The left have never met -

An unadmirable tyrant;

An inexcusable criminal;

An enemy that couldn't be cheered on;

A position of influence they couldn’t aspire to;

A life deserving innocent;

An unimpeachable family man;

A housewife that didn't need belittlement;

A dollar that couldn’t be nickled and dimed;

A parent with rights;

An animal with less value than a man;

A prosperity that wasn’t built on the backs of the oppressed;

A means of independence that didn’t ruin it for everyone;

A transaction that couldn’t be taxed;

A social experiment that needed to be shelved;

An unwanted art form that couldn’t subsidize;

A means of defense they couldn’t demonize;

A group they couldn’t pit against another;

A opponent that couldn’t be smeared;

A strength that wasn't selfish;

A value that couldn’t be called old fashioned and out-of-step;

A minority that can’t be called oppressed;

A tract of land that couldn’t be made off limits;

An unGodly scientific theory that wasn't gospel;

A doctrine that can’t be altered;

A perversion that couldn't be normalized;

A hallucinogen they couldn’t consume;

A founding father they could quote extensively from;

A truth that can’t be avoided;

Or a Moral person they could respect;

A public place they couldn't expose themselves in;

A good they couldn't call evil;

An evil they couldn't call good.

The left understands momentum and stumbling blocks better than anyone.  They understand that a firm, thoughtful and well articulated argument can cause them to completely lose the support of those they are trying to influence, or lose ground they have already gained.

 

For example; divorce rates in America are very high.  When arguing for normalization of some cultural taboo, the left will use these numbers to counter the claim that monogamous, heterosexual marriage is the ideal institution.  High divorce rates are a direct result of the selfish and irresponsible culture of the left itself.

 

Keeping the latter point unspoken is paramount to the left.  That is why liars and manipulators often filibuster an argument to put a stopper on reason and fact.

 

They know that cultural rightness must be shouted down and motives characterized and impugned.  Without countering the tactics of the left, and perhaps displaying the timid response to intimidation, being a virile and masculine man has been characterized as arrogant, domineering, barbaric and chauvinistic. 

The homosexual has been characterized as suffering oppression akin to slavery; a misunderstood underdog, loving and even wholesome.  Despite a number of psychologists and college professors telling us differently, the evidence shows this to be completely the opposite of the truth.

 

These types of misrepresentations have been built over several decades and could not have been done without the tremendous effort of leftists in the influential positions of media, entertainment and all levels of education.

 

This momentum, they use at the forefront of every word and deed.  They speak as though they presume everyone is as ‘enlightened’ about such things as they are.  Knowing full well that there are those who do not agree, they may even act shocked just before they condemn any questioning as the hateful speech of the ignorant few.

 

From time immemorial up until only about 40 years ago, Americans could look at history and see only suicidal cultures adopting and touting such positions.

 

Now, we don’t even look at those culture's deaths.  We just teach their precepts.

 

The label “One-Issue-Voter” implies that a person is what?  Not in touch with reality?  Unable to grasp the necessity of political needs?  Unwilling to calculate the greater need to vote for a lesser win over a greater loss?

 

Its called ‘compromise’.

 

Let’s change one little dynamic of the “issue”.  Let’s say that Roe v. Wade did not allow for the killing of people simply because they are without a Social Security Number, are nameless and don’t have to be looked in the face.  Let’s say it allows for the killing of anyone with a last name that starts with the same letter as yours.  All of you do not have a right to life because it has not yet been definitively determined that you are human beings.   Now, you also are a one-issue-voter.

 

The demand of aborters is for the “Freedom of Choice” to do with their own bodies what they want.  That is the way the issue is framed.  But since that is not the issue non-aborters have, it doesn’t matter what they call it.  ‘Freedom of Choice’ simply avoids the discussion of our true grievance.  We oppose abortion because we believe that there is another human being inside a pregnant woman’s body that not only has the same right to life that all Americans have, but requires in obligation, its mother’s protection.

 

We who call ourselves “Pro-Life” are completely aporetic about why there is even a question in this.

 

Hell, we’re standing stark, with mouths wide open wondering why none of the GOP’s Presidential hopefuls aren’t one-issue candidates.

There are two strains of religious belief in America -

God, Guns and Guts.

And the other-

Crotch, Government, and Pacifism.

There are 300 million Americans.


Elsewhere in the world there is a strain of religous belief-

Ignorance, Murder and Envy.

There are over 1 billion in this strain.  Their leaders have told the entire world that they intend to conquer and kill or convert every man, woman and child of us.  Extra heavy emphasis on the "kill" part.  This is taught in their schools, spoken in their temples, declared by their politicians, and chanted by their torture and suicide squads.

Exactly which of America's religions do they prefer to be dealing with?

Which of America's religions do they seem to have the most complaints about?

And which of America's religions do they hope will compromise their values the most?

Ok Republicans.  Still planning to vote for the Republican "who-can-win" over someone who actually stands for 90% of the Republican Party Platform?

I've stated before that the problem in conservatism is compromise on the part of the Republican leaders and party members.  It's also a lack of forward thinking.  Nothing truly bold is ever put forth by anyone in the party except by the shunned.  Those who are so naive as to believe in the actual party platform and live with the moral precepts behind each of them.

Perhaps this proposal is forward thinking enough to be entertained by Republicans, and its benefits and ideals high enough to mitigate the fears associated with being bold in the face of the shrill and the wiley-eyed.

I propose that the US should offer statehood to the various states of Mexico, to occur either through seceding from the Mexican Union or by Mexican consent and decree. 

Once agreed, a reasonable waiting period should be established for the purpose of governmental, judicial, educational (English, citizenship, etc.) and financial restructuring before borders are opened and citizenship granted to former-Mexicans.  Importantly, a diligent border containment policy would need to work hand in hand with a census and identification program.  Caution would of course be needed, as no doubt many social tinkerers would take this opportunity to attempt to institute some very un-American ideals.

This would need a very aggressive and expensive cultural and education program that may be characterized as national "shock and awe", to teach would-be citizens how to be Americans.

This would effectively free every Mexican who can make it (and not be rejected for a criminal past) to the new-states from the failed feudal systems of Mexico.  It would also provide the significant momentum needed for America to establish more strict policies for our border enforcement. 

The labor force so desired by American companies would be full to the brim with new red-blooded and happy Americans, helping catapult our economy ahead of so many of our world competitors today such as the EU and China.  This labor force would not be sending their dollars to another country, nor would they be receiving free healthcare and welfare benefits from the American taxpayer.  They would be paying into our unfair tax system just like the rest of us.  They would not remain an underclass of people but have every opportunity to advance and thrive in America.

The fact that Mexicans come to America for its bounty is ignored under the guilt lust of today's anti-Americans.  But the non-aggressive, voluntary nature of this border expansion could be bannered as the epitome of the superiority and desirability of American freedom.

With little need for governmentally established incentives, American companies would flock into the new states and invest dollars like never before, keeping the money at home and establishing new marketing and investing frontiers. 

Our borders would be expanded, our population exploded, resources accessed, people saved and given hope, our economy swelled, our national focus exhilarated, our illegal immigration problem addressed, the government of a corrupt neighbor diminished, and on and on.

Republicans, I know that something of this magnitude requires alot of exposure and backbone.  It would require a fervent coordinated effort and unanimity on the issue.  There would be debates and probably some finger pointing and name calling.  Imperialists and all its various synonyms I'm sure would be used.  Fear of accomplishment might set in.  Significant investment profits are likely to be traced back to you and then you would have to...   uh, uhn.

Does anyone know the website for the Constitution Party Headquarters?