Peter Fricke has the story at Campus Reform.
Michael Chapman reports at CNSNews.com:
In response to a BBC report on the barbaric nature of life under the Islamic State in Iraq, Christian evangelist Franklin Graham said sharia (or Islamic) law should be banned from America and "all countries that cherish freedom," adding that women, gays, Christians, and minorites are being "tortured and killed," and President Obama does not seem to know what to do.
Graham also called on people to "pray for all those living under Islam."
"The BBC just published a story about life under radical Islam -- what it’s really like," CNSNews quotes Rev. Graham as saying in a June 11 Facebook post. "This is a vivid reminder of why Sharia law should be banned in the U.S. and all countries that cherish freedom and liberty."
"Our laws do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man," said Chris Cuomo, co-host of CNN's New Day, to Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, according to Jeffrey Poor at Breitbart.
In addition, Cuomo stated, "Our rights do not come from God. That’s your faith. That’s my faith, but not our country. Our laws come from the collective agreement and compromise."
Moore replied, "It’s not a matter of faith, sir. It’s a matter of organic law, which states, 'We hold these truths to be held equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'
"And the only role of government is stated in the next sentence is to secure those rights for us. The government starts taking those rights away from us, then it’s not securing and it is defiling the whole purpose of government."
Mona Charen writes:
By savagely attacking and murdering writers and cartoonists as well as Jewish shoppers, French Islamists have clarified something that many in the West have deceived themselves about — that the war we are engaged in is a war of ideas.
Islamists have once again reminded us that freedom itself is their target.
Read her entire column here.
Brittany M. Hughes reports at CNSNew.com:
When the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) went after a city council in Jay, Fla., for displaying a nativity set on public property, the atheist group might have won a battle, but seems to have lost the war.
The FFRF, known for protesting any and all religious displays in public places, sent a complaint letter recently to local officials in the 526-person city of Jay, arguing against the life-sized nativity that had been set up on the site every Christmas for nearly 40 years, the group said in a press release.
In a letter sent to the city’s mayor, FFRF attorney Andrew Seidel alleged, "It is unlawful for the town to maintain, erect, or host a holiday display that consists solely of a nativity scene, thus singling out, showing preference for, and endorsing one religion." He added there are "ample private and church grounds where religious displays may be freely placed."
"In response to the group’s complaints, the city council declared the nativity set surplus property and sold it to the Santa Rosa County Ministerial Association, thus removing it from public property," according to CNSNews.
This move appeared to please FFRF co-president Dan Barker, who "praised the city council’s decision as 'divesting the town of a divisive display'," CNSNews reports.
"But the town has not been deprived of the nativity, reports the American Pastors Network [APN]. In fact, after the ministerial association purchased the nativity, they then placed the huge Christian display on private property near one of the busiest parts of the small town, reports the American Pastors Network," according to CNSNews.
The Nativity scene "now stands at a busy corner at the town’s main stop light -- ironic, say nativity supporters, because many more people will see it there," CNSNews quotes APN as stating in a press release.
"Anyone who actually takes time to study our nation’s history and read the writings of our founders -- not the interpretations of those writings written two hundred years later -- knows that religious liberty and the acknowledgement of Almighty God as the source of that liberty are the bulwark of our nation," CNSNews quotes President Sam Rohrer as saying in the press statement.
"Threats like these against towns that want to display nativities are a blatant attack on our God-given and constitutionally protected freedoms," Rohrer states.
"Groups like FFRF base their arguments on the sound bite of 'separation of church and state,' but again, history proves these arguments wrong, as Thomas Jefferson’s famous 'wall' was in response to the sincere concerns of the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut that religious freedom might be considered a favor granted by government rather than an inalienable right given by God," Rohrer states, according to Hamilton Strategies.
"FFRF would do well to remember that Jefferson himself attended congressionally approved church services held in the U.S. Capitol building itself -- the seat of American government," Rohrer advises.
"The truth remains that public displays of the nativity scene on government property in no way violate the Constitution. FFRF's attempts to stifle religious liberty, however, do."
The town of Piedmont, Alabama "wanted to honor the reason for the season" during their annual Christmas parade, "and that landed them in a world of trouble with a group of out-of-town atheists," Todd Starnes writes.
"The parade committee selected 'Keep Christ in Christmas' as the theme of Thursday night’s parade. Seeing how there’s a church on nearly every street corner in town -- no one gave it a second thought," Starnes explains.
