Gerard Vanderleun has posted a lovely and inflammatory rant over at American Digest which I thoroughly enjoyed, probably because it is highly politically incorrect (and contains ‘adult’ language (really, adult language is so juvenile, I don’t know why they call it adult.)).

You have been warned.

Obama acts more like an African or Eastern potentate than an American.  For these cultures there can be no such thing as excessively ostentatious displays of power and wealth.

For shame!

Yates Walker overt at The Daily Caller has a great article that proposes that Republicans capitalize on shame, now that the President has opened up that can of worms.  Here are some graphs, read it all:

As a nation, we’re burning the house down because we’re cold. The next American generation is going to be cold, staring at a pile of ashes and told that they have to pay interest on it.  . . . Ours is a government of thieving hedonists. And the leader of that government is invoking shame over the fact that only 41 laws prohibited Adam Lanza from shooting up an elementary school?

Whether Republican leaders realize it or not, Barack Obama just pulled his goalie. He opened a door to Republican victory and a conservative resurgence that could define the next 10 election cycles. By invoking shame, Obama started a conversation that he never intended to start.

. . .

GOP critics are presently insisting that the GOP needs fundamental change to appeal to new voters. They’re wrong. It’s all about messaging. It’s always about messaging. Would Obama have won in 2008 if he said that he was going to abandon Clinton’s landmark welfare reform, extend food stamps to one-seventh of our citizenry, take over a sixth of our economy, fold on gay marriage, leave embassies undefended, abandon all of the progress our soldiers fought for in Iraq, legalize untried, indefinite detention of American citizens, and add $10 trillion to the national debt — all the while, partying with celebrities in Hollywood, inciting class warfare, and soaking the rich?

No.   . . .

Republicans can learn from Alinsky. Someone in leadership on the right needs to engage Obama in a national conversation about shame, redirecting the shame from gun control to spending and the willful mortgaging of America’s future. Whenever Obama mentions new spending, he needs to hear a shame chorus from the right concerning shattered piggy banks and America’s beleaguered future generations. The shame angle needs to be harped on until it gets a response from the president. Eventually Obama will be forced to address the argument. When he does, specific cuts should be demanded. If he makes the requested cuts, new cuts should be demanded. When he fails, the shame chorus should begin anew.

. . .

Unlike most Republican arguments, this one is bite-sized, populist, and winning: Stop robbing America’s children. A brighter, less indebted American future polls well with students, parents, seniors, veterans, whites, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and everyone else.

Even narcissistic kleptocrats Progressives can get this one.

Taking the bull by the tail

Tradtional marriageI’ve been reluctant to address the issue of “gay marriage” but I don’t feel that I can in good conscience continue to do so.  It is time, in the immortal words of W.C. Fields, to take the bull by the tail and face the situation.  I propose to address two issues, political expediency and cultural survival.

Recently it has become the ‘in’ thing for politicians to ‘evolve’ into an acceptance of same sex marriage, including, to my amazement, Republican politicians. In a way I am not surprised to find Republican politicians ‘evolving’ in step with their Democratic brethren. 160 years ago the newly founded Republican Party was at the vanguard of the abolitionist movement and was the political embodiment of social and cultural change.  That was a change that grew out of one of America’s great awakenings, and arose spontaneously and organically in the public consciousness.  It had its foundations in the principles of Christian religion and the Constitution.  It set about rectifying the fundamental injustice of slavery and removing the contradiction that slavery is to the principles of individual liberty  The same sex marriage movement has tried to draw the same mantle around itself but is fact the product of a massive agitprop campaign to foist on Americans something that is both alien and repugnant to us.

In every instance in which same sex marriage has been put on the ballot it has failed to pass and failed decisively.  If the proposition cannot pass muster with the electorate it is certainly not going to pass muster with the base of the Republican Party which tends to be not only more fiscally conservative but more socially conservative than the population in general.  Because the proponents of same sex marriage have access to and are supported by the main stream media there is favorable mention of it everywhere and any opposition is either denounced, derided or ignored.  Anyone with no memory of elections past would legitimately think that the absence of same sex marriage was a burning injustice and that the stones themselves were crying out for remedy.  Not so.

In embracing this issue Republican politicians have transparently done so as a matter of political expediency, hitching themselves to the presumably rising star of the hot issue of the day.  In doing so they have not only traduced their own values but betrayed the values of their base.  They suppose that by embracing the currently fashionable trend they will distinguish themselves from their political rivals and so gain the approval of a majority of the voters.  Unfortunately for them, and tragically for the Republican Party, no politician can gain office while repudiating the base.  The same is true for political parties.  I will submit for your consideration, gentle reader, that if the Republican Party continues to repudiate the base it will soon become one with the dodo bird and the Whigs.

