These are the times: an opinion that falls outside the mob-rule gets mobbed, the speaker of such then trashed by the mob. Individual opinions nor respect for such “are allowed” according to mob-rule and the mob itself, their vengeance upon non-participants in mob-rule now gone nuts.
During the last Presidential election (2008) — and, also, as present in the last CPAC (CPAC10) — noticeable to many of us among the Conservative, Right, Middle and Moderate voters, was an offensive socio-political process. The result was John McCain as the GOP nominee for the 2008 election — a nominee and candidate who most of us then supported because we didn’t want Barack Obama and the Democrat ticket to win — but not because we supported McCain nor, for me, expected him to win (and, he didn’t win, so the instincts were accurate). My estimation of the McCain candidacy was that it was coerced upon the voters for purposes of electing Obama because even McCain didn’t seem to do much to discourage that assumption nor the Obama election win: Progressives working together.
The ugly socio-political process at work then (and continuing) is that what this thing called “Conservative” is has been hacked by Liberals. Leftwingers using various modulations of the term, “Conservative,” have largely taken to shouting out and kicking down anyone who is Conservative by value and beliefs (and political views and goals) such that the GOP ends up with louder voices promoting Liberal candidates and increasingly Leftwing political goals. Libertarians, some of them, some even Democrats, all of those claiming to be Conservative while attacking socio-politically Conservative beliefs, goals and values and those who maintain them.
Many of the “Paulistas” — Ron Paul adulators, fans, supporters involved in some sort of Personality Thing that Liberals/Libertarians seem strongly attracted to (Obama, Ron Paul, both have a cult following) — voted for Barack Obama last election despite claiming over months prior to the November 2008 election that they were supporters of Paul, a Republican. Libertarians use the threat of them-voting-as-Democrats when the GOP majority are not engaging in their demands and their demands foment around Ron Paul, party-be-damned.
Libertarians aren’t Republicans. Many Libertarians revile Republicans and certainly aim more animosity toward the GOP than they do the DNC. Social Liberals, Liberals, Libertarians, all the same thing when under pressure and the options are black or white, yes or no, the Democrat or no-Republican: Libertarians will go for the contrary position/candidate more often than not because they seem primarily motivated by a negative emotional realm, to “teach the GOP a lesson” by supporting, uhh, Ron Paul and voting for the Democrat in the Presidential election (or so it went in 2008 but appears to be going again heading toward 2012).
The Tea Party isn’t a Libertarian movement but it appears, as with the GOP and the last two years of CPAC, that the Tea Party has been negatively targeted by Libertarians. Compromised, of sorts: condemn the “Social Conservatives,” who can be relied upon to opine and then vote consistently in ethical alignment with their beliefs and values. And that really, really upsets Libertarians, so “Social Conservatives” are condemned by Libertarians for that primary reason since the beliefs and values held by Social Conservatives don’t indulgence many of the “do anything you want to do” demands by Libertarians. Conservatives by their very presence intimidate and are hated by many a Libertarian just as they are by many a Liberal – in my experience, a Conservative need only present — inherently associated with with pro-life and opposing identity politics as positions — and they are maligned if not attempted to be destroyed by Libertarians and other Liberals, who respond violently to Conservatives, suggesting that Liberals/Libertarians consider their very existence “threatened” by Conservatives.
So the effort by the Libertarian/Left has relied on isolating and marginalizing those Conservatives they’ve denigrated as “Social Conservatives” while the Libertarian/Left has been increasingly attempting to lay claim to the term, “Conservative” to identify their Libertarian positions and personalities.
In my individual experience, the most gutteral, abusive, threatening and otherwise irrational and destructive social statements I’ve ever read are by Libertarians/Liberals on the internet and in other media (twitter, for example) about and toward Conservatives, who may do so little as to state their own opinions. Freedom of Speech appears to be as offensive to Liberals/Libertarians as is Freedom of Religion.
Moreover, a Conservative who identifies with a Christian denomination can anticipate being the target of many an emotionally upset Libertarian. Ask them why, the condemnation by the Libertarian will only grow more intense and more abusive. Again, that’s been my experience as a Conservative. Even when any specific values are not shared or more profoundly, there is no prosetylatyzing of faith, just identifying as Christian will bring a great deal of condemnation down upon the Christian by Libertarians and other “Social Liberals”.
