-
Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant
May 24, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats
May 24, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds
May 23, 2013 | 3 comments
-
I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel
May 23, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Issa Recovers
May 22, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I well understand that the title of my article today, Amnesty Versus Bigotry, might be read to imply that I think those who oppose amnesty are bigots. I want to make it clear: that is absolutely not the case. I understand that the arguments against almost any path toward legalization of the current population of illegal immigrants are based on real, important matters including the rule of law, economic impact, and moral hazard for the future.
I am not denigrating those who steadfastly support anything that has even the slightest whiff of “amnesty” about it.
I believe that legislation that allows some sort of eventual path toward legal status, and eventually (but hopefully not too soon) citizenship for most current illegals is inevitable. It can either happen with Republican participation (and therefore get a tolerable, if not optimal, outcome) or without it, in which case we get the immigration equivalent of Obamacare.
My point is not that Republicans/conservatives are bigots. It is that the party’s positions on immigration and gay marriage make it all too easy to portray the GOP that way. And while I don’t consider myself conservative, and I recently dropped my Republican Party registration and became unaffiliated, the GOP is the nation’s only real hope at this point. Unfortunately, the GOP knows neither how to market their brand nor really what their brand is.
This morning, I received a long comment to my article. The gentleman, whom I will not name, was not happy with me. I would like to share it, along with my response, with you:
Mr. Kaminsky:I have been informed and enjoyed your previous columns. Your latest shows me you care not one bit about this country.As a German immigrant, who became a citizen on my 18th birthday and spent 3 years in the military - including combat duty in Vietnam -, I found your column very deceitful and traitorous.America has a unique culture and identity and you propose to destroy that culture and identity with people who have no respect for our laws and our traditions.We are already bankrupt as a nation and you want to legalize another unskilled 40-60 million people who will receive welfare. (The 10-15 million illegals and the other 30-40 million relatives who will be allowed into this country for purposes of ‘family reunification’.)Worst of all, you propse turning this nation into a place of men instead of laws and a ‘thurd world’ country.It is not bigotry to believe in the rule of law.It is not bigotry to believe that we have a right to our own culture and traditions.It is not bigotry to believe that I should not have to pay welfare to criminal foreigners.It is not bigotry to believe that we should keep America as a large majority white European, Judeo-Christian country.It is not bigotry to believe we should follow the Constitution.It is not bigotry to believe that Americans, not illegal criminal invaders, have the authority and right to determine who enters this country. (You seem to have a problem with that.Finally, I have come to the conclusion it would be far better to split the country. No doubt you will join the Liberal Fascist anti-America side.America has three enemies:1) Islam2) Liberalism3) The business elites who have no allegiance to any country. You are in that group.(Name signed here.)
And here’s my response:
Mr. ******,
You very much misunderstand me.
I do not want millions more on welfare. In fact, I would rather see most of the illegals leave than stay under any circumstance. But we have to live in reality; they’re not leaving.
I do not propose to destroy the culture. I believe that a good understanding of American history, the Constitution, and some real level of proficiency in English should be required of any citizen. I believe that the balkanization of the country, esp. with people not speaking English, is a big problem.
I would not increase the use of family visas unless the family can prove that they won’t need welfare, and unless states can refuse them welfare.
I want to enforce the borders as well as other immigration-related laws, but still we have the policy problem of the people who are here already and the political problem of the damage this issue is doing to the only major political party that does love and respect what this nation stands for.
In your “It is not bigotry…” list, I am for every proposition you suggest except that I don’t see how it’s possible to ensure forever that we are a majority of a particular color or even religious background, though the former is clearly more at risk than the latter.
As for me personally, I’m hardly “business elite.” I work for myself, don’t make a lot of money, etc. My parents were both officers in the US Navy, I lived on and around military bases, and I am extremely patriotic and think that the Constitution and Declaration are the most important political documents in the history of mankind and should be respected and honored.
My primary point in the article was a political one: A combination of issues is being spun by opponents of the Republican Party to make the GOP look like bigots. It’s working. It’s killing the GOP. Now you have to decide whether you want to be absolutely pure to everything you consider a principle and proceed to lose every election and have a government which destroys every principle you believe in, or whether you are willing to give up a little around the edges (but only a little, hopefully) and have a chance at winning elections and returning this country toward respect for our Founding documents and principles.
In my experience, some things that people think about as political “principles” are better thought of as goals, in the sense that some things are worth refusing to compromise on, but other things can be compromised on without selling your soul. I do not claim to be the arbiter of where the line is drawn other than for myself. I simply suggest you ask yourself where those lines are for you, and the varying implications in both policy and politics based on where they are drawn.
