Posted on 12/21/2009 12:14:29 PM PST by icwhatudo
The founder of the website "Free Republic", Jim Robinson, has joined a growing boycott of the CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) due to a homosexual activist group sponsoring the event.
GOProud, a group that advocates same-sex "marriage," a repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and "expanding access to domestic partner benefits" for homosexuals, is listed as a sponsor of the event at CPAC's website.
Mr. Robinson has joined a number of conservative activists including Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell, Jr., Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver, and Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan in their efforts.
On a reply to an article about the boycott, Mr. Robinson stated "I’ll join that boycott. If CPAC is no longer for conservative family values then I want nothing to do with them. They’ll have to change their name to HOMOPAC."
Nor does that in any way imply that the JBS always (or ever) agrees with them in all they believe.
The same fallacy was used to brand Ron Paul a "neonazi" because some guys from Stormfront gave him a campaign donation.
If David Duke were to say the sky is blue, would that mean those who also see a blue sky are KKK members?
If I agree with you that we need smaller government, that Rights just aren't Rights unless they are Rights for all citizens, enforced with equal vigor, does that make me a JBS hater, too? (even though that is the position the JBS takes, too).
I think you are quick to condemn a group because of the people who might support it or even part of what the group stands for.
Where does that sort of reasoning leave the Republican Party?
Go read, as I have, what the JBS has had to say. Don't just jump up and yell "nutcase", "nazi", "klan", or "troofer", but read it. Go to their back issues and read what they said about the Clintons, about where that policy was leading. Read about Waco, OK City, Ruby Ridge, Flight 800, Vince Foster, the WTC Bombing ('93).
If you are not in complete denial, you will find that often they were right, long before people who had not been paying attention.
If they are at times a bit hyperbolic in their predictions, it is the desire to not appear to fulfil those predictions which may have slowed our enemies propelling our descent into Socialism.
It is those who deny the evidence before them who have sped it up.
You are fast to call me a "conspiracy paranoiac", especially in times where the government is (without Constitutional authorization) taking over sector after sector of private industry, siezing powers against the wishes of the people, and rotten with the reek of global socialism. Especially just after a conference was held where the leaders of the world who were ready to sign away our rights were only thwarted by the timely release of data and communiques exposing the AGW fraud for what it is--a position the JBS has taken for years (that AGW is a fraud) while warning of the dangers of 'cap and trade'.
UN (Global Socialist) dominion over entire economies (including ours) isn't 'New World Order' enough for you?
Paranoia implies that one is deluded into believing that an entity or entities are out to get them. Any Conservative worthy of the appellation can see that our philosophies are at direct odds with a government run by people pledged to eliminate the American way of life, and even when our "friends" run the show, government continues to head the wrong way.
>>>>I think you are quick to condemn a group ... Go read, as I have, what the JBS has had to say.
Wrong. I've known about the Birchers since I was a youngster. Around the time Robert Welch and Revilo P. Oliver formed the JBS I was engaged in "duck and cover drills" in school, to protect us from the commie a-bombs. (That was the first and last time I found myself in agreement with the JBS. [/sarc] ) I've read what the Birchers said about President Eisehnhower, Bill Buckley, Reagan and conservatives in general. They made no sense back then, when they had 100K members and they don't make any sense today.
>>>>>You are fast to call me a "conspiracy paranoiac"...
Stop whining and stop playing games. The Birchers offer conservatism nothing.
The only real thing I see wrong about the Birchers is they were decades ahead of themselves in a lot of their political predictions that's all. Today we have a two party system being controlled by Marxist and Socialist and some very, very, rich persons.
We have had several presidents who were willing to send this nations future and freedoms to hell for trade deals especially with The Communist government of China and that's both DEM and GOP presidents alike.
The GOP leadership of today many of which are pretending to be conservatives are very timid. So timid it makes you wonder why they are actually there? It seems all Barney Frank, Harry Reid, or Nancy has to do is yell boo at them and they fold like cheap seats. No one can seem to tell me how Barney Frank managed to get so called Conservative Republicans to vote for the bailouts? However thanks to some enlightened Republicans none dare now call them voting yes on such Traitors, Communist, Socialist, or Marxist, lest they be labeled as kooks and fringe right wing extremist by the very ones practicing Political Correctness AKA Cultural Marxism within the GOP this very day.
Some very principled Conservatives at least listened to JBS and JBS listened to them as well. That doesn't mean 100% agreement. One was Paul Weyrich. Weyrich didn't agree with a lot of their policy or at least some of it yet had the JBS leader on his show. My guess is Weyrich shared their moral values.
