth shouting for limited government and then out of the other side wishes for government to define marriage it reeks of hypocrisy and damages the movement and nation.

  • Jim Gourdie January 3, 2011 at 12:52 PM

    For me it is simple. Sexual preference is not and should not be a political issue. Therefore, government should have no voice in the matter, period. I feel the same way that the government shouldn’t have a voice in what our children eat or in our health care. Government should stick to protecting our individual rights and nothing more!
    Jim Gourdie recently posted..Dodd-Frank – Good- Bad- or UglyMy Profile

    • RightHandMan
      RightHandMan January 3, 2011 at 4:26 PM

      …and leave the rest of it to us. Right on!

  • […] Sentry Journal: Defusing the Bomb […]

  • Dr. Bill Smith (ARRA News Service) January 3, 2011 at 9:03 PM

    Thanks for writing this thought provoking article worthy of wide distribution. Cross-posted the article with my introductory comments as An Insightful Discourse – GayCons: Defusing the Bomb.
    Dr. Bill Smith (ARRA News Service) recently posted..Preparing for the 112 Congress- Will Democrats Finally Listen To The Message From The American PeopleMy Profile

  • Fuzzy January 3, 2011 at 9:50 PM

    Great post! I was going to write that it’s not a myth that conservatives (some, certainly not all) do actually pass judgment on and condemn gay conservatives do use support of gay conservatives as a litmus test. But I guess you’re seeing that here. It makes me sad. (my post was prompted by a similar discussion on FB that made me equally sad.)

    • RightHandMan
      RightHandMan January 3, 2011 at 10:46 PM

      I hope I’m not reading this comment wrong, so if my reply doesn’t make sense let me know.

      Let me say that someone’s personal judgment on a homosexual doesn’t bother me in the least. I don’t use someone’s sexual orientation, desires, or fetishes as a political litmus test, but I may use it as a personal litmus test. The point of my post is that we must smartly distinguish between the two and use them appropriately. If we respond to social movements within the arena of politics we will have to abandon our limited government philosophy and turn the reigns of morals over to government. I believe it is a greater misdeed to have relinquished such powers to a centralized few than to fruitlessly battle a trend that is unpopular among the traditional moral bloc of this country – whatever the trend.

      Let me also say that I do not feel sad for those who push their sexuality into the public square and meet retaliation. My sympathies are saved for the Republic and the harm that both sides bring to it when they belong elsewhere. In other words, there is no innocent side here – both are courting the government to their side.

      Thanks for the comment Fuzzy.

  • Country Thinker January 3, 2011 at 10:06 PM

    As a libertarian I find this debate interesting to observe. Naturally, I think government should be out of the business of approving or disapproving of marriages.

    But to get to RHM’s original point, I agree with the basic principle that a free nation must necessarily be a moral and religious people (I’ve paraphrased, so correct me if I’m off base). The question is how you get there. Not by government mandate. Sink or swim, that’s my libertarian view.

    That said, the conservative battle over GOProud, if it can be called that, is an instructive one for the future of the GOP. If the GOP drops the moral agenda (politically, not personally), it will in essence become a libertarian party. That would be an interesting turn of events, but unlikely to happen.

    • RightHandMan
      RightHandMan January 3, 2011 at 10:58 PM

      Thanks for the comment Country. I’ve never called myself a libertarian – I tend to stick to “conservative”. The truth is that I find faults with all that labels bring – I guess I’m a RightHandManist as I’m sure you’re a Country Thinkerist.

      I don’t think that the conservatives need to DROP the moral agenda, but they don’t need to use legislation in order to apply it. Look, for the entire existence of the United States there has been no federal law that states that marriage is between a man and a woman alone, yet here we are pushing it. Why? The reason is because the morals of Americans has shifted.

      If conservatives push their moral agenda in their lives, neighborhoods, churches, etc. then the shift can and should move in whatever direction they’re promoting. If the American people are moral then we lose the reason for ever expanding government prohibitions on that which is immoral. This goes back to the John Adams quote that I started with; the government requires a moral people. Notice that Adams didn’t say the two were codependent. Morality doesn’t require good government…yet here we are trying to force the square peg into the round hole.

  • Trestin Meacham January 3, 2011 at 11:45 PM

    Right Hand Man I agree with much of what you have said here, but I think we disagree on the nature of the homosexual movement and what it’s aims are. I highly recomend Studying the roots of Cultural Marxism, including “The Prision Notebooks” and writings of the Frankfort School. There is much more to the homosexual agenda than meets the eye.