"I was totally shocked when I received the letter. It’s a small town. It’s a small Christmas parade. We didn’t think there would be any problems at all," Starnes quotes Mayor Bill Baker as saying.
"Little did the mayor know that his town was about to be infested with an ill-tempered gaggle of atheists from Wisconsin -- the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF)," Starnes continues. "They alleged that a single person in Piedmont had complained about the parade theme -- and the FFRF sent the mayor a threatening letter."
According to Starnes, the letter complains that the theme of the Christmas Parade "alienates non-Christians and others in Piedmont who do not in fact have a 'strong belief in prayers' by turning them into political outsiders in their own community." Furthermore, the "sentiment of 'Keeping Christ in Christmas' does not qualify as a secular celebration."
Comment: The atheists are absolutely wrong. Nothing in the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution forbids the free people of the United States from freely and publicly exercising their respect for and commitment to the truth of Christianity.
The 1st Amendment places a prohibition on the Congress of the United States, not on the people of the United States, and that amendment forbids the Congress from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
This atheist organization is extremist in nature. Christians in America, as well as all others who value truth in governance and freedom in their corporate and individual lives, would do well to insist on practicing what is the mainstream of America -- that is, the public recognition of the Creator as the integration point of civil life in the United States.
After all, the Declaration of Independence states, "All men are created equal" and "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
. . . among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Furthermore, "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."
Live free, people of Piedmont. Reject the chains of atheists.
Todd Starnes writes at Fox News:
The injured player was on the ground being tended to by trainers and coaches.
So the Seminole High School football team did what many football teams do. The teenage boys took a knee, bowed their heads and prayed for their injured teammate.
But that simple act of compassion and humanity in Sanford, Florida sparked outrage from the Freedom From Religion Foundation -- a group of perpetually offended atheists from Wisconsin.
An FFRF attorney fired off a letter to the superintendent of Seminole County Public Schools -- accusing them of having an adult lead the prayer for the injured child.
Memo to these tyrannical atheists: Nothing in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits players, coaches, teachers, cheerleaders, principals, janitors, mayors, governors, pastors, moms or dads, presidents or congressmen, etc., etc., from praying for injured football players at any time or in any venue.
The limitation demanded, by force of law, in the 1st Amendment is on the U.S. Congress. The Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishmet of religion, or probiting the free exercise thereof."
So as long as a coach, player, teacher, or pastor, etc., acting as Congress, is not making a federal law that establishes a national state church over the entire United States, well, they can pray to their hearts' and minds' content.
Equally so, as long as the aforementioned are not making a law that prohibits "the free exercise" of religion, well, they again are in the clear.
It's called freedom, under God. Just like the Declaration of Independence talks about (you remember that part about "unalienable rights" given by the Creator, don't you?).
And, of course, the point of ratifying the U.S. Constitution was to establish a body politic that fleshed out the norms and principles of the Declaration.
Freedom under God is an everlasting norm of human freedom and dignity.
Not only is this true, but it happens to foster the creation of societies more humane and more free that what one might find in alternative approaches -- say, in the consistently atheistic USSR, the inhumane Red China of Mao, or in the humanity-hating and Christianity-hating Germany under National Socialism.
We know from logic and the evidence of history where the dictates of the likes of the FFRF lead. Go ahead and huff and puff, dear radicalized atheists.
Meanwhile, we shall stand for freedom, for humanity, which happens to include living in community with God and man. In free America, you get to speak in public. Even to God.
Erica Ritz reports at The Blaze:
Cliven Bundy, the last remaining rancher in Clark County, Nev., stands at the center of what has become a national controversy over the private use of federal land. He is focused on one big issue, he said in a radio interview with Glenn Beck on Monday: He doesn’t believe the land belongs to the federal government.
"I think this is very clarifying to people," Beck said. "Your stance is, 'I do not recognize these lands to be federal . . . I am staking out my claim that the United States government does not have any jurisdiction, and any rights to the land that [I am] now grazing on'."
"That’s right," Bundy said. "It's Nevada land."
"Bundy said he has 'no contract with the United States government,' and the federal government has 'no jurisdiction or authority' on his grazing rights, water rights, access rights, ranch improvement rights or anything else that 'belongs to "we the people" of Clark County'," the Blaze reports.