BTW most JBS I think would more likely be Constitution Party supporters rather then Libertarian. The Co-Founder of The Moral Majority Phillips I believe was a JBS member the other one Weyrich had close friendship ties I think with it's leadership. No other group helped Reagan get elected more than the Moral Majority did.
Reagan really didn't begin to draw that much dissent within Conservative ranks till his second term. Sad to say I think he may have delegated too much policy control to the very one who would later destroy about all the good the man had accomplished making way for New World Order as he called it.
I don't think Reagan was at the top of his game his second term like the first and I don't think it was something he could help. He trusted a part of the GOP that can not be trusted period.
I am not sure how you define "conservatism", but lumping people who are for originalist interpretation of the Constitution in with the KKK and Stormfront is a bit of a push, even if people who would abolish most of the Federal Government as having no Constitutional authorization are a distinct minority in American Politics.
You see, I, too was engaged in little 'duck and cover' drills. I recall sitting at the kitchen table while my Dad took a compass and drew little circles around likely targets to determine what our chances were if the Soviets decided they could survive a nuclear war.
I have also, in the time since, regardless of administration, watched as, then fought against the consistent erosion of our Constitutional Rights. Oh, it hasn't always appeared that way in Time Magazine, The Washington Post or New York Times, but then I do not consider those sources reliable now, and I did not then.
Were the people in the JBS concerned about deals with the Soviets? Why would that be?
Lest we forget, this country was founded by "extremists". The people who pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor--and who often lost all but the latter, were far from the political mainstream in the world in 1776, and were "extremists" in the colonies as well. Thank God for them. It is a pity we squander their legacy.
As for being anti-Communist (Marxist, Socialist as well), well, I am. I think the slickest trick pulled by the Communists was the slogan "Communism is dead!!". It is effective because people will not watch the subtle machinations which lead to totalitarian government, especially if they come from people who wave the proper standard as they proclaim "freedom" the whole while they rob us of it.
Would you have embraced the War on Drugs if a democrat had proposed it? (I'm anti-drug, but I'm also pro-4th Amendment) Would you have thought the Patriot Act was a good idea uder Clinton?
You see, I am an "extremist". I am a geologist who joined with a mere 31.4 thousand other scientists to sign a petition to our government to NOT sign the Kyoto accords (nor anything like them) because the issue of whether anthropogenic global warming existed was far from settled. Wackos? Conspiracy theorists? Nope, just scientists who did not agree with the "consensus" we were all assured existed. We were even given a buzzword handle: "deniers".
Then that fraud started unravelling.
In the meantime, though, we were treated like lepers.
Some things come out quickly, others take longer.
Whether you see a grand conspiracy or not, there is no denying the effects of the inexorable march of Communist/Socialist/Marxist philosophy, nor the infection of the National psyche with it.
Think about your youth.
Would anyone have tolerated the petty tyranny of a homeowner's association?
What would have been their reaction to DUI checkpoints?
No-knock raids?
Amnesty for illegal aliens? (especially during the Cold War)
The selection of any group to be held up as more sacrosanct than others by deeming a crime against their persons more punishable than the same crime perpetrated against another because it was allegedly motivated by "hate"?
How would the founders have reacted to 50% taxation? To support a semi-permanent underclass of tens of millions? To support those who are not legally present within our borders?
Social Security?
The National Instand Check System? (to purchase a firearm).
The Wall Street bailout?
As I have said, the Socialists (Communists) stated their goals, and set out to achieve them. Someone was paying attention in 1963 when these were added to the Congressional Record: 45 Communist Goals, and if you peruse the list, you will find that most have been achieved, regardless of who was in the White House.
It is comfortable in the middle of the herd, though, surrounded by others who can ignore what happens along the edges. When the sentinels bark, when the bleats of those taken down by predators are far away it is easy to ignore it and consider it a 'fringe' thing.
But it is on those selfsame fringes our liberties perish. We ignore that outcry at our mutual peril.
And I am not surprised youare Sarah Palins second biggest booster on FR.
Good morning Bob. I, like many others I suspect, await your response to post #147.
Well, as I tried to explain in my (very long) post in #247, the last 6 CPACs that I've attended have been FAR from RINO-fests. Overall the speakers and side sessions represent and "preach" bedrock conservatism.
mnehring posted an excellent analogy in #248, comparing CPAC to a mall... a mall of ideas (shops) for conservatives:
"Some of the shops in the mall represent traditional family values, other shops represent more libertarian leanings, some represent specific issues (like the NRA)."
I don't recall any of the "shops" being pro-RINO, unless you consider the occasional speech by Huckabee, Romney or Gov. Tim Pawlenty to represent CPAC "pushing" liberal/pro-RINO ideas.
