Don't Push SB 959 as a Ballot Petition Measure
Sun Tzu, author of "The Art of War" may have some advice for the conservatives in Arkansas.***********************************
The word is out that the Family Council is considering running a ballot initiative to do what the failed SB 959 would have done- protect children from homosexuals gaining state-sponsored access to them through foster parenting or adoption. I will admit when I first heard the idea I cheered. Why not try to repeat the success we had with the marriage amendment? There is a war on traditional morality in this country, and if we don't defend it, we will lose it- with great attendent harm to innocent and guilty alike.
The idea of a petition drive cheered me on an emotional level, but war must not be fought with emotion on the strategic level. On calmer reflection and consideration, I realized that we should devote our energies elsewhere.
(*continued, click THURSDAY below and scroll down for rest of article)
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Thursday, March 29, 2007
26 Comments:
To do this, defenders of civilization in Arkansas would have to gather about 100,000 signatures to make sure we had enough to meet requirements. It would cost us $250,000 according to Jerry Cox of the Family Council. And the courts could throw the thing off the ballot on a whim after all that effort and expense. If not them, then the federal courts someday, if no other branch ever stands up to them. We must think ahead.
No, I see a ballot petition as a very inefficient way to defend civilization from the barbarians who war on the morality that has produced Western Civilization.
After all, SB 959 easily passed the Senate. It likely would have passed the House too, if they had a chance to vote on it. Instead, Governor Mike Beebe conspired with House Speaker Benny Petrus to send the bill to a committee filled with doctrinaire liberals who would kill the bill so that the full house would never get a chance to vote on it.
There is your bottleneck right there. Why launch a statewide effort when your problem is about 15 state representatives that have held the legislature hostage by packing this key committee? $250,000 can fund ten house races, and that does not even count what the potential candidates themselves could fund.
Personel is policy. Get the right people in, and policy will take care of itself. It might even be the impetus for a chance of Speakers.
But there is a catch here. There is one thing that the defenders of civilization are going to have to get past in their head's if a truly effective strategy is going to work- and that is the Republican Party of Arkansas. They cannot use the GOP to promote challengers of the barbarians because most of them are in heavily Democratic areas, albeit conservative Democrat areas.
The GOP has been discredited state-wide anyway, and there is not even a scent on the horizon of a decent candidate for President to boost the ticket in 08. The mainstream media has devoted too much energy to demonziing Republicans, and the leaders of the party nation-wide have made too many real mistakes, to expect voters in that area to listen. I am asking defenders of civilization to think outside the box here, because conditions on the battlefield demand it. The old strategy is not working.
So what does one do then? Field challengers in Democratic primaries? Hardly. That is playing against a stacked deck.
There is only one strategy that can get SB959 and more bills like it into law. There is only one strategy that will also give us legislators willing to confront the courts in their effort to destroy Westen civilization, and that is to run challengers that are not in either of the two dominant parties.
We need to run independents or come up with a "Family and Civilization" party that can oppose the key players. They need to find those candidates and have them start talking now, getting people used to the idea of voting for an independent. In state house races, this will be easier because so many people will personally know or know of the right candidate. Personal knowledge can trump party label- unless it is a label like Repbulican that in many areas of the state has been tarnished. Fair or unfair, that is the reality. Defenders of civilization will either adjust their tactics accordingly or they will lose the war.
SO let'd get to work finding those people and backing them!
Is it too late for SB959? Could Family Council spend the $250,000 on an advertising effort to expose the hold ups?
It's too late for the legislators who are busy patting themselves on the back for stopping SB959. We need to think ahead for long-term results, which is how the liberals keep making progress.
The long-term results come from placing our guys in key areas. This takes time, and the ability to think ahead further than this session, or even the next election.