    • Matt January 4, 2011 at 12:18 AM

      I have posted my “Cultural Marxism” post here at the SJ recently. That might be a good start for exploring what that idea is all about.

      In the end, moral issues start and end with “we the people.” Legislating morality, or making sexual practices part of the political process is what the left does. We should avoid doing the same, or we are no better than they are. That reduces us to neocons; progressives in “conservative clothing.”

      Adams did say that our system will only work with a moral people, which is exactly why the left attacks our culture and religious heritage via Cultural Marxism. The answer is not to become a nanny state of moral watchdogs, but to do what Beck suggested at 8-28, not make sure that God is on our side, but to make sure that we are on God’s side. If we the people do this, the rest will take care of itself, and the left will be powerless to stop it.
      Matt recently posted..Ending Dissent- An Overview of Media Control Part 2My Profile

      • RightHandMan
        RightHandMan January 4, 2011 at 6:27 AM


        I couldn’t have said it better than Matt…so I will concur.

  • Doomed January 4, 2011 at 3:23 AM

    WASHINGTON—The Navy will likely remove the commander of the USS Enterprise from his post after bawdy videos in which he denigrated gays and made other vulgar references became public, a defense official said.

    If you read GOPROUDS mission statement:

    GOProud represents gay conservatives and their allies. GOProud is committed to a traditional conservative agenda that emphasizes limited government, individual liberty, free markets and a confident foreign policy. GOProud promotes our traditional conservative agenda by influencing politics and policy at the federal level.

    Read that again….their agenda is to use POLITICS AND POLICY at the federal level……….they also advocate individual liberty and limited government involvement and you libertarians are falling into their trap as they seek to usurp the Conservative movement by turning it libertarian or more precisely splitting the conservative movement down the middle.

    Essentially your saying anything with a moral equivalency should not be addressed by conservatives. That we are only interested in smaller government and individual liberty and that is straight out of the libertarian handbook.

    Conservatives have a vested interest in morality and are willing to stand up against gay rights, substance abuse, and other moral issues. Libertarians however are not. They believe that its the individuals right to do what they want and the government should have no say over any victimless crime.

    Read their mission statement again……That emphasizes limited government and individual liberty… that….conservatives shut up, stop pushing back again moral and social issues and focus on limited government which is basically a perscription for the left to do whatever they please against a group of people unable or unwilling to fight back.

    This post continues to confirm the suspicion I am beginning to have in traveling the conservative blog circuit…….

    Many Conservatives are really closet libertarians and that is not going to end well for the GOP and the conservative movement and positions such as this are whats going to divide the right which is exactly the work in progress by the left and advocacy groups.

    I simply pointed out why I believe that GOPROUD joining the conservative movement is an attempt at splitting the Right. They are doing it along libertarian lines and diluting the conservative/Republican push back against the moral agenda of the left which includes much more then just GAY RIGHTS.

  • RightHandMan
    RightHandMan January 4, 2011 at 6:27 AM

    Welcome back Doomed.

    I’m not saying that conservatives shouldn’t take on these social issues. In fact, I’m not a libertarian in the form that you’re speaking of as I support laws against drugs. I’m not Stossel.

    Now, I wrote this post in response to other conservative bloggers who came to the quick defense of GOProud and who attacked the stance from the SoCons. (Not to get my back pat like you indicted.) One of those individuals was Fuzzy Slippers (a link in the story and a few comments above this). If you read my response to her it is clear that I’m not on the side of the homosexual agenda. I believe it should be fought, just not head on in the political realm.

    If GOProud comes out and fights for a homosexual agenda in policy then conservatives SHOULD fight it, not on the basis of an anti-gay agenda, but on the basis of it not being a political prerogative. Taking it on from a libertarian perspective (as you’ve deemed it) does three things.

    1. Keeps the keys to morality out of the hands of government. They may bend a knee to a heterosexual agenda today, but once they’re given the power to say what is proper relationship activity (or what constitutes marriage) then they will forever hold that power.

    2. Denies the homosexual argument from being debated in the halls of governments.

    3. Empowers the people to take on the argument on the social level without government interaction.

    One thing is becoming more and more certain; the homosexual debate is one that conservatives are losing. If you push it into politics that loss will come sooner. Judas Iscariot believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah who came to end the political occupation of Rome. He was so convinced that Jesus would overthrow Rome that he thought selling Him out would only lead to the revolution. He never thought Christ COULD die at the hands of the Romans, but thought that turning Him over would speed up the process.