Thank you for your patriotism and your service to our great nation.
RGK
View all comments (89) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky
http://spectator.org/blog/2013/02/01/bigotry-perception-versus-real
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Teflon93 | 2.1.13 @ 10:45AM
Kaminsky believes all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.1.13 @ 3:39PM
I stopped reading his essays a while back when he said he supported gay marriage.
Teflon93 | 2.2.13 @ 7:59AM
What's the over/under on when he goes full Frum?
Sjccoach| 2.1.13 @ 10:59AM
He admits he is a CINO. Make the Republican party the Democrat party and he will be happy. This man stands for nothing except the further destruction of the country.
Ross Kaminsky| 2.1.13 @ 11:20AM
To be anything INO, it would mean one claims to be that thing...
I never claimed to be a conservative. And now I don't claim to be a Republican.
But for the record, I despise the Democratic Party and have never ever ever voted for a Democrat.
Jack in Wi| 2.1.13 @ 11:44AM
The Democrats alienated their old base, southern whites, white ethnics, and the white Middle class. The Republicans used to get huge majorities in NewEngland and in some other northern states and among blacks. Voting patterns change based on many reasons. 40% of the country calls themselves conservative. The Republicans should have won an easy election but ran a terrible campaign, about nothing, with worthless, candidates. Even then they came close. Stick to true principles and we will win again. the Democrats are running the country over the cliff. There is no reason for conservatives to help them. We need to be a real opposition party. If not the Republicans, then someone else.
Sjccoach| 2.1.13 @ 12:37PM
Methinks thou dost protest too much,
Sjccoach| 2.1.13 @ 12:37PM
Methinks thou dost protest too much,
Teflon93 | 2.1.13 @ 11:28AM
If we allow an unrestricted flow of socialists from south of the border to flood our country---and collapse its institutions and culture, as they've already done in places like California---destruction of the country is what we shall have.
Once you set foot on such a path, you'd better become a Democrat, as that will be the only chance you'll have of your family surviving the new regime. One party politics will be the order of the day, as it is through most of Latin America.
The RINO cowards like Kaminski who shout bigotry in chorus whenever a liberal points his "J'Accuse!" finger are simply welcoming our new illegal alien overlords.
How's about we do something novel instead and simply insist the laws on the books are enforced regardless of race, national origin, etc?
Bob K| 2.1.13 @ 11:13AM
Way to parse, Ross!
Way to parse!
Rah! Rah! Rah!
Holgrave | 2.1.13 @ 11:29AM
One problem with the Republican party today is that it inherited the nativist constituency who used to vote for porkbarrel Dixiecrats. These were the ideological brothers of the Democratic politicians who used ethnic identity to divide and conquer the urban electorate in the North.
These days, said constituency is more conservative than not. They're culturally and economically conservative; only the "us vs. them" mentality persists, which conflicts with the classical liberal/Christian roots of standard American conservatism.
Teflon93 | 2.2.13 @ 8:01AM
Nonsense on stilts. Who do you think the "Blue Dog Democrats" were?
But glad to see you believe the Democrat party has no problems, such that you wish Republicans to become Democrats and afford no alternative whatsoever to the statists turning America into Austria-Hungary.
JD| 2.1.13 @ 12:36PM
I agree with a lot of what Ross says.
I disagree with the notion that the Leftist lie about "bigotry" will be fought in any way by embracing Rubio's proposal.
I disagree with Ross's idea that one can be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative (understanding that the definition of "social conservative" is very different from the left-wing lie version). I think Ross's idea on that front reflects the Leftist misunderstanding of what money is, where they think it's this abstract thing unrelated to non-financial aspects of life.
In the larger sense, I disagree that one can pick and choose parts of conservatism to support, leaving others out, without believing in contradictions whose exposure discredits you altogether.
But then, Ross claims to not be "conservative". While I too appreciate that virtually every label in existence is tainted, I now wonder how Ross DOES identify himself.
Teflon93 | 2.2.13 @ 8:02AM
"Realist", probably, but "apparatchik" would be more honest.
JD| 2.1.13 @ 12:43PM
Ross says that amnesty is inevitable, so we should either work to sway it in a more conservative way or let Democrats do it their way.
There is truth to that, but there are also other truths to consider. Mainly, that if any Republicans support this idea, which will do more harm than good, it will allow the Democrats to claim that it is "bipartisan". It will allow Democrats to blame Republicans for all negative consequences. It will allow Democrats to call any conservative who opposes any aspect of future illegal immigration a "hypocrite".
