"A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to "take back" their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn't dispute the idea. He agreed that there was a "subterranean agenda" in the anti-Obama movement—a racially biased one—that was unfortunate. But he sadly conceded that there was little he could do about it" Link
Trying to paint one's opponents as racist/bigoted/intolerant because you disgree with them is nothing new. In fact, it's something that Saul Alinsky (above) would have fully appreciated given that in his Rules For Radicals he states "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other". Thusly, Tea Party members are not in fact, over-taxed and unrepresented people who are appalled at the invasion that is occuring at our borders and government spending and bureaucracy run amok. No, they are merely ridiculed as racists. And the fact that since the election of Obama, more black Republicans have run for congress than at any time since the Reconstruction gets conveniently swept under the rug and quietly forgotten and never discussed in the MSM.
Maggie Gallagher warns us with a dire prediction of what she feels will be the next wave of leftist bigotry to stifle rational discussion in America's cultural discourse...
"There's going to be an incredible effort to paint good, decent and honorable Americans who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife, as if Minnesotans who believe that are hateful bigots," claims National Organization for Marriage Board Chairman Maggie Gallagher. "No matter how sincerely and thoughtfully and reasonably we talk about our concerns, we get treated as though we are the biggest haters."
Today's article from Vox Day mentions the historical importance of traditional marraige as being one of the cornerstones of Western Civilization..
"The problem is that marriage is more than an institution; it is a structural foundation of society. Moreover, marriage is historically proven to be the best means of producing and raising healthy children, which means that it is integral to the continuation of both American society as well as the human race. Without a strong base of healthy marriages between men and women, no society is likely to survive, let alone prosper."
Let us hope that Ms. Gallagher is proven wrong and that there is actual, serious discussion on upcoming gay marraige amendments. Let us hope that the Left does not lapse into Chuck Schumer Mode and paint those on the side of traditional marraige with an unfounded moniker like "extreme".
"I always use extreme, Schumer said. "That is what the caucus instructed me to use." Senator Chuck (you) Schumer, (D-NY) March 2011
7 comments:
Speaking of the Tea Party, do you think Sarah Palin will campaign for the GOP nomination? Is she a viable candidate?
Palin is currently running 2nd to Mitt Romney in popularity and she isnt even seriously trying.
I think a ticket with Romney for prez nd Palin as VP would be ideal IMHO.
Tea Party members are not in fact, over-taxed and unrepresented people who are appalled at the invasion that is occurring at our borders and government spending and bureaucracy run amok.
Well, if "Tea Party members" are, in fact, only what you describe here—and I'm not saying they aren't—it does make one wonder why the border invasions, spending, and bureaucracy were such non-issues for the very same people from 2000-2008.
…marriage is historically proven to be the best means of producing and raising healthy children…
It's also historically proven to be the best means of producing and raising healthy GAY children! Just ask my parents!
Without a strong base of healthy marriages between men and women, no society is likely to survive, let alone prosper.
JD, you do understand that gay people who wish to marry have no desire to disrupt that alleged "strong base of healthy marriages between men and women"? It's not a zero-sum game, no matter how much you twist the words of others to spin it that way.
This is a very convoluted and confused post. Tea party motovations, Maggie Gallagher Srivistav's worries, and a defense of marriage from VD that has nothing to do with gay marriage. Hard to see what any of this has to do with radical authoritarian nationalistic political ideology that "the majority of scholars generally consider to be… on the far right."
Leave to stupid atheists like GS to argue what history has proven true time and time again. It's no coincidence that the USA is in decline and gay marriage and 'gay rights' are on the rise.
It's also historically proven to be the best means of producing and raising healthy GAY children! Just ask my parents!
Actually GS, it's been historically proven that the best means of producing and raising healthy GAY children is to have gay, same-sex parents Link
TD: Please prove both that "America is in decline" relative to the rest of the world and also that "it's no coincidence." Show your work. And really; why do you hate America?
Gee, JD, it's SO WEIRD that a Catholic News Agency would support that finding. Are you gonna make me do the digging every single time?
Schumm, like [Paul] Cameron, calls his study a “meta-analysis” of ten smaller samples. (Cameron used only three.) When researchers use the term “meta-analysis,” they mean that they collected a bunch of data from a collection of other studies. And typically, these studies are drawn from what are called “convenience samples.”
…But Schumm’s “meta-analysis” (and Cameron’s before him) doesn’t even have the benefit of being built off of random convenience samples. There were no convenience samples in any of the ten prior works that Schumm used for his meta-analysis. In fact, they weren’t even professional studies. They were popular books!
That’s right, each of the ten sources that Schumm used to construct his “meta-analysis” were from general-audience books about LGBT parenting and families, most of which are available on Amazon.com. Schumm read the books, took notes on each parent and child described in the book, examined their histories, and counted up who was gay and who was straight among the kids…
He used a deliberately anti-random sample of children from LGBT parents and compared that number with a population-based nationally representative sample of children from households overall to conclude that gay parents are much, much more likely to cause their children to become gay. link
Yeah, that's science alright. And here you had me all excited that there might be a better way to make gays! Oh well, we can keep trying, I guess.
Here's what Abigail Gardner, author of one of the books that Schumm leveraged in his "research" had to say:
In fact, I had made a point of having a roughly even number of straight kids and second generation kids so that both views would be evenly represented in the book. In other words, because of the goals of my book, I deliberately aimed to have 50% of the kids interviewed to be queer. Not because it is statistically reflective of the population, but to give it balance of perspective…The sample in my book FAMILIES LIKE MINE, which accounts for the majority of his “facts,” is not scientific, nor did I make any attempt to select sources so that the sexual orientation of the children would reflect the larger population of children of gays.
When the folks whose work you've based your "findings" on speak out, you can be pretty sure you've erred.
TD: Please prove both that "America is in decline" relative to the rest of the world and also that "it's no coincidence." Show your work. And really; why do you hate America?
Relative to the rest of the world? where did I say that? that would be your problem right there. I never said America is in decline relative to the rest of the world moron. Nice straw man attempt. I simply said its on the decline meaning its worse than it previously was. The Economy is bad. Gas prices are up. Unemployment is up. Our public schools are terrible and its no coincidence that 'gay rights' and gay marriage is on the rise during this time. Its history your pathetic atheist, hilarious how you think you're smart enough to argue with it.
Post a Comment