"The rancher took his argument back to the 19th century, when Nevada became a state," the Blaze continues. "According to him, the federal government did, in fact, control the land when Nevada was a territory. But, he claimed, when the territory became a state, the government turned that land over to the sovereignty of the state of Nevada, and thus the federal government lacks the power to control it today."
"At the moment of statehood, what happened?" Bundy is quoted as asking. "At the moment of statehood the people of the territory become people of the United States with the Constitution, with equal footing to the original 13 states. They had boundaries allowing them a state line. And that boundary was divided into 17 subdivisions, which were counties. Which I live in one of those counties, Clark County, Nevada."
"As a citizen of that county, I abide by all the state laws," Bundy said, according to The Blaze.
At National Review:
Political correctness is antithetical to our founding principles of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Its most powerful tool is intimidation.
If it is not vigorously opposed, its proponents win by default, because the victims adopt a "go along to get along" attitude. Major allies in the imposition of PC are members of the media, some of whom thrive on controversy while others are true ideologues.
The true believers would be amusing if it were not so sad to behold them dissecting, distorting, and repeating words in an attempt to divert attention from the rise of government control.
"The American people must learn to identify and ignore political correctness if we are to escape the bitter ideological grenades that are destroying our unity and strength," the column argues. "Political correctness is impotent if we the people are fearless."
"Sarah Palin left no stone unturned" during her CPAC keynote address last weekend, writes Jennifer Burke at TPNN, "even addressing the victory
. . . in the case of Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson vs. the anti-Christian and politically correct police from the left. In doing so, she exposed the hypocrisy of the left."
Burke quotes from Palin's remarks:
They claim to want tolerance and open debate. But their goal is to shut anyone up who doesn’t toe their line.
Phil Robertson, our buddy from Duck Dynasty. Here’s Phil talking about faith with a reporter from GQ. (First mistake) In between saying he loves humanity, he loves all sinners and leave it to God to judge, he quoted the Bible. He got colorful in expressing his opinion.
They fired the devout Christian for expressing his devout Christian views on a television show about his devout Christian family because nothing is ever wrong on cable TV.
In another time, Phil might have stayed fired. But not this time. People all over America knew that Phil’s right to express himself was our right. We pushed back and we won. And now everyone is happy, happy, happy.
To read more from "Pure Tea: Sarah Palin Crushes Ruling Class in Both Parties at CPAC 2014," by Jennifer Burke, go here.
View Palin's keynote address here.
In a free country, I can deny you service for any reason whatsoever.
If you stink, I'm tired, or you want to burn crosses, well, I can tell you to take a hike.
It's called choice. It's called freedom. And for a while, it was called America.
Citing surveys from the Pew Research Center, the Pew Hispanic Center, Gallup, NBC News, Harris polling, the Annenberg Policy Center, Latino Decisions, the Center for Immigration Studies and the Hudson Institute, Schlafly’s report overwhelmingly demonstrates that merely continuing our current immigration policies spells doom for the Republican Party. . . .
Consider the following issues (quoting Coulter):
Proud to be an American? "According to a Harris poll, 81 percent of native-born citizens think the schools should teach students to be proud of being American. Only 50 percent of naturalized U.S. citizens do."
Constitution vs. International Law: "While 67 percent of native-born Americans believe our Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law, only 37 percent of naturalized citizens agree."
Obamacare: "According the 2012 National Asian American Survey, as well as a Kaiser Foundation poll, only 40 percent of the general public holds a favorable opinion of Obamacare, 42 percent unfavorable. Meanwhile, 51 percent of Asians have a favorable opinion of Obamacare, 18 percent an unfavorable one. Even Koreans support Obamacare by 57 percent to 17 percent."
Capitalism: "A Pew Research Center poll of all Hispanics, immigrant and citizen alike, found that Hispanics take a dimmer view of capitalism than even people who describe themselves as 'liberal Democrats.' While 47 percent of self-described 'liberal Democrats' hold a negative view of capitalism, 55 percent of Hispanics do."
Gun Rights: "Pew also found that only 27 percent of Hispanics support gun rights, compared to 57 percent of non-Hispanic whites. According to Latino Decisions, large majorities of Hispanics favor a national database of gun owners, limiting the capacity of magazines and a ban on semiautomatic weapons."