Let me take this opportunity to wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas, FRiend! :o)
Over the last five decades the JBS has engaged in undermining every aspect of political conservatism. They've engaged in character assassination of some real patriotic Americans. Calling both Truman and Eisenhower communist dupes. While its true that Truman was a liberal Democrat, he was no communist dupe. Ike was/is a great American hero to all but the wacko extremists.
As I've already mentioned, the JBS's despicable behavior forced conservatives icons Bill Buckley and Russell Kirk to justifiably renounce Welch and his fellow Birchers. Even Barry Goldwater steered clear of the Birchers. Also, I don't know anyone who thinks FDR knew about the actual attack on Pearl Harbor, as the Birchers have stated. Do you?
The fact that the JBS vehemently opposed Reagan's two campaigns for Governor and his three serious runs for President should be enough proof for any fair minded conservative to conclude that the JBS is a bunch of fringe malcontents. After first supporting Reagan in his efforts to promote conservative policies as a viable alternative to liberalism, both Paul Weyrich and Howard Philips joined others on the fringe like Richard Viguerie and Ron Paul in denouncing Reagan. With Ron Paul going so far as saying that Reagan's Presidency was a "failure". A failure? LOL Crackpot Ron Paul calling President Reagan a failure is the height of idiocy. Proving once again why Paul belongs in a straight jacket and heavily medicated.
Reagan wasn't perfect, far from it. He also is not above criticism, but rejecting the good works from Reagan starting in the 1950`s through the early 1990`s, work advancing traditional American values and beliefs, exposes the Birchers for the kooks they are. To reject Reagan's eight years as Governor and eight years as POTUS as anything but successes for conservatism and Republicanism, is just more crazy talk. The JBS can't be taken seriously.
Truth be told. There are many posters on this forum who have attacked Reagan in the hopes of making liberal Republicans like Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney look better and more appealing to conservatives. What you are doing is no different. Except you're attacking Reagan to make a bunch of fringe extremist kooks with a long history of opposing Reagan, look better. Sorry. Both are examples of despicable behavior and not in keeping with the conservative values of FRee Republic.
The floor is yours. I've spent far too much time nailing the truth to the Birchers. It was fun, but enough already.
Are you referring to the "conservative who shows up at CPAC to praise this and that, etc." as one of the speakers (ie Newt Gingrich) or one of the attendees (ie my husband and me)? I'm not quite following you here...
Anyone unfortunate enough to identify as “gay” and is also conseravtive would keep his/her sexual identity problems and life to himself.
By advertising and focusing on sexual problems/orientation/practices (of an unnatural kind, even) is sick.
They should just be regular conservatives, pure and simple. They’re focusing on the “gay” stuff, and adding “conservative” as an afterthought. They are just trying to ride on the coattails of the GOP to further their “gay” cause - they just didn’t like how the LCR were doing it.
Boy you managed to bash many good conservatives in one post. Poppy and son will be so proud of you as will RNC Chairman.
LOL! If that's the case, a lot of people have really been slacking lately!
Why?
I don't doubt that most gay conservatives would simply participate in and support mainstream conservative orgs, support conservative parties, vote for conservative candidates, etc, without making a point of relating their political and sexual orientations.
But why should we expect, or even hope, that "anyone" (i.e. all) would take that approach?
Consider that nearly all homosexual groups are implicitly or explicitly liberal, and often as not far left, and often politically partisan. Consider that there is therefore strong social pressure on gays to adopt a leftist ideology, or at least shut up about it if they don't. Wouldn't it then be exceptionally odd if at least some politically conservative homosexuals did not openly challenge that template? (Just as, for instance, black conservatives do in a very similar context.) Of course making such a challenge requires them to associate their sexual orientation and their and politics.
We certainly applaud African Americans who explicitly and pointedly challenge the idea that leftism is normative for blacks. Why all the hate and vitriol when gays do the same?
You're obviously free to so declaim on your own site. But I continue to think it absurd on it's face to hold that someone can't possibly be conservative just because their sex drive is differently wired.
I don't think there is any such thing as "the" homosexual agenda, any more then there is any such things as "the" black agenda, or "the" female agenda, or any such identity group driven ideological absolutism.
Certainly there are plenty of leftist homosexuals who loudly and emphatically agree with you that gays can't possibly be conservative. But why agree with that ideological absolutism? Why not challenge it instead? Or at least refrain from actively shunning and attacking those who have the personal conviction to do so?
I'm convinced that conservatism offers the most rational, practical and productive approach to self, societal and political governance for all individuals. I don't see any valid reason to exclude gays from that generalization.
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.