Or why don't you follow the great Phyllis Schlafly's lead and go ahead and repeal the law that says a husband forcing his wife to have sex is rape. You all seem to follow her lead on everything else. What about this issue?
http://www.sunjournal.com/story/205234-3/LewistonAuburn/Schlafly_cranks_up_agitation_at_Bates/
I agree that we need to think further ahead than the next election- but we need to think to the next election too, and right now. That includes thinking outside the box. It includes backing not just candidates who "can win", but those who will make strategic progress with those wins.
No way. I am as put out with the Republican party as antbody but an independnt does not stand a chance.
The sad fact is that $ is the grease in the political wheel. No money = no candidate. Look at the last election and you can see for yourself.
If you can't raise money you can't win.
Did you notice that I said that the $250,000 that they would have to spend would fund 10 house races? I think that means I am aware that these things take money. Are you aware that money exists outside of the Republican party apparatus?
In these Democratic districts, it will not matter how much money you spend as a Republican- they have been trained for 5 generations not to trust Republicans, and few things the party has done in the last five years will have changed their mind on it. On the other hand, it is dawning on some that the Democratis party is not always right either.
The same man that could win as an independent would lose as a Republican in these districts. This would be the best time for an independent or new party I have seen in my lifetime.
Mark,
I do not disagree with you on the independent party in theory. Nor as a Republican do I completely disagree with your thoughts on my party. My argument is that an indpendant candidate can not raise enough money to compete in the larger races.
Not against Democrats or Republicans. If they could I think you would see more independents.
In the larger races, I concede your point. But I am talking about funding 10-12 state house races with the amount of NONPARTY money that would be dedicated to this ballot petition drive.
You are looking at 30-40 thousand nowadays with mail outs, door hangers and some cable TV.
Can an independent raise that much in a district state rep/senate race?
Why not just run Constitution Party candidates as Democrats? All they would have to do is secretly talk to the liberals and tell them that they are really liberal... then not fill out any surveys and send out mail pieces that are conservative. Wink wink. After all that is what Beebe did.
Sun Tzu said, "All warfare is based on deception."
Most Republicans don't raise that much. And I want you to listen very closely because this is the third time I have said this- my proposal is to take the $250,000 that pro-family people would have given ANYWAY to a group outside the Republican party, the Family Council in this case, and use it to fund 10-12 candidates rather than a ballot petition drive. That brings 10 candidates up to 25K each. Can we find people who can raise 5-15K more on their own? Of course.
I emphasize again for possible cognition that the scenario is to take money that would have been given outside the gop party system and use it to fund independent candidates in areas where the gop has no reasonable chance anyway (a large and growing area of the state). In that scenario the money is already out there. I only propose to use it on one GOP thing rather than another.
And no, the kind of people we need would not make it through a democratic primary. And all warfare may be based on deception, but it is no way to govern.
"And I want you to listen very closely because this is the third time I have said this"
" emphasize again for possible cognition"
Mark we can have a political discourse with out being jerks. I had enjoyed our conversation up to this point.
I am a conservative first and a Republican second and our political philosophy is not that far apart. No need to talk to one another like children.
I apologize. I have been frustrated by people trying to find a way to justify "staying inside the box". I mistook you for one who was "trying not to see". Again, please excuse my tone.
I heard that. And I think it will pass if the voters have a chance to vote on it. This must have the libs scared to death because even they know that their ideas can't win at the ballot box.
No problem Mark. I understand. The blog world is often too confrontational and we loose sight some times of the value of hearing someone else views. Not a big deal. If I had to fight the idiots as much as you do running a blog I would encounter some misunderstandings myself. I am enjoying your blog since the demise of Arkfam. It is the only blog I can find to counter the Times.
I look forward to our discourse in the future.
Tell me what is your political affiliation?
If you read the amplified version of the Bible, when Jesus calls the disciples it does not just read "follow Me". It is more like "come, be My disciple, side with my party, and follow Me".
That is the only political affiliation I have. I recognize that in operational terms I need that affiliation acted out in organizational terms, but I don't see it when I look around- and I have.