We know from experience how these deals with the devil go. I don't believe that this one would go any better. As Ross himself said in his article, no racial bloc is particularly swayed by positions on immigration. It's the lie about "bigotry" that matters. Nothing here will improve that situation.
What is the benefit, again?
Until the border is secured and we have a robust system of identifying citizens for purposes of voting and receiving government services (with non-citizens getting none of either), we shouldn't stand for conversation about allowing illegals to pay for their crime and be legalized.
Quartermaster| 2.1.13 @ 1:27PM
Mr. Kamisky, the article title presents teh fallacy of teh false choice in this matter. It is not our fault that the Progtards hate teh rule of law, but there it is. Rubio's amesty is nothing but amnesty, no matter what weasel words he couches it in. The left can not be trusted to bargain in good faith, and that's why we're in teh boat we are in now with illegal immigrants. The rule of law is what all this is about, with other issues such as culture and institutions thrown in. Rubio is simply a squishling Quisling. As far as I'm concerned he has no future in the GOP beyond what he is now. I expect this kind of trash from McNasty McAmnesty, but Rubio was advertised as being something other than Crist. It's clear he's "growing" as he is increasingly co-opted by the establishment.
Teflon93 | 2.2.13 @ 8:02AM
Oh no, QM, THIS time the border will be secured first.
This time for sure....
Fiscal| 2.1.13 @ 1:30PM
Let's get this clear... Someone who wants this country to be a white, Christian country is a bigot who does not believe in freedom and religious liberty. And the statement that you can't be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative is simply a lie. You can't be a fiscal conservative and believe that the defense budget should not be cut. You can't be a fiscal conservative and want to spend money on enforcement against things like abortion and homosexuality. You can't be a fiscal conservative and be willing to spend government money to keep Grandma alive. You certainly can't be a fiscal conservative if you are a Democrat. You also cannot be a fiscal conservative if you are too stupid to know that tax cuts do not stimulate our economy and government spending does stimulate the economy. The only problem with the latter is that it doesn't stimulate the economy enough to pay for all of the pork we have so it must be spent effectively (which neither Democrats or Republicans can seem to do).
I too served proudly in Vietnam and volunteered for that duty because I believe in this country (I was not drafted and could have received a deferment). I'm still proud of my service and of the medals I received. But I want a country where the liberty I fought for is maintained for everyone including for people who want abortions and gays. Liberty cannot be for some and not others.
JD| 2.1.13 @ 1:39PM
You prove my point - that liars misdefine words and concepts. For example, you KNOW, as you cannot not know, that those who oppose abortion believe in the personhood of the unborn, yet you say that liberty must include abortion. How can "liberty" allow a person to be slaughtered by others?
I do not want to require people to be white or Christian, unlike the person Ross cited.
I do, however, understand that "religious liberty" is a lie. While people should be free to have ideas and to speak them, acting upon can never truly be "free", for it will clash with peoples' rights. The obvious example is the fundamentalist Muslim's belief that infidels must die. We cannot give him the freedom to practice his religion.
The separation of classes of ideas into groups labeled "religion" and "non-religion" is an artificial lie intended to facilitate discrimination against classes of ideas. All ideas must sink or swim on merit alone, and not all ideas have the merit to be compatible with a free society.
Fiscal| 2.1.13 @ 2:05PM
Then it is a lie to call yourself "pro-life" while supporting the collateral damage of war. You are really anti-abortion. A fetus is not a person according to law. You believe that because of your religion. Again, your "definition" of personhood is simply another lie.
Fundamentalist Muslims believe that infidels must die and you believe that abortion doctors must die. The bible says you shouldn't eat pork, and you probably do eat bacon. When I trample on you SPECIFICALLY, then I am limiting your liberty. When you say I can't have an abortion, you are trampling on me and my beliefs. The child being aborted is NOT yours.
I agree that all ideas must be decided non merit -- not on religious belief systems. You have control over your life -- I don't want you to have control over mine.
JD| 2.1.13 @ 2:16PM
I do not believe that abortion doctors must die. That is a lie.
I do not blindly support war. I support some wars where I believe that the cost of fighting is less than the cost of not fighting. In this I support the most life possible.
Law has never defined the personhood of the unborn. If you were familiar with the majority opinion in Roe vs Wade, you'd know that it stated that the law made no definition and the court felt unqualified to make such a definition itself. The ruling was that in the absence of a definition, the court would allow abortions. The majority opinion actually stated that if it were to be legally/scientifically established that personhood began before birth, the killing of such people would be illegal.
Even if the law did contain a definition, it could be wrong.