Big Government: "Seventy-five percent of Hispanic immigrants and 55 percent of Asian immigrants support bigger government -- also according to Pew. Even after three generations in America, Hispanics still support bigger government 55 percent to 36 percent, compared to the general public, which opposes bigger government 48 percent to 41 percent."
"Immigrants -- all immigrants -- have always been the bulwark of the Democratic Party," Coulter writes. "For one thing, recent arrivals tend to be poor and in need of government assistance. Also, they’re coming from societies that are far more left-wing than our own. History shows that, rather than fleeing those policies, they bring their cultures with them. (Look at what New Yorkers did to Vermont.)
"This is not a secret," Coulter continues. "For at least a century, there’s never been a period when a majority of immigrants weren’t Democrats."
The upshot: "At the current accelerated rate of immigration -- 1.1 million new immigrants every year -- Republicans will be a fringe party in about a decade."
If this analysis is correct, more is at stake here than the prospects of a political party. For America herself, as a land of freedom and human dignity, may be stumbling, even crashing, into her sickbed.
Not because of immigrants per se, but because no society can sustain human freedom without a vision of freedom, verified and rooted in reality, that gives an adequate basis for human freedom and dignity.
If there is no rock of freedom, there can be no house of freedom built upon that rock.
The Democrats reject this basis, given their clear and ideological opposition to the rules of freedom as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. Their preachers say, "Seek ye first the Kingdom of Washington, and all these things shall be added unto you." But theirs is a kingdom of slavery.
And the Republicans? Their leadership seems clueless, double-minded, and incredibly easy to co-opt. Theirs is a kingdom of confusion ripe for the taking. They would hold onto power. Freedom not so much.
The answer, if one comes, will not come from Washington and certainly not from the current GOP. The answer, if it comes, will come from the people, under God, who having grabbed ahold of the rules of freedom, run with all of their might toward the open spaces and fertile soil of the Promised Land.
It's never to late to discover America again, even America the young, in the brightness of a new day. This doesn't mean easy times are ahead. It does mean there is a way homeward. With a living Creator as the source of unalienable rights, neither death, decay, or unfreedom has the final say.
"We are lucky that we are so different," Thomas Sowell writes, "so that the capabilities of many other people can cover our limitations."
But more than this, Sowell argues, the inequality of abilities (or "diversity," one might say) we see in human beings can save lives and enhance "everyone's well-being."
Yes, human beings are created equal, as the Declaration of Independence so appropriately notes.
This fact of life affirms the ontological worth and significance of the human being. It expresses the basis upon which people are to be respected by the powers that be and not steamrolled by big government, big business, big media, big "ministry," big Hollywood, big "science," or big anything.
Thus government, business, ministry, and so on, are created to serve man. Man is not created to worship and serve any of these entities.
But note: Human beings are created equal in their individuality, as well. All of us have fingerprints, and yet every set of fingerprints is unique. In the human being, therefore, both unity and diversity are equally affirmed.
When diversity -- or inequality, properly understood -- is respected, our lives are enriched (in creativity, achievement, healing, wealth, and so on). Vive la différence.
The opposite is equally true. When diversity (or inequality) is disrespected, our lives are impoverished. Freedom, ideas, speech, excellence, and creativity begin to disappear as society is herded down the road to serfdom, to borrow a phrase.
Diversity can also be deified. But this is a bad move because, as an idol, diversity breeds chaos -- even if it is well marketed ("Diversity is our strength!").
Chaos in morals and politics is, of course, unlivable. And so the temptation comes: Let us organize our lives around "unity."
But when unity is grasped as a final solution, when it is deified in reaction to the totalizing god of "diversity," the real-world result is uniformity and oppression. The individual is smashed in the name of equality (or "fairness," "tolerance," etc.).
All too quickly, a people faces an elitist steamroller of presidential pens and phones, of federal laws and regulations, of dog-whistle peer pressure seeking to impose pretended absolutes enforced by those who hold power at a particular moment in history.
How do we move forward to achieve individual and corporate balance? By realizing that both unity and diversity are gifts from the Creator. They are too wondrous and powerful to be left in the hands of politicians.
Todd Starnes writes at Fox News:
Restaurant owner Glenn Helseth joined the ranks of Americans who’ve decided to defy the strong-arm tactics of the National Park Service.
The National Park Service owns and operates the building. So when the government shut down on Oct. 1, the Helseths were given 48 hours to pack up and move out.