Among those Libertarians, Liberals, are the Paulistas who play this ongoing game with and among Republicans of harassing and condemning, threatening and ultimately voting for the Democrats. Because the idea of Social Liberalism is the guiding ring for Libertarians, despite their many lectures about “the Constitution” and Ron Paul and how it is that anyone and everyone else “hates the country” and various other more nasty pejoratives, irregardless of reality: you’re not for Ron Paul, you’re a “Social Conservative,” then you’re (name various pejoratives here).
It’s possible for people who are both Christian and non-Christian to be Conservative or Moderate or in some cases as was seen last election, to claim to be Catholic or Christian or Jewish and to vote for Obama who represents many a goal and legislation that works toward definite non-Christian, non-“Jewish” and certainly non-Catholic results (conditions, goals, that represent results that are contrary to Christian and in many cases, Hebrew ethics).
I’m disappointed that the organizational process of CPAC (2010 and now 2011) was rooted in a Libertarian generalization that mostly sought to suppress “Social Conservatives” — a very peculiar prejudice about that annual meet of recent years, indicating an inappropriate animosity toward many a voter from all ranges of party differences, particularly, however, among those on the Right who can be anticipated more often than not to vote for Republicans.
This process relies upon sponsoring groups (among them, GOProud in the last two years) working to redefine the terms: “Conservative” redirected to refer to Libertarians/Liberals and then the effort to cruelly marginalize anyone who maintains actual Conservative beliefs and views (deemed “Social Conservatives” and “purists” that are then denigrated as lepers by the Libertarian/Liberal interests).
Many Conservatives did attend CPAC10 and are attending CPAC11, and that’s a good thing, but even among Conservatives (“Social Conservatives” not Libertarians) who have done so little as to speak out (as I am doing here) about their concerns about how the nature of CPAC has changed (10 and 11), they/we have been maligned, attacked, ridiculed, harassed, condemned, you name it, it’s been written about us.
The very good thing about the Tea Party movement has been that it has been issue-based, issue-focused and peacefully assembling nationwide: people associating have by far and by near total response displayed rejection of growing political abuses of and in our nation while also making public display of a need for a return to ethics that are aligned to our Constitution and not to current political party — or “celebrity candidate” — “variations of or alternatives to” the Constitution.
Most involved in the Tea Party movement are not Liberal and do respect and anticipate our Constitutional Freedom of Religion to continue despite the Liberal demands to eradicate the exercise of behaviors — so little as stating opinions that reflect such — in keeping with that Freedom in our American lives. Nothing at all wrong with being Conservative, being a Christian, being “Jewish,” being Catholic, voting according to one’s faith principles and beliefs. But Libertarians/Liberals don’t like that, they want “that” silenced: shut-up, go away, don’t speak but be the party instead.
What the attempt to suppress, condemn or even eradicate these associations — Conservatives’ positions and ethics as reflected in our national political character and certainly morally in legislation — what the attempts to do so indicate the problem as to CPAC’s growing Libertarian-character: CPAC is based upon the understanding that it is an annual meeting of Conservatives (Conservative Political Action Convention), and to violate that character means there’s something political at work in a underhanded fashion.
There is nothing Conservative about advocacy groups seeking notice if not promotion of identity politics and the creation of additional “rights” based upon homosexual behaviors, among others. While anyone can state such preferences and goals, that behavior, those postions are not identified with who a Conservative is, nor are they even related thematically.
Reworking the definition of the word, “Conservative,” has been the process by these more-often-than-not Libertarians so engaged in doing so: they are “Social Liberals” who revile “Social Conservatives,” regardless of political party. As I already noted, this effort to “redefine the term” resulted in 2008 in the election of Barack Obama and in the weak and contrary candidacy of John McCain, as also the Libertarian we’ll-show-them huff and puff on behalf of the Democrats (Social Liberals who voted for Obama, as they stated it, “to teach the GOP a lesson” — another weak and contrary method by Social Liberals who often claim to be “Conservatives”).
I realize that Ron Paul holds a seat in Congress that is Republican. To the contrary, he does maintain that he is Libertarian, yet he cannot win his campaigns when running as a Libertarian, while he did win when running as a Republican, so he works that party association to win elections and for other political operations in Congress and otherwise. I’m glad he’s won a seat in Congress and I do think Paul has some reasonable and supportable ideas as does his son, Rand Paul, now also elected to Congress, and a Tea Party favorite. However, both “Pauls” maintain positions that aren’t embraced by all participants in the Tea Party, so this process of issue-association-confusion continues, but it is and continues to be the senior, Ron Paul, who is at the center of this “Paulista” Libertarian mob-rule behavior that besets the Right.
