New Republican head Steele: GOP should embrace pro-choice views, "gay marriage"

The only reason I'm really posting this is to illustrate something that I and many others have screamed ourselves hoarse about during the past several years: that there is no damned difference at all between the Republican and the Democrat parties in the United States.

In an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, new Republican National Committee chairman Micheal Steele said that it was "important" for the Republican Party to "reach out" and embrace candidates who are pro-abortion and pro-"gay marriage".

(Incidentally, I have my own thoughts about that and I might articulate them someday in the near future, suffice it to say it's a perspective that's neither "conservative" or "liberal"... and a lot of my fellow Christians might find it a bit surprising.)

I think that this elicits a lot of questions. Obviously, how is what Steele suggesting for his own party, any different at all from the Democrat party? Why should anyone who is, say, very much pro-life believe that his or her stance is going to be represented by the Republican Party anymore, if it is willing to compromise itself on this issue? How does this demonstrate that the Republicans are out for anything other than political capital?

And I for one would like to pose a question to certain "conservative Christians" who I know are reading this blog (yeah I'm looking at you Ron Baity, Jeff Baity and the others from Berean Baptist in Winston-Salem): how in the world, in light of this, do you still maintain that you have to owe loyalty to the Republican Party, when it clearly no longer cares at all about you and other "evangelicals" or what values you hold to?

Maybe the United States owes the old Soviet Union an apology. At least communist Russia was honest about being run by a single political party. In America, most rubes are convinced that there are two parties and that somehow, they're "making a difference" by belonging to one or the other.

Read More

Excellent piece about Ron Paul in The Red and Black

Something I haven't let y'all in on nearly as much as I should have: I am a die-hard Bulldogs fan. When the girl of your dreams is a grad student at the University of Georgia - the school whose motto should be "Play Football or Die" - you tend to get caught up in the spirit of the place very quickly as you start making regular visits to Athens.

Seriously though: it's a great university. Even though I'll always be proud of my alma mater Elon, you can often find me wearing a Georgia Bulldogs t-shirt whenever I'm out. So I was especially glad to find that this very good article about presidential candidate Ron Paul was written by J. Patrick Rhamey for The Red and Black, the student newspaper at UGA ...

What are our traditional values? Looking across history, they are most certainly not wire-tapping, secret prisons, and preemptive wars. The Republican Party gained power with Newt Gingrich to minimize the size of government, lower taxes, encourage free trade, and get government out of our lives.

Unfortunately, they did the opposite and have paid the price.

It is time to elect someone who represents the political views of Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater and Dwight Eisenhower. A patriot who will not put our brave fighting men and women needlessly into harm's way. A candidate who supports policies of economic growth for the middle class such as lower taxes and minimizing government. A man of outstanding character who has been married to the same woman for fifty years and opposes abortion. A veteran who will secure our borders. This is the type of Reagan Republican we need back in the White House.

I encourage Georgians of all parties to take a moment to investigate Paul as a candidate on his website, www.ronpaul2008.com. In this great struggle against terror, amidst the many successes and setbacks, I fear we may be losing sight of that which our fighting men and women are dying to protect: individual freedom. If we lose sight of that, the terrorists have most surely accomplished their goals.

We must elect a candidate who will pursue a humble, defensive foreign policy. One who will bring our fighting men and women home to protect us here, not in Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran.

To quote another great Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, "Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."

As the only Republican candidate who took that advice seriously and opposed the war in Iraq, let's give Ron Paul a chance.

I've been thinking for awhile: even though I'm no longer a believer in political parties, I cannot help but think that if the Republican party does not steer toward the direction that Ron Paul represents, it will no longer be able to claim to be a party of principle after this next presidential election. Unfortunately I'm seeing most, if not all, of the party leadership putting their support behind the usual "contenders" of shallow character.

It's like this: the Republicans must decide that they either want reality, or illusion. It's time for them to take the proverbial red pill and put their money where their mouth is.

And if most people in the GOP seriously believe that Fred Thompson is going to be anything better than George W. Bush, then that party can kiss whatever respect they still have goodbye. It's almost gone anyway, after the fiasco of our border situation.

Read More

Fox News handling of Republican debate shows how screwed-up this country is

Let me see if I've got this right...

Fox News may exclude SEVEN candidates from its Republican presidential debate - including Internet favorites Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter - because they and others are hovering around 1% support in national polls. Fox News doesn't want to give airtime to anyone who is showing just that 1%.

If they had live and unfettered airtime during the debate, they more than likely stand a good chance of seeing their percentage of support skyrocket across the country.

But in order to have that airtime, they have to be well-known enough to the public now, from a considerable amount of news coverage, which Fox News, CNN, CBS, and the rest of the mainstream media will absolutely not afford them. Why? Because candidates like Ron Paul are not the "favored elite" among either party. They're not the ones "picked to win" by their parties' bigwigs and the controllers of corporate media. On a level playing field, someone as intelligent and as articulate as Ron Paul would wipe the floor with George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton.

But we aren't allowed to have sincere brilliance rise into leadership roles anymore. They would upset the apple cart too much in this country. The leaders of both major parties have too much to lose than to let "loose cannons" take away from their power. The mainstream press... well, it wants power too, but it's also terminally lazy and doesn't want to go through the hassle of reporting on people with real ideas. The corporate media only wants people from whom it knows what to expect.

I've very little doubt that we are going to see Hillary or Guiliani or Obama or McCain or someone else among "the anointed" sworn in as President come January '09. And when they do, I'll only be able to close my eyes and shake my head in disgust, just as I have done when George W. Bush was inaugurated and Bill Clinton before him. There are no more adults to lead this country: we are now, and will for the foreseeable future, being led by the delinquent and the insane. All cheerfully brought to you by the network of Fair and Balanced reporting and others of its ilk.

Read More