The couple also owns a restaurant on Jamestown Island. They had to close that restaurant after the National Park Service blocked access to the island.
"We’re upset on a number of levels -- not the least of which is the impending financial doom that Carrot Tree faces,” Mr. Helseth is quoted as saying.
According to Starnes, "At least 20 of his longtime employees are facing the unemployment line. They can’t make rent and some are faced with choosing between buying food or buying medicine."
It was crunch time. "So Glenn decided it was time to take some action," Starnes writes.
"And at 11 a.m. ET he reopened the Carrot Tree Kitchens Restaurant
-- in defiance of the federal government," Starnes continues.
"I intend to serve everybody that wants to dine with me," Helseth is quoted as saying. "I don’t intend to close my doors. I am occupying Carrot Tree Yorktown."
Starnes writes that the restaurant owner "is well aware that he is breaking the law -- but he told me enough is enough."
"I’m serving Brunswick stew, ham biscuits and carrot cake,” Helseth said. "If that gets me put in jail, I’m going to jail."
David Seaman writes at the Daily Caller:
President Obama did a face to face interview with comedian Jay Leno on the "The Tonight Show," because our commander in chief wouldn’t dare give such access to, say, anyone remotely resembling a journalist at this point. Too many of those "phony scandals" to wade through.
Obama offered a fantastic fireworks display of dishonesty and Orwellian doublespeak to Leno’s 4 million or so viewers at home.
"We don’t have a domestic spying program," Obama assured Leno. What we have, instead, are "mechanisms that can track a phone number or an e-mail address that is connected to a terrorist attack . . . That information is useful."
Which is the very definition of a domestic spying program: obtaining American citizens’ phone records and one-click access to emails, Facebook messages, and all Web history without a specific warrant. And then sharing that data with domestic law enforcement agencies, in a secretive agreement Reuters claims the government is now actively trying to cover up.
"Apparently there is a monolithic paradigm known as 'Black Thought.' It’s supposedly what we blacks think as a unit. Like a uni-mind of sorts," writes Stacy Washington of Stacy on the Right.
"That Uni-mind requires us to be leftists with our allegiance solidly pledged to the Democrats," Washington explains. This allegiance is to be maintained "even though" Democrats "are the party of the KKK and fought to keep us enslaved."
Equally so, fidelity to Democrats must be maintained "even though they fight school choice initiatives and are the champions of abortion which has destroyed almost a third of the black population since Roe v. Wade."
In return for turning a black eye away from black genocide, the faithful can revel in how Democrats "advocate the destruction of the black family through the redistribution of earned money to welfare."
Stacy Washington apparently enjoys thinking while black: "I’ve broken free of the Borg Uni-mind. I’ve cut the cords. I’ve freed a few other blacks through my work. More will follow."
Liberals "Believe They Own Black America"
Is Martin Luther King the Slave of Black People?
How Obama Replaced Jesus Christ Among Blacks
Racism! Racism! And Oh by the Way: Racism!
How to Have a Race War
A legislative committee voted unanimously Friday for a bill requiring the Pledge of Allegiance to be recited daily in Oregon public classrooms.
Under state law, schools must give students the opportunity to say the Pledge of Allegiance at least once a week. The bill passed by the House Education Committee would require schools to do so daily, and to have an employee or student lead the recital.
Students can't be compelled to say the pledge, and the bill wouldn't change that.
"Supporters say the pledge is an important part of civic education. Critics say requiring time each day for the pledge would further ostracize students who don't participate because of religious or other reasons," according to AP.
AP is also reporting that "two words in the pledge have sparked controversy: 'under God.'"
According to AP, "Dissenters say they are uncomfortable reciting the Pledge of Allegiance for religious and other reasons. For example, members of the Jehovah's Witnesses denomination typically do not participate in saying the pledge."
Setting aside a moment to recite the Pledge is a step in the right direction.
Another step in the right direction would be to allow a reading from the Declaration of Independence, which states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Every student, teacher, and staff member would benefit from a reminder of what truly is the center of gravity for human rights, human dignity, and human freedom.
Editor's note: While the Supreme Court heard arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's Prop 8 this week, apologists for homosexual "marriage" ask how such an arrangement poses any harm to society. In fact, very much is at stake, and negatively so, for the individual person and for society at large, as Nancy Pearcey demonstrates below, in remarks published in 2011, prior to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.