What I object to is the irrational emotional fervor and often unstable and damaging psychological acting-out by many who seem to be involved in a “Ron Paul cult,” with Paul their icon beyond human. And while I dislike cult associations and behaviors, there’s something that rallies the worst in human beings in association with Ron Paul as also among others in association with Barack Obama and in the past, Howard Dean and now in the present, also, Sarah Palin…people seem to lose reason and balance and identify with another human being and one another like a mob, some sort of “militant response” that condemns differences and demands conformity, and go about condemning if not attempting to destroy anyone who suggests questions about “the march.”
As a voter, I don’t find that appealing about any candidate who inspires such, not that the candidate specifically requires such in supporters, but he or she who uses that response in supporters to their political advantage (“celebrity”) — and who does not speak out against such a response or discourage it when it becomes socially noticeable — is tarnished as a political candidate in my view. I don’t care for mobs, mob-behavior nor cults in any variety.
While Obama and the DNC appear to require that cult-response (unions, organizations funded by the federal, identity politics), it’s a continued affront to see that response and behavior by voters on the Right and MIddle: enter the Libertarians and the CPAC10 and CPAC11 shout-downs and mobbing…
The good news is that the American Conservative Union (“ACU”), from whence the annual Convention (“CPAC”) originates, has replaced Chairman, David A. Keene, with Alberto Cardenas, a pro-life Catholic. I hope that Mr. Cardenas will begin reintroducing respect for Social Conservative values and beliefs, despite Libertarian shout-downs about such as also about those of us who maintain such beliefs and hope to vote in elections for candidates who maintain similar views.
Conservative group to get 1st new chief in 27 years
Cuban refugee set to replace ACU’s Keene
– by Ralph Z. Hallow, The Washington Times, February 09, 2011
Alberto Cardenas, who escaped from communist Cuba when he was 12, was elected Wednesday as the new chairman of the American Conservative Union, the first change at the top of the prominent conservative organization in more than a quarter-century.
Mr. Cardenas, a prominent Miami lawyer and a former chairman of the Florida Republican Party, also becomes the first Hispanic to lead a major national conservative organization…
He takes over from David A. Keene, who has served as chairman since 1984. Mr. Keene, 65, informed the ACU board some time ago that he would be stepping down in advance of his expected election as president of the National Rifle Association in April. (— Continued).
This now leaves the National Rifle Association in a certain light that requires greater scrutiny, in my view, and as a Second Amendment supporter, this is an issue I will later address here, the influences on that organization by who and why.
This is Too Much For Me
– by Erick Erickson, Redstate
February 10, 2011
I have, for me, shown an amazing amount of restraint in keeping my mouth shut on an issue about which I can stay silent no longer — GOProud and CPAC.
RedState’s parent company, Eagle Publishing, Inc., is a long time sponsor of CPAC. RedState itself is helping FreedomWorks sponsor Bloggers Row. We were the sole sponsor of Bloggers Row last year. I will be speaking at CPAC at the Young America’s Foundation luncheon named in honor of Tom Phillips, my friend and also the big boss at Eagle Publishing, Inc.
I have done my best to stay out of this business, keep my mouth shut, and appreciate my friends on both sides of the CPAC divide. Had I not seen this particular attack by GOProud against long time solid conservatives I’d continue keeping my mouth shut. But this is too much. And my guess is that there aren’t many if any willing to call foul, so I will do it.
As someone who spent time trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, I accept this as conclusive proof that, while it is a Republican organization, GOProud is not a conservative organization.
Let me tell you why…
[Please read the enitre post, it’s informative.]
…You’ll learn that should you disagree with GOProud, you are a bigot too. In fact there are lots of delightful quotes. GOProud has taken one of the favorite leftist bullet points and brought it straight into CPAC. You oppose affirmative action? You’re a racist. You oppose gay marriage? You’re a bigot. (— Continued).
Too Cool for Terrorism
‘- by Leon H. Wolf, RedState
February 09, 2011
Reason.com editor and hardcore Libertarian Nick Gillespie “responded” to Ben Howe’s post on the connection between the Muslim Brotherhood and the ACU yesterday here. I use scare quotes around “responded” because Gillespie, in true Libertarian form, breezes completely around the essential thrusts of the post, including Hasan’s ludicrous statement that the 9-11 hijackers were not Muslims, and studiously ignores the fact that the connection being drawn was not between the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslims for America, but rather between the Muslim Brotherhood and the ACU Board of Directors. Hey, it’s easy to see how he could have missed that little tidbit; it was only in the title of Ben’s post. Why not instead whack down a nice, satisfying man of straw by claiming that we’re suggesting that Sharia Law is going to break out at CPAC? Sneering contempt and intellectual condescension has always been a useful substitution for argument with Gillespie and the big-L Libertarians. (— Continued).
