(Hat tip to California Conservative)
Here it is. I am a republican with strong libertarian leanings. I will even dare to speak that in my formative political years Ayn Rand and Rush Limbaugh were influences on me. ( though I also went for now nationally syndicated “The Lionel Show” with a more middle to lefter democrat). But I changed from more or less vaguely groping at my mother and grandfathers more standard union democrat thoughts because I wasn’t politically formed earlier. As a freshman in High School I was even in YD. But here is a real example of why I can’t be part of the Democratic Party as it is today.
And I know some of you are going to say “Code Pink isn’t the Democratic party”. I am going into the two very important reasons you are wrong. FDR transformed the Democratic Party into an alliance of groups, and this was redone in 72 by George McGovern. This is a partnership for them, and they expect something to come along. While a contrived relationship happens with the religious right groups they don’t own the Republican Party. Which is why when their issues come up the party more often then not pats them on the head “Sorry old bean” they say “better luck next time”. The religious right would be more effective if they followed the Ralph Reed Model vs. the Gary Bauer model.
The next reason is look at the laws that come out in San FranFreako. Code pink is entirely likely to be the voice of the bay state democrats. Shared ideology/values and all that…. In a shared mother tongue by both of them in what passes for a political debate these days.
I can often agree with some of the views of social ills in this country and in the world with these folks, but I fundamentally disagree with their way to address the social ills they see. And that’s what strikes me; this is why you are much more likely as a matter of default to see me voting for a republican, a libertarian, or Mickey Mouse then a Democrat. Stuff like this happens, and the folks in power don’t reign it in. they aren’t adult or fully formed in the political debate so they really and truly aren’t meant for adult thought.
“I think every woman has noticed them,” said Suzanne “Sam” Joi, a member of Code Pink, a social justice and anti-war group. “I couldn’t believe BART would allow something like this. Why are they doing this?’‘
And yes, I will be getting into what our new overlords want us to allow in a moment but just let that sit with you.
“They’re calling for the overturn of Roe vs. Wade, which will lead to the slaughter of women,” said Elizabeth Creely of the Bay Area Coalition for Our Reproductive Rights, referring to fears of unsafe, back-alley abortions if the procedure were illegal. “The Catholic Church is very strong here and is working hard to erode reproductive rights.”
Yes we can all see how their policies on homosexuality has influenced San Francisco….. But again, the first one was shocked that this would be allowed. The second voice speaks of promoting fear.
And how have the good folks of the Bay area reacted?
“The defacement has taken to religious epithets, profanity, everything you can think of,” she said. A billboard at the MacArthur station in Oakland was torn to shreds, she said, and mini essays were written on others.
So folks are your palates wetted for what the ads say?
The campaign features two ads, each slickly produced and featuring a blurry photograph of a woman against a turquoise background. One ad, headlined “9 months” in large letters, features nine months of a calendar and reads: “Because of Roe vs. Wade, this is the amount of time the Supreme Court says it’s legal to have an abortion.”
The other contains the message: “The Supreme Court says you can choose: after the heart starts beating, after its arms and legs appear, after all organs are present, after the sex is apparent, after it sucks its thumb, after it responds to sounds, after it could survive outside the womb.”
Both ads conclude with the tagline “Abortion: Have we gone too far?”
Are these ads fully honest… no they are ads. Do these ads have a good point: Certainly they do. Yet the discourse is such that one class of people wants to deny these words speech in the public fora. It’s not a hate speech. It’s not N-Word this, or some other epitaph. This speaks volumes to the beliefs of these people. They say they want to ban hate speech because its harmful, but by their actions we see they want to ban hate speech because –they- find it disagreeable and hateful. They want a European sensibility where the state can restrain the wild and wooly free speech rights of the plebs. Because they don’t agree with this speech, because they feel it is wrong they feel; entitled to deface the property of others, to destroy government property, and to come to the cusp of violence.
Time and time again I see these ideas expressed in such a way that while the idea is wrong, those who believe it show there is a real different reasoning behind WHY they believe it.
This is why I find myself on the “right” end of the poorly thought out American political spectrum. Because the political forces that agree with this foolishness by and large don’t exist there. And those that do are marginal figures, at best.
Whereas in the heart of the mainstream political “left” the scions and lions of the party warmly embraces these folks. And that’s what makes them such a scary thing to me.