If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.
New York Times resident "conservative" David Brooks says it is hard to take Sarah Palin seriously, yet he relied on specious "queer" theology in an attempt to justify legal homosexual "marriage" as a supposed moral cause that conservatives should support. Turning the Bible on its head, Brooks says NOT allowing homosexuals to get married is an "abomination."
By Peter LaBarbera
New York Times columnist and TV pundit David Brooks is a liberal’s kind of conservative. The other day, Brooks made news deriding Sarah Palin as a “joke” on a Sunday talk show. Liberal Palin-haters couldn’t be more pleased, as they always are when “moderate” (read: socially liberal) Republicans deride pro-family conservative Republicans.
Said Brooks about the former Republican Governor of Alaska and GOP vice-presidential candidate:
“She’s a joke. I can’t take her seriously,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “The idea that this potential talk show host is considered seriously for the Republican nomination, believe me, it will never happen. Republican primary voters are not going to elect a talk show host.”
I agree with conservative media critic Bernard Goldberg in explaining the dominant elite media’s contempt for Palin: she is a popular, pro-life, conservative, Christian woman — a mix that smug west- and east coast liberals don’t like and certainly not the kind of woman they want to see succeed, much less be President. Surely they are incredulous and envious of her popularity and power, which is far bigger than theirs will ever be (Brooks included).
But what about Brooks? His arrogant, rapid-fire put-down of Palin epitomizes the disdain that RINO (Republican In Name Only) Republicans have for the true, blue, pro-family conservatives who are the collective backbone of the GOP. Socially liberal Republicans whine about “tone” and “tenor” and the alleged harshness of the “religious right,” but I find that it is often the “moderates” who are cutthroat and even nasty in their dealings with religious conservatives in the party.
New Jersey's new governor-elect Chris Christie, a Republican, campaigned against homosexual "marriage" -- and beat two pro-"gay marriage" opponents in a deep blue state.
By Peter LaBarbera
Social conservatives did quite well on Tuesday. Not only did traditional marriage win in Maine, but in several high-profile races, such as New Jersey’s governor’s race, the pro-traditional-marriage candidate won. In Virginia, Republican Ken Cuccinelli won the race for attorney general handily despite being smeared as a “bigot” by the powerful Washington Post for his principled opposition to granting “rights” based on unnatural behavior.
The victorious candidate for governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, is a strong pro-family, pro-life conservative who helped enact legal protections for the definition of marriage in the state. The following is from his website:
Bob McDonnell believes marriage is the union between one man and one woman. As a legislator, Bob McDonnell was chief sponsor and author of a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage (Chief Patron, HJ 187, 2004). As Attorney General, Bob supported Virginia’s marriage amendment and wrote an official opinion explaining that it would not affect the current legal rights of unmarried persons.
In the House of Delegates, Bob McDonnell was twice named “Legislator of the Year” by the Virginia Family Foundation. In his 2005 race for Attorney General, Bob was honored to receive the endorsement of the Virginia Society for Human Life.
According to a recent Gallup study, 40% of Americans view themselves as conservative, 36% call themselves moderate, and only 20% fall into the liberal category. While this may be great news for conservatives, the Grand Old Party did not fare so well.
Last Spring a Pew poll found that only 23% of voters consider themselves Republicans. This month an ABC/Washington Post survey suggests the number has fallen even further—to 20%. Meanwhile the largest block of voters, 36%, classify as Independents, with 35% calling themselves Democrats.
One more number: 72% of Republicans identify themselves as conservative.
Bottom line—the Republican Party is deeply conservative while America is predominantly conservative. It is the party label that has trouble, not the philosophy which was once its driving force.
Of course, conservative columnist Debbie Schlussel is right below. Keep in mind that the Democratic Party has advanced most homosexual agenda goals — a fact that Republicans could exploit if they weren’t mired in agnosticism as to whether or not they will abide by (and campaign on) their party’s solidly pro-family platform. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com.
[Aug. 3, 2009] On Friday, the U.S. Census Bureau and its parent, the U.S. Department of Commerce, announced that legally married gay couples (from California pre-Prop 8 and from other states in which it’s legal) will be counted as marriages in the 2010 U.S. Census. But, strangely, you can only find out about this disturbing prospect in the gay media.