Reciprocal Courtesy On a Bridge Too Far
– by Erick Erickson, RedState
February 08, 2011
If Chris Barron wants GOProud to be taken seriously as a right-of-center group, perhaps he should be willing to extend the same courtesy to those on the right who disagree with him and, oddly enough, maintain extremely long standing conservative positions GOProud works in opposition to.
As my friend Drew Ryun noted yesterday, GOProud doesn’t have as much to show for its conservative bona fides as either Tim Pawlenty or Jim DeMint do — both of whom have been attacked by GOProud.
My earlier post exposing the deplorable behavior by GOProud’s Chris Barron in relationship with CPAC10, as also others associated with both:
CPAC10 SUFFERS & SO DO THEY: DISGUSTING, UTTERLY DISGUSTING LIES BY SO-CALLED “CONSERVATIVES”
– from this site, December 17, 2009
And, it wasn’t isolated to me. As early as 2009, while CPAC10 was being organized, the offensiveness of GOProud’s involvement in CPAC was apparent and objectionable to others, as was the disappointing, obtuse response by CPAC administration:
CPAC and GOProud – strange bedfellows
– by Jim Brown, OneNewsNow
Decemeber 16, 2009
A spokesman for the American Family Association says a Republican homosexual activist group doesn’t belong at a popular conservative political conference in February.
The homosexual activist group GOProud, an offshoot of the Log Cabin Republicans, boasts on its website that it will be a co-sponsor of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington on February 18-20. Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of GOProud, says taking part in CPAC “is one of the most important things [GOProud] will do all year,” and affords the homosexual activist group “an incredible opportunity to deliver [its] message.”
GOProud advocates same-sex “marriage,” a repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, and “expanding access to domestic partner benefits” for homosexuals.
Bryan Fischer (Amer. Family Assn.)Bryan Fischer is director of issue analysis for the American Family Association and host of the radio program Focal Point with Bryan Fischer. He says CPAC chairman David Keene and CPAC organizers have a serious problem on their hands. (— Continued).
– by Roland Shirk, Jihad Watch
February 08, 2011
…the libertarianism that sickens me is of a different kind, exemplified by Reason magazine, which is far more concerned about the rights of drug-users, would-be self-cloners, and pornographers than it is about the claims of parents and families. In a recent online column Reason’s Nick Gillespie heaps adolescent scorn on the conservatives who object to the hijacking of CPAC, a major conservative activist event, by cultural forces incompatible with the beliefs of most conservatives. In the cutesy, undergraduate rhetoric characteristic of Reason, he entitles his piece “Will CPAC Enact Sharia Law at Its Annual Conference?” With exactly the sense of civility I have come to expect from such libertarians, Gillespie reports… (— Continued).
Gay group in, values groups out at CPAC
Social conservatives to skip gathering
– by Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times
January 5, 2011
Some of the nation’s most prominent social conservatives are sending a message to their economic brethren by dropping out of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in response to the decision to include GOProud, a gay conservative group, as a participating organization.
“The base-line reason is that homosexuality is not a conservative value,” said Bryan Fischer, the American Family Association’s director of issue analysis. “It’s the conservative PAC, not the libertarian PAC.” (— Continued).
Paul Supporters Hijack Cheney-Rumsfeld Reunion (Video)
– from TalkingPointsMemo, February 10, 2011
Trump Receives Cheers, Boos After Declaring Ron Paul Can Not Get Elected (Video)
– from RealClearPolitics, February 10, 2011
…and while I’m not a big fan of the idea of a Donald Trump Presidency, he makes a good point in this speech (“Ron Paul cannot win” as Presidential nominee), as has Trump also made a good point earlier in his criticisms of the Obama Administration’s weak, submissive response to China’s behavior and our national debt and to other important issues relative to U.S.-China relationship and trade.
However, Trump’s having provided $50,000. to the likes of Leftwing and Democrat Rahm Emanuel in his run for Chicago Mayor is inexcusable in my view as to Trump’s seriousness within the Republican Party.
Every Conservative and voting Republican needs to read this important article from Front Page Magazine.
A Troubling Influence
– by Frank Gaffney
December 09, 2003
A reprint of a revealing article by David Horowitz about the troubling associations between Islam and Grover Norquist — Norquist a continued and significant organizer of who and what CPAC is. The influences and complications have only grown in clouded interests since this article first appeared:
“Grover Norquist Joins GOProud”
– Washington Post, June 15, 2010