Were marriage no more than a delectable sentimental fashion accessory designed lend the perfect air of gravitas and publicly validated ardor to a torrid romance I would have no problem with the so-called gay marriage.  Marriage is not that, however.  It is in principle the primary, indeed preeminent means by which children are brought into the world, reared in relative security and stability and socialized into the culture that surrounds them and in which they will most likely spend their lives.  Every child has the right in principle to share in the love of one man (father) and one woman (mother) whose commitment to each other provides the foundation for the child’s understanding of what it means to be a man or a woman in the world and what the relationship between them is.  Same sex unions fail at the outset on the first count, procreation.  They fail on the diverse role model (which is especially difficult for boys who have a greater need for fathers as models and guides than do girls).  Finally, they fail in that children raised by same sex couples are not as well adjusted to society as their heterogenic peers.  The evidence in support of these propositions is overwhelming.

Years ago we were told that what gay people really wanted was simply acceptance as human beings.  This was always there, but we stopped calling them names and started calling them gay (that was as great a public relations triumph like Democrats becoming blue and Republicans red).  Then we were told that all they wanted was civil unions which would give them functionally identical rights as hetero married couples.  This was given and here we are again with a very small fraction of the population (3-4%) demanding that everybody else change the culture to suit them. Now it is even presented as a civil right, as if homosexuals previously had no right to matrimony.  What nonsense!  Everyone has the right to marry within the definition of marriage and the laws of consanguinity, and plenty have done so.  I have known (not in the Biblical sense, I hasten to assure you!) homosexual men (note that the ‘homo’ in ‘homosexual’ is the Greek ‘homo’ (meaning ‘same’), not the Roman ‘homo’ (meaning ‘man’)) who struggled to be faithful husbands to their wives and good fathers to their children.  These men I support and encourage.These men I honor. Same for homosexual women who struggle to be faithful wives and good mothers.

Why would that be, I wonder, this continual pushing of the envelope?  Equality?  Were that so everyone who labeled anyone who opposed ‘same sex marriage’ “homophobe,” “hater” or “antediluvian troglodyte” would have the law hailed down on them as does anyone today who utters a homosexual slur, dares raise their voice in opposition, does not sufficiently lionize or acquiesce to the gay mystique and the ever changing rules for ever more “inclusiveness.”  This isn’t about equality.  It’s about transgression and forcing everybody else to applaud that transgression under pain of legal consequences.  Archbishop Chaput is worth quoting here: Evil talks about tolerance only when it’s weak. When it gains the upper hand, its vanity always requires the destruction of the good and the innocent, because the example of good and innocent lives is an ongoing witness against it.  So it always has been.  So it always will be.

This is just another step down the slipper slope to a further and ever further erosion of Western Civilization, which, ironically, is the only one in which proponents of homosexual rights are not only tolerated, but protected and celebrated. The family has long been known to be the foundation of civilization.  Across history societies have codified laws support and protect that foundation, knowing that without it they would collapse.  There are those who argue that all our institutions have become so corrupt and debased that they are hardly worth the effort to defend.  Whereas it is true the Gramscian long march through the culture of the West has wrought enormous damage, and has a way to go, American institutions in particular have always rested on two things: adherence to the principles of the Founding and Natural Law.  Decisions have consequences, and bad decisions have bad consequences, and bad consequences cause pain, pain, in turn, prompts, even forces, change.

Fifty years on we can see the damage wrought by the Left, particularly in the arena of the family.  In 1968 Daniel Patrick Moynahan noted that as a result of the perverse incentives of LBJ’s Great Society children born out of wedlock had increased to 25% among Blacks; today it stands at 78% (53% among Hispanics and 30% among Whites).  From the Founding to early 60’s the illegitimacy rate in the US was stable at between 3% and 5%.  Moynahan considered the 25% figure he observed a catastrophe for the Black community; so it has proven to be.  Only now is it dawning on the Progressives that maybe the well known consequences of absent fathers might go well beyond merely monetary child support.  So it will prove with same sex marriage.  Yes, yes, a nod and a wink to “good people” and those most famous of paving stones, “good intentions.”

It is also ironic that it is fashionable to tolerate this kind of behavior, but disapproval is intolerable amongst the tolerant.  Bishop Fulton Sheen, in his 1931 book “The Curse of Broadmindedness,” had this to say about tolerance: “. . tolerance and intolerance apply to two totally different things. Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons.”

Labor_Day_Republicans_RepairIn considering whether to embrace the movement to normalize same sex marriage there is this consideration, too often absent from today’s political calculus: are Republicans also willing to embrace the consequences of their choices?  For certainly there will be consequences; all choices carry with them consequences always.  Republican politicians have shown themselves horrifyingly willing to embrace policies with known bad consequences in order to gain an advantage that is momentary at best, but more often illusory.  I suggest that the issue of same sex marriage is a hill to die on.  To stand on principle for America’s long term strength, stability and viability.