Many people who think they have a political home don't. Both the major parties are run by big-money globalists and have either socialist leanings in the dems case or facist ones in the other case.
The Libertarian party does not have a workable philosophy of government so much as a receipe for anarchy. I once had hope that the Constitution Party would be the vehicle, but they have been influenced by the secularists and Mormons (who are closer to New Age than Christian in doctrine) in their affiliates to jettison the idea of "siding with His party". Without a Christ-centered political mission, they are devolving into a small group of hyper-conservative cranks- absolutists, with no basis for absolutes.
We don't even have to talk about the Green Party. They have one good idea that they turn into a terrible idea by taking it to the extreme of a religion. They are simply Libertarians who are facists on the environment.
That is the top five, and there are no other groups out there big enough to even worry about. You are basically starting from scratch after that.
Please explain your comment concerning the fascist policies GOP are pursuing.
Thanks.
I refer to warrantless searches in violation of the Constitution. I refer to warrantless wiretaps and poking around in people's e-mail without probable cause. I refer to a rejection of Congressional or Judicial oversight on actions of the Executive branch. I refer to the "know your customer" regulations that make every insurance agent and banker a spy for the federal government. I refer to the federalization of education and "public/private" partnerships that amount to big government and big business acting in concert against the interests of the average citizen. "Faith based initiatives" that turn churches into hirelings of the government.
That is the short answer.
How about we back up one step and define fascism.
The way I would define fascism is basically the act of consolidating power (i.e. taking the "voice of the people" out of the equation) as a means of advancing a RIGID ideology.
Do you agree with my definition? If not, how would you define it?
I am just going by Webster's dictionary. It says its a philosophy that exalts the nation (also race) at the expense of the individual with a centralized and autocratic government.
I think that with the policies I mentioned above, you can see how the nation gets bigger and the civil liberties and protections of the individual get smaller. The nation has taken a grandiose mission for itself of not just defeating our enemies, but attempting to rebuild them in our image. Also, missions and institutions that were once locally controlled (schools) or private (churches) are brought under the power of the state.
Just looking at it objectively, it is hard to deny that many of the policies of this administration lean fascist.
I think the element that is left out in the dictionary definition is the rigid ideology part (maybe that's what the "exalts the nation" phrase implies). I say that that definition is too broad to be "true fascism." A minimum wage law would fall under that definition would it not?
The Nazi's are a great example of true fascism. For instance they used socialistic (i.e. big government) tactics to advance their rigid ideology of Aryan superiority and paganism (religion of the blood as they called it I believe). So the big government part of the equation had a main purpose, to advance their ideology.
Contrast the Nazi's with a Stalin's government. Both used big government tactics (that were basically identical) but the Stalinist government didn't have the rigid ideology. All government have some ideology, of course, but Stalin's main purpose was to maintain and increase his power/glory.
So what I'm saying is that big government tactics should only be termed fascist if linked to a rigid ideology. Unfortunately, with our President, we get big government (bad) and no consistent ideology (certainly not rigid). So I submit that the big government examples you cite above were an attempt to accomplish specific things (fighting terrorism, for example), but were not fascist by themselves.
Let's take George Bush's "faith based initiative" as it was termed. The President said that the federal government should not discriminate against religious institutions in determining where to hand out grant money (for charitable purposes). As a Christian, that part made sense to me. Then as I thought about it more I decided that we didn't want the government involved because with the money would come strings (such as you can't "discriminate" against alternative lifestyles, etc.) So on that one I say it's just an unprincipled politician trying to appeal to part of his base using the power of the government (not because of a rigid ideology, therefore not fascist).
Another great example of true fascism are the Islamofascists. They attempt to use the government (such as what is going on in MN currently with the taxi drivers) to advance their super rigid ideology. Sharia law is a prime example of true fascism (both elements are present).