Although the federal government left the issue of who can marry to the states, this is a frightening turn, as it essentially transforms the issue into a federal one–very dangerous when liberal Democrats run the show in almost every branch. Today, the U.S. Census Bureau, tomorrow, the IRS and lots of other federal agencies. And, as you probably know, the Census isn’t just used to apportion Congressional districts. It’s used for doling out lots of federal cash.
McCain Exposes Democrats’ ‘Gay’ Political Payoff Priorities over the Best Interests of our Men and Women in Uniform
The following are Sen. John McCain’s floor remarks, July 15, 2009, regarding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) decision to tack a “hate crimes” amendment (S 909) on to an unrelated defense appropriations bill:
“Mr. McCain: Mr. President, we have just seen, I know there are a lot of other issues that are consuming the interest of my colleagues and the American people such as the confirmation hearings of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the “Help” committee of which I am a member, is reporting out one of the most massive takeovers and expenditures of taxpayers’ dollars in history and we have this bill on the floor and there are other issues so it has probably gone unnoticed we’ve seen another really, if not unprecedented, certainly highly unusual action on the part of the majority.
Frankly, to my colleagues on this side of the aisle and the American people, elections have consequences. What we have just seen is an amendment before this body that I think you could argue is probably of more importance than any other that we consider because it authorizes the measures necessary to preserve the security of this nation, care for the men and women who are serving in the military and future threats that we will face in the 21st century.
Republicans with a homosexual problem need to be honest about it with the voting public
Kudos to my friend Laurie Higgins and the good folks at Champion News for telling it like it is. In a culture swimming in the celebration of homosexuality (masquerading as liberal tolerance), it becomes ever more ludicrous for politicians living double lives to hide behind the homosexual “closet.” (Ditto for straight philandering pols.) If a Republican politician or any politician has a hidden homosexual problem and is promoting the “gay” activist agenda — perhaps under threat of “outing” by homosexual “outing” activists like Mike Rogers — his constituents have a right to know of his aberrant special self-interest. Homosexual Republicans have the freedom to run as open homosexuals. Too bad for them if that only works for Democrats like Barney Frank. They can always switch parties: better to run as a Democrat than as a deceptive “Republican” in a party that claims to support traditional marriage and natural family values. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
Now is the time for those running for public office in Illinois to come clean about the skeletons, or mistresses, or prostitutes, or congressional pages, or homosexual partners lurking in their closets. The past few years have been a veritable anti-treasure trove of political closet cleanings, and many Illinoisans are sick of them.
Rumors have been swirling for years that a sometime-married elected Illinois representative who now seeks higher office is homosexual. Rumors continue to swirl that his sexual peccadillo and deceit have been aided and abetted by those who bask in his, I hope, dimming light, just as Mark Foley’s double life was aided and abetted by Denny Hastert. Those who aid and abet in the sexual immorality and deceit of public servants do neither the public nor political parties any favors.
Are these the values that will draw voters to the GOP?
WARNING: Crude language, inappropriate for children
TAKE ACTION: 1) e-mail this video to your elected Republican officials at the national (202-224-3121; www.congress.org), state and local level and urge them to reject the Log Cabin’s radical homosexual agenda (which includes joining with other “gay” groups in trying to use the courts to overturn California’s pro-traditional-marriage Prop 8 vote). 2) call or write Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele at chairman@gop.com or 202-863-8700; 2) Call or write Nettelhorst Elementary’s principal, Cindy Wulbert, at Cw1411@gmail.com or (773) 534-5810.
This is a very useful piece from my good friend, John Biver, who is doing outstanding work along with Jack Roeser and the guys at Champion News in holding Illinois’ consistently dysfunctional Illinois Republican Party leaders accountable. Of course, a similar principle might apply to pro-life and pro-family Democrats who are fed up with their party’s lock-step support of the homosexualist and abortion-on-demand agendas, with one key difference: the Democrat Party platform promotes government support for abortion and homosexuality, whereas the GOP’s, as John writes, does not. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
______________________________________
Does a Republican Precinct Committeeman have to support all GOP candidates?
Last week a good friend who is newly involved in his township GOP organization asked me if I thought he was obligated to work for Republican candidates he felt he couldn’t support. As an example, he said he can’t support Republican Congresswoman Judy Biggert because of her co-sponsoring of Republican Mark Kirk’s dangerous and wrong-headed H.R. 1913 [the “Thought Crimes” bill].
It’s a good question, since there seems to be some misunderstanding about the role of precinct committeemen, the party itself, and the people it elects.