The conservative coalition has always been unstable. And homosexuality may be the issue on which it shatters.
Several groups have announced that they will boycott next month’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) because of its decision to invite the pro-homosexual activist group GOProud to participate.
Dissenting groups include the Family Research Council, Concerned Women of America, The American Principles Project, American Values, the Center for Military Readiness, Liberty Counsel, and the National Organization for Marriage.
Not all conservatives support the boycott. At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey opines that by pulling out, social conservatives create the perception "that they don’t even want to debate their position on homosexuality."
At Commentary, Peter Wehner says that these groups could give the impression "that they do not have the arguments needed to win on the merits."
Unfortunately, too many Americans already have that impression -- especially younger voters. A 2009 Pew study found that 58 percent of young adults 18 to 29 years old support same-sex "marriage," compared to 39 percent of the population nationwide.
By voting with their feet, however, social conservatives are not giving up, they are taking a public stand -- which creates a forum to make their case more effectively. They should take this opportunity to argue that the practice of homosexuality has a negative impact not just on the family but also on individuals -- that it expresses a profound disrespect for a person’s biological identity.
Biologically, physiologically, males and females are clearly counterparts to one another. The male sexual and reproductive anatomy is obviously designed for a relationship with a female, and vice versa.
Homosexual practice thus requires individuals to contradict their own biology. It disconnects a person’s sexuality from his or her biological identity as male or female -- which exerts a self-alienating and fragmenting effect on the human personality.
And the logic of alienation will not stop there. Already the acceptance of same-sex relationships is metastasizing into a postmodern notion of sexuality as fluid and changing over time.
For example, an article in the Utne Reader highlights individuals who came out of the closet as homosexual, but were later attracted to heterosexual relationships again. The article quotes psychotherapist Bret Johnson explaining that people today "don’t want to fit into any boxes -- not gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual ones." Instead "they want to be free to change their minds."
What we’re seeing, Johnson concludes, is "a challenge to the old, modernist way of thinking 'This is who I am, period' and a movement toward a postmodern version, 'This is who I am right now.'"
In other words, yesterday I was straight, today I may be homosexual, and tomorrow I could be bisexual. One’s psychosexual identity is said to be in constant flux.
In the past, homosexuals employed the defense that they were born that way. But now they are beginning to embrace the postmodern idea that you can be anything you want to be along a sexual continuum.
This contradicts conservatism at its philosophical core. Conservatism bases human rights on the recognition that there are certain non-negotiable givens in human nature, prior to the state, which the state is obligated to respect.
As political scientist Philippe Beneton explains, in conservatism, equality "is grounded in the recognition of what is human." By contrast, in liberalism, equality "is founded on the claim that nothing is specifically human" -- that human nature itself is a social construction, something we make up as we go along, including our psychosexual identity.
In that case, however, there is nothing in the individual that is given, which the state is therefore obligated to respect. Liberalism undermines the basis for inalienable human rights.
The CPAC walkout is a chance to highlight what is at stake. Jesse Hathaway at NewsReal Blog defends CPAC, saying, "I’m a bit fuzzy on why it matters what a person does in the privacy of his or her bedroom, as long as it doesn’t affect me."
But it does affect him -- and everyone else. Every social practice is the expression of fundamental assumptions about what it means to be human. When a society accepts and approves the practice, it implicitly commits itself to the worldview that supports it -- all the more so if the practice is enshrined in law.
If America accepts practices such as same-sex "marriage," in the process it will absorb the accompanying worldview -- the redefinition of human personhood as a purely social construction -- which opens the door to unlimited statism, because there is no human nature that an oppressive state could possibly offend.
Those who resist will be compelled by the state to go along, or face penalties for "discrimination."
Margaret Thatcher used to say, "First you win the argument, then you win the vote." Instead of caving on this issue, the leaders of CPAC should be vigorously advancing the core arguments of conservatism. Not just to win the vote but to preserve the foundation of the American republic.
Note: This column first appeared in The Daily Caller.
So writes Paul Joseph Watson in a column titled, "Most Americans See Government as 'Threat to Rights' For First Time," published at Infowars.
Brennan Takes Oath on Draft Constitution -- Without Bill of Rights
Obama DOJ: Children Do Not Need -- and Have No Right to -- Mothers
West Point Warns . . . About "Civil Activism, Individual Freedoms, and Self-Gov't"!