The smug, unresponsive arrogance of the Democratic members of the 111th Congress, has given all of us a
mild foretaste of what a one-world government would be like. How did you like it? Did it give you the "warm fuzzies," or a bone-deep chill?
Be that as it may, this article will be dealing with the subject of conservative unity -- and by that, I don't mean a Republican unity. I mean a
union of patriotic Americans, who believe in free enterprise (capitalism), the sanctity of the US Constitution, fiscal responsibility, limited government, and God.
(I know, I know -- I have a much longer "
shopping list" myself, and I add to it all the time).
The days of voting for a Republican, or a Democrat, simply because of their
party affiliation, are gone. Now that "we the people" are awake (with more people awakening every day), we will need to keep a close eye on our elected representatives, and watch what they do, (while largely ignoring what they say).
For the time being, in too many cases, the choice of candidates will be between the lesser of two evils. That will change over time though, if we insist on it. (There is, of course, also always the option of saying "to h--l with both candidates").
For now, the least distasteful candidates will tend to be Republicans. If they're smart, the GOP will take advantage of the situation, and reevaluate, reinvigorate, and redefine themselves.
I mean, if the Girl Scouts can reinvent themselves, you would think that such a thing would not be beyond the grasp of the GOP (no slur intended to the Girl Scouts, who are a first-class organization).
(Link)
My purpose in writing this article, is to address the
proposition that, for the time being at least, "we the people" need to make room in our ranks for folks who might hold some views that we might find annoying -- even offensive.
There are a
number of people, who normally wouldn't dream of calling themselves conservative, who have decided that maybe cozying up to the Muslim Caliphate, surrendering to an arrogant oligarchy, and spending our way into oblivion, is not exactly what they had in mind by "change."
Conservative's should build a "
little big tent," in order to include all freedom loving patriots. I'll explain what I mean by that shortly.
I'll be discussing some "touchy" issues in this article, that will no doubt be upsetting to some folks. I understand that, and will do my best to be as diplomatic as I can.
We're all going to have to be adults here, and look at these issues in a mature manner. Thankfully, I'm dealing with fellow conservatives, so maturity is not outside the realm of possibility.
(Link)
By a "little big tent," I mean a conservative party platform that is large enough to encompass individuals who hold numerous divergent views, but at the same time, refuse to accept those views. That is, accept the people, but not their agendas.
There is a slippery slope engendered by taking such an approach, and we will need to be extra vigilant, to ensure that accepting individuals doesn't slide into accepting their issues. Also, the Far Left will use any openness on our part, as a way to slip in covert impostors, but they will do that in any case.
If we limit our membership to only those who think exactly as we do, about all the same issues, in just the right way; then we will surely screw things up and lose in November -- and if we lose in November, then we lose America for good.
Conservatives, after all, are the ones who should be encouraging personal choice, and freedom of expression, and leave the cookie-cutter approach to the left-wing's asocial social-engineers. They are the pros at mashing square pegs into round holes, and visa versa.
"We the people" might profit from learning to separate the person from their agenda, the individual from their issues, or if you prefer, the sinner from the sin.
We need numbers to take back America, therefore we need to be as all-inclusive as we can be, without sacrificing our core beliefs.
Therefore, I believe that we should accept within our ranks atheists, while rejecting atheism; feminists, while rejecting feminism; Hispanics, while rejecting amnesty, pro-choice folks, while rejecting abortion, and so on.
Welcome them all -- people of all shades and stripes -- with open arms, but insist that they leave their agendas at the door, if they conflict with conservative principles. No exceptions.
Anyone who insists on promoting any non-conservative agendas, must be shown the door, ASAP.
And as brought out (pun noted) by the recent brouhaha between Ann Coulter and Joe Farah, we should accept gays, while rejecting "the gay agenda."
Back in my "young, dumb, and full of...whatever" days, I figured that homosexuals meant less competition for the ladies -- which seemed a good thing to me. I've pretty much always had a "live and let live" attitude toward homosexuals.
Granted, that might not be the most profound reasoning for showing tolerance, but I was a young man on a mission, and it worked for moi. My understanding of tolerance has since deepened considerably.
I am not homophobic, nor do I believe that Constitutional conservatives should embrace homophobic attitudes. Should conservatives denounce and fight the "gay agenda?" Absolutely. Should we embrace homophobia? No.
There are such "critters" as gay conservatives, and they can be valuable, and valued, members of the patriotic movement.
We need to grow up. We do not want to be The Party of Racists, Bigots and Homophobes. "Yeehah! Who brung the hoods and crosses?"
(Actually, the
KKK was started by the Democrats, and revived by the Progressives, so we should leave the Left to their venomous pets, in any event).
Please don't misunderstand me; I am adamantly pro-heterosexuality, pro-God, and pro-family, because I believe in natural order and a Creator. I know that following the modern liberal "techno-sophists" will result in humanity sliding ever deeper into a "sophisticated barbarism."
I find the
liberal tendency to push everyone toward being a self-absorbed, morally stunted, multi-sexual hedonist, to be social suicide at best -- heart and soul destroying at worst.
But if you think it will be easy taking America back, think again. We'll need "all hands on deck," and every Tom, Dick, and Harriet we can grab.
Churchill famously said after the Allied victory of El Alamein, in WW II, "...this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
The November elections, if we are blessed with free elections, will not even be "the end of the beginning." Perhaps the 2012 elections can be called that.
In case you don't know it, ladies and gentlemen, we are in this for the long haul. The infiltration, and poisoning, of America by the Far Left and Power Elites, over the past hundred years, will not be undone in one election. Not hardly.
Nor will the moral turpitude, gullibility, and political naiveté of "we the people," mysteriously vanish in one election. To fully redeem the United States will take time. Perhaps our children, or grandchildren, will live to see it. May they be so blessed.
The tide is still turning, and has barely begun to flow the other way. When the sleeping giant of "we the people" fully awakens, and is riled up, amazing things will happen, in God's time.
This generation of "we the people," has been chosen by fate, or destiny, or God, to be the ones to stem the tide, and start the long, arduous, process of relighting the beacons of "
that shining city on the hill."
Let us be steadfast, and united, in our efforts to restore America. Freedom loving people around the world are counting on us. Dead patriots, and unborn generations, who cannot speak or act on their own behalf, need for us to be their voices and hands, here and now.
Laus Deo.
P.S. I lifted the terms "techno-sophists" and "sophisticated barbarism" from Dr. Benjamin Wiker's wonderful book "10 Books Every Conservative Must Read: Plus Four More Not to Miss and One Imposter."