    The problem with Judas’ perspective was that it was centered on politics whereas Jesus understood that Rome’s occupation was a heavenly punishment for Israel’s sin. He didn’t come to save them from Rome but to change their hearts and save them from sin. If all of Israel had followed Christ then what authority would Rome have?

    Win this battle in the hearts and keep it out of politics – that is the formula for a moral revolution.

  • Doomed January 4, 2011 at 9:53 AM


    I dont even know how to respond to a post that invokes Judas to prove their point. I mean I just dont. I have debated many a libertarian but a conservative libertarian invoking Judas has just dumbfounded me.

  • Doomed January 4, 2011 at 10:31 AM

    But let me reply lest you think you have won this debate with your superior logic.

    You begin with a fallacy and end with a failed conclusion. You are suggesting we do not empower them by keeping it out of the halls of government and yet that is precisely what they are doing….

    Forcing it into city, state and local governments including our federal government as well and yet your response is for us to shut up, do not push back and this will win the day.

    Once again this is like saying….if our nation is invaded….if we all just hide…they cant win.

  • RightHandMan
    RightHandMan January 4, 2011 at 11:02 AM

    How many times do I need to say it Doomed… Fight them on the libertarian front. Keep them out of the government on the notion that it doesn’t belong there, not that it is wrong. You will lose that argument. I’ll leave you with the last word from this point out because I have nothing else to say and I would hate for you to think you’re not superior to me.

  • Doomed January 5, 2011 at 7:58 AM

    I really dont have much more to say.

    Fight them on the libertarian front……………….this says it all.

  • Teresa January 5, 2011 at 8:12 PM

    I have a problem with homosexuality or the homosexual act but have no problem with the person. Homosexuality and Marxism have the same exact goal – to break up the Family. Those conservatives who are homosexuals may not recognize this but that is the main reason the Left is pushing the homosexual agenda. I have a problem with homosexual indoctrination occurring in our military and that is what is being forced on our soldiers right now due to the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell so that is why I was/am for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. One reason I don’t have a problem with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is because serving in the military is a privilege and not a right. Here is an article you might be interested in:

    I don’t have a problem with GOProud taking part at CPAC. I can understand those against homosexuality speaking out but they should do so in a respectful manner and be okay with GOProud being apart of CPAC also. They are human beings, fellow conservatives, and not our enemy. One issue where people disagree should not cause people to go to “war” with one another. But, for the most part I agree with your post.
    Teresa recently posted..The Miracle of LifeMy Profile

    • RightHandMan
      RightHandMan January 6, 2011 at 5:17 PM

      Thanks for the comment Teresa. I’m all for family morals and I’m against the left’s push for homosexuality – it’s just the front that we fight this one that I disagree with most social conservatives. If we push legislatures into our social fight we will give legislatures a power they don’t need nor should they have.

      Thanks again Teresa.

  • Doomed January 7, 2011 at 6:39 AM

    What you are facing………..

    A Response from the Gun Toting Liberal (A rather influential left blogger)to my direct question of why he does not support the libertarian right and their Tea Party(As he himself proclaims to be a libertarian):

    “”””I’m also not convinced the Tea Partiers are libertarians — I’ve not heard a single TP leader bash the police state (yeah, that’s BIG government, BTW), cry out for legalization of recreational drugs, legalization and regulation of prostitution (“no victim, no crime and ‘society’ cannot be a victim”, nor can heatbroken significant others), or a drastic reduction in federal, local, and state police agencies along with the shrinking of the court system to accompany these actions. ANY real libertarian, be they left or right when it comes to income redistribution, agrees with ALL of the above in my not-so-humble opinion.””””

    NOTICE its full of LEGALIAZATIONs and REGULATIONS…. I will repeat once again and then call this my final word on this topic.

    You are advocating that we do not fight the lefts moral agenda with legislation and regulation when they….themselves are fighting their agenda with legislation and regulation….and what spurred this response from me was your citation of GOPROUD that is doing precisely what you are claiming we should not do and that is influencing LEGISLATION and REGULATION….on the one hand while on the other hand encouraging the libertarian right to do what the gun toting liberal above says libertarians should do…………demand a society full of victimless excesses.

    How so…….by simply refusing to fight the fight in the courts, in legislator chambers and in the regulatory statues coming out of state, local and Federal governments.

    I suppose it boils down to what Libertarian WAY you are referring to.