They still don't get it

I note Dick Armey, former Republican speaker of the house, who quit in 2002 has caused a firestorm criticizing the Religious Right. As member of the Church of Jesus Christ, who is considered non-Christian by James Dobson and other political religious leaders, I can understand where Armey is coming from. The religious right is intolerant to some degree, going out of their way to marginalize natural allies like the Mormons. But rather than just stating what is obvious to most, Armey had to throw in a few specifics that show that he, like the rest of the current Republican leadership, still doesn't get it.

Armey, in a pre-election op-ed in the Washington Post, said Republicans were going to lose because they wasted time and political capital on things like defending the family and marriage, and pro-life battles like protecting disabled people like Terri Schiavo. Now family values, life, and liberty are the very issues this government was formed on. (Note to Armey: Read the Declaration of Independence which states the reasons to even have a government are to protect life and liberty)

And this shows those who control the Republican party still don't get it. Armey notes smaller government and lower taxes are the really important principles. These are important principles, but they are not as important as life and liberty. And though I agree that smaller government (PC code for less spending) and lower taxes are important, Americans don't believe this as demonstrated by boondoggles like public funding of fetal stem-cell research (which has never shown any results, causes tumors when used, and is unfunded by private research and drug companies precisely because it has no potential), 100 billion in bonds approved in bankrupt California, and medical welfare for the rich elderly. And I blame Armey for this as much as anyone in America. Instead of arranging private deals, Armey, a full-time paid legislator, should have been using his power to educate a new generation of conservatives. If you look at the political leanings of the under 30 crowd, you will see how utterly Armey failed. President Bush is the other prime architect of the Conservative failure.

These guys had control of the government and they failed to train a new conservative generation. They should have appointed conservative judges by the 1000's. They should have given every conservative a government position, even if they did oppose Bush or Armey. They should have done so many things they didn't, and now it will require starting over again. And now conservatives have even less influence in the cultural institutions that shape public opinion like media, arts, and education.

I think there should be a law that any purported political leader who runs a think-tank, like Armey now does, needs to list his salary and where the money in his think-tank comes from and goes. And if he doesn't, then he should be imprisoned if he opens his mouth.

Regarding marriage based on nothing more than a shared perversion ( my preferred term for same-sex marriage), this issue is a cultural watershed. If the power of government is used as it increasingly is to promote an immoral lifestyle, then there is really no reason to even have a government. And it's as simple as that. If my children will be indoctrinated about perversion in school, and if my tax dollars are used to establish pro- immoral behaviors and institutions and fund government agencies preventing free expression of religion, then time for the government to go. By whatever means necessary.

Now that is not a call for armed revolution. But neither is it a prohibition of revolution. In almost all cases, it is better to support a government than to take up arms against it. If there is a critical mass of people who believe as you do, eventually you will be able to change the government without violence. Innocent people get hurt, society is damaged, and there is little chance that the next government will be any better. And usually, the only persons to get hurt are the innocents and the revolutionary and his family.

But really, how long should we put up with this loss of freedom that is happening all around us? If marriage based on nothing more than a shared perversion is legalized then the whole weight of government will be twisted to protecting what is an immoral and physically-damaging life-style. Kind of like the movie Life of Brian where the revolutionaries decide that fighting for a man's right to have babies (even if he doesn't have a uterus) is now a reason for revolution. The immoral lobby aren't content with having their perversions legalized (which they recently were in the Supreme Court decision to void all sexual behavior laws like sodomy). They want to force the public to support their immoral life-style - nothing else will suffice. And when an illogical, stupid thing like homosexual behavior becomes reason for a government-sanctioned union, then government really has no purpose at all. I mean, exactly how would you define such a union logically?

Would kissing my shiftless roommate on the cheek mean I could sign him up for health benefits and tax benefits? How about kissing him on the mouth? How about a little tongue and a good grope? (Yes, this is offensive but so is marriage based on nothing more than a shared perversion and it's time we said right out loud what such stupid ideas mean) Would I have to do this in public somewhere, or could I just check off a box on some form? Maybe a good vigorous hug? Maybe submitting naked pictures would be more fair to assure that only true pervert couples were given all the benefits of marriage.? Do you see how this stands reason on its head? How can you even talk about a moral concept like the fairness of giving health benefits to your roommate if he has sex with you but not if he doesn't, if there are no morals, and no guide to what fairness even is?

And regarding Schiavo, murdered by her husband through neglect and a court order by Judge George Greer ( who ought to be executed - both for murder and presuming that a judge has the power to over-rule the people, their morals, their government and their religion), I like a quote from Ilana Mercer on World Net Daily. She noted that a Dr. Szasz had compared the case to the decision of King Solomon in the Bible between 2 women who both claimed a child. Solomon proposed cutting the baby in half and giving each mother a half. (This would, of course, have been fair in the same sense that marriage based on nothing more than a perversion would be fair) The true mother, being concerned more with the baby's welfare than her own wishes, then offered to let the false mother have the baby rather than kill it. "In Schiavo vs. Schindler, the judge lacking Solomonic wisdom, gave the proverbial baby to the party that had vowed to have her killed." Did you ever think of it that way? I hadn't.

But I expect nothing to change in the Republican party. Even here in "conservative" Utah, I leave the Republican gatherings having been insulted, called extremist, and marginalized if I try to get the party and its hacks to support the platform. I've been banned from a website called Free Republic (may it fail, burn in Hell, and get sued by the ACLU) some time ago for opposing the war in Iraq because it was not needed for national defense. So much for "conservatism". Armey perfectly represents the current republican leadership - trying to blame the exhausted, battered and bleeding troops amid the smoking ruins of their civilization, all the while being fed grapes and being fanned gently by servants, while he's making deals with the enemy so he can keep his riches and power. (Note Armey is accused of being in bed with the ACLU lately)

Vincet Veritas, MEB