Saturday, April 18, 2009

Representing the Majority Could Prove Fatal for Republicans

Press reporting alleges that according to Steve Schmidt, a former advisor to John McCain, the GOP risks becoming the “religious party” with its opposition to same-sex marriage.

There are a couple of very large problems with this argument.

It’s What the People Want

The most important point is that time and time again Americans have demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of voters, while not opposed to the lifestyles of professed homosexuals, are indeed opposed to laws declaring the union between two people of the same sex to be equal in nature and value to the union between a man and a woman. Even a large portion of Democrats oppose such measures dictating what people should believe with respect to homosexuality.

It seems to me the argument is actually saying Republicans should follow the Democrats and start representing the will and opinions of the special interest minority over the voting majority if Republicans hope to remain a political power. Considering main stream media marginalization of non-Liberal/non-Democratic opinions, the argument does carry some merit. The media is the playing field and often deemed the referee, so conservative political ideas that run contrary to media bias will not do very well as they are filtered to the public.

It’s a Religious Argument

Another important point stems from the idea of the “religious party.” That should actually read “the religious party;” as if only one side of the argument contains religion. Science, history, and logic fall squarely on the side of the heterosexual majority, yet people have been convinced the beliefs on the homosexual side of the argument outweigh the facts on the heterosexual side, and the beliefs on the heterosexual side are null and void because of faith in God. Liberal media strikes again.

Of course, Steve also made the point we should not invoke religion as the rationale for a political position. The problem with that is everyone on both sides of the argument is religious; for some reason it is only deemed detrimental for Christians. Religion/faith in anything but God seems to be a substantial argument to support almost any position. Ironically, if you have faith in God, even your non-religious arguments somehow lose all merit. Gay marriage, abortion, and pornography are all condemned in many different forms by science, statistics, history, experience, logic, reality, and public conscience. Yet amazingly, the only arguments the media ever seems to focus on are the religious arguments.

Manipulative Media Prophesy

The most dangerous aspect of the media is its ability to shape the future with misinformation. The media told us we lost in Iraq, and even as victory reigns and our troops settle in to ensure victory lasts under the new President, people continue to denounce “the lost war.” The media advocated Barrack Obama, and even as duped voters are already asking themselves “what have I done,” people continue to demonize Bush and praise an ideal in Obama that he himself has already cast aside.

Consider the latest media announcements of the decline of Christianity; and now the dead end course of the Republicans who represent Christians. The Democrats and their media cohort have asserted “Christian values” and “right-wing fundamentalists” as the reason George Bush was elected…twice. The quick rise of mega-churches was all the media (out)rage just a year or two ago. The main thrust of Obama’s affront, his full deception and misrepresentation, was aimed at Christians.


The fact is this nation is still a Christian nation; lost, but Christian. If you believe your faith no longer matters, it doesn’t; and those who hate your faith know it. So, beware those who attempt to convince you your faith no longer matters. If you forsake your faith, so will your representatives, so will your nation, and so will your children. Pray and hold fast to your faith.

Friday, April 10, 2009

Definitely A Bow

He’s up to the old Jedi mind tricks again.

I’m sure every President has tripped over his own shoe laces at least once in the first 100 days. While I’m less concerned with faux pas than I am with policy, that is a luxury I have; I am not the President of the United States.

Personally, I wouldn’t care if he curtsied and then skipped merrily down the red carpet singing “I’m a little tea pot” at the top of his lungs. Frankly, his foreign policy (and I use the term loosely) isn’t much less of a spectacle.

The thing that chaps my hide is the inability of the administration or its supporters to call a spade a spade. It’s almost as if honesty just isn’t on the menu.


I feel like I’m in a bad Monty Python skit. Then Robert Gibbs wants to try to take the high road:
“I can only imagine it is of great cause and concern for many people struggling with the economy.”

Gibbs, you’re absolutely right. Of course…well…you see…if the President can’t be honest with something we can all plainly see for ourselves…if his party and supporters can’t admit the truth about something that is in plain sight…if you can’t answer a cut and dry question on something as evident as a videotaped bow…


The bow definitely confirms what Obama’s record and experience plainly indicated before he was elected, what 48% of Americans knew and proclaimed in the voting boothes during the election, and what he himself has demonstarted countless times since assuming office; his inexperience in office and leadership, and his na├»ve, uniformed assumptions on economics and international politics make him a detriment to U.S. interests both home and abroad.