The democrat party on the other hand are beholden to a rigid ideology, paganism/secularism. They use big government to advance their rigid ideology. Therefore, I submit to you that the democrats are the true fascists in this nation. They have both elements. The republicans have a lot of unprincipled politicians but are not fascists by definition.
"I think the element that is left out in the dictionary definition..."
I think you are on a difficult journey. One that many are not willing to take, and I do respect that. If you wish to continue on that journey, I believe the destination is worth it, but you must take that next painful step. Words mean things. I don't think each individual can tell us that the dictionary definition is incomplete because there is something they feel should be added. That gives every individual the power to re-define words, which is chaos.
The definition is what it is, the parts about national power and sense of mission at the expense of the individual and centralized control add up to a "rigid philosophy". Are you sure you are not just trying to avoid the conclusion that President Bush does have facist tendencies?
When I say that, I want you to know that it is possible to be very conservative, yet not have one bit of facist tendencies. Have you heard the "beyond left and right" audio? It talks about how to analyze candidates two-dimensionally instead of on the left-right axis only.
Mark,
Words definitely mean things. But some words have more clear cut meanings than others. For instance when one says that my shirt is red (and it is) there can be no debate. Other words are more subjective. Take the word "humorous." What is humorous to one person may or may not be humorous to another. So if I say something is humorous does that mean that it is? Maybe, maybe not.
The word fascist (like the word humorous) is not clear cut. We have to go beyond a simple dictionary (15 words or less) definition to derive the meaning to this word.
Furthermore, the dictionary is NOT the supreme impeccable source for definitions that you suppose. Unfortunately even our dictionaries have been influenced by political correctness. For instance, the original Webster's Dictionary volumes were dedicated to Jesus Christ (I can't remember the exact wording but I've read it). Later (long after Webster died) this dedication was removed from the Webster's Dictionary (wouldn't want to offend anyone). The reason I point that out is that our dictionaries (like our history) have been tweaked and revised over the decades to now comply with the latest true FASCIST craze, political correctness. To be clear I'm saying that our dictionaries are like every other element in our society in that they are influenced by politics.
Let me give you a PRIME example of dictionary PC.
Sir William Blackstone's commentaries on the law (source authority of many of our founders) contained the following definition of "law."
"a rule of conduct backed by governmental authority commanding what is right and forbidding what is wrong"
The modern Black's Law Dictionary defines law as:
"a rule of conduct backed by governmental force."
Notice anything different? Where is the right and wrong part of the definition?
You see, dictionary definitions must be taken with a grain of salt.
"Are you sure you are not just trying to avoid the conclusion that President Bush does have facist tendencies?"
The fascist tendency he has is that he thinks the government is the answer to too many problems (which applies to both democrats and republicans in Washington - why do you leave democrats out of the fascist equation?). But without a rigid coherent ideology, this misguided belief is not fascism.
Now that's interesting. I might want to use that for an example in a larger work I have in mind.
If you can get to where you have broadband and can listen to an AV file, I think this might show you why I am leaving the Dems out, it is the "Beyond Left and Right" thing I was telling you about. Dems are SOCIALIST statists, and Bush is a FASCIST statists. You have statists from both the left and the right, and Freedom lovers on both the left and the right.
http://christianconstitutionalsociety.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=34&sid=e8ae4fa5f6433821c6663f3df49625a3
stick that in a browser, then click the link.
Mark,
I listened to the link you provided. It was very interesting. It'll take awhile to digest.
One thing that came to mind while listening was that true Christianity will NEVER result in fascism. Even though Christians seek to be a light to the world (or at least we should) we do not (and should not) force our views on others (to do so would violate biblical precepts). We should only seek to persuade with meekness and humility. Therefore, if we follow the precepts of the bible we will inevitably end up in the upper right portion of the chart.
One founder (I don't remember who it was) stated that the characteristics that make one a good Christian also make him a good citizen.
I've enjoyed this discussion with you.
Steven Fowler
Post a Comment
<< Home