My belief in the personhood of the unborn is grounded in facts and logic. I only just spoke about the dishonesty of arbitrarily grouping beliefs and labeling them "religion" in order to dismiss them without countering them, and then you did exactly that. Between that and your other lies about my positions, you are proving yourself to be a very dishonest person.
I am willing to discuss the personhood issue in good faith, but I do not believe that you are.
Simon Templar| 2.1.13 @ 2:20PM
"A fetus is not a person according to law."
That is a falsehood, the supreme court NEVER stated that or any other law.
Your definition of personhood is not any more truthful or false then his, religious or not religious.
The child being aborted? You kill children? You believe that children are property and have no right to life? I though it was a fetus and not a human being? Your own words betray you.
I believe that I should have a right to kill as many Liberals and fiscal conservatives as I would like. You are trampling on my rights by restricting me.
I believe this not from a religious point of view, but purely from a secular and personal view. And I could make a good case that it has merit.
Your logic regarding your rights to abort a human being are ridiculous and insanely stupid.
JD| 2.1.13 @ 4:33PM
There's a point here that needs stating:
Whether the unborn have personhood is not a subjective idea. It is an objective truth. We may disagree as to what that truth is, but that is a challenge of understanding. In no way is this a matter of opinion.
Teflon93 | 2.2.13 @ 8:03AM
How is someone who wants this country to be brown and atheist not a bigot?
Simon Templar| 2.1.13 @ 1:45PM
Let's see now, abortion, gays, border security, invasions, do you have anything else of which we are not allowed to have an opinion or a position. Perhaps, you should just give us a list and be done with it and we can get on board.
Once again, you are at your typical. Once again, I am confronting you about it.
What you continually miss is the two critical facts here. One, a vast majority of Americans are actually in the conservative camp on the culture rot. State after state people have voted to strike down gay marriage, for example. Pro life is growing by leaps and bounds in the twenty something demographic. The second is that it is not Republicans or The GOP that is portraying themselves in any way, it IS the Progressives and their state run media that is portraying false portrayals of the GOP and conservative position on all these issues. Just as they do on your beloved issues such as taxes, spending, budgets, debt ceilings, health care, contraception, and government regulation. YOU just do not get it and NEVER will.
Simon Templar| 2.1.13 @ 1:53PM
Shall we change our positions on those as well and deny ourselves a position on these issues?
I will say it again the issue is not these issues it is a liberal controlled media, educational system, and entertainment industry.If you lose the culture you lose it all. concept you apparently will never grasp. The Left laughs it ass off when it sees articles like yours and shout the stupid party with glee. Now, it is the Military, the Scouts, and Sports.
We do not lose on these issues. That is a lie you keep promoting and frankly am sick of hearing it.
People vote with their wallets. This is why the Dems spent so much effort convincing the public that the economic crisis was create by republicans, that they are associated with he Rich, big business ,that they hate unions, and that the Dems are the only ones who care.
Simon Templar| 2.1.13 @ 1:59PM
What you are proposing is that conservatives do not have a right to take a position on their nation's culture, and that this is the sole purvey of the Left who has the unquestionable and unlimited authority to define it, define all morality, and set government laws that support their world views.
JD| 2.1.13 @ 2:07PM
The narrow-mindedness of the Leftist does not allow him to understand that he denies to others the "rights" he seizes for himself.
Fiscal| 2.1.13 @ 2:16PM
And what "right" is that? How does the right to marry someone you love deny ANY of your rights. It doesn't.
JD| 2.1.13 @ 3:31PM
Straw man. The gay agenda does not nearly stop there. By a multitude of examples, we see how they go further.
But even if this were the limit, it is not fair to the rest of us that two men who publicly profess to be boning each other get a tax break for doing so. All tax breaks are flows of wealth from those not receiving to those receiving, and "married filing jointly" is a tax break.
Fiscal| 2.1.13 @ 2:13PM
You can certainly take a position on culture, just don't force your culture on me. Convince me in the court of public opinion -- not with government action. The government is too large, both fiscally AND socially. And by the way, you are behind the time with your facts -- gay marriage is now favored by a majority of Americans and you find more lies and misstatements on Fox News than all of the other outlets combined.
While I don't agree with the bias of CNN and MSNBC, at least they keep the facts straight. The lack of objective and analytical people on any "news" network is overwhelming.
JD| 2.1.13 @ 2:22PM
"You can certainly take a position on culture, just don't force your culture on me. "
Perfectly stated. Too bad you're too small-minded to understand that you live contrary to it.
As for CNN and MSNBC, the volume of the blatant lies they tell is rivaled only by the volume of the facts they omit.
No one has said that the majority of America is not now pro-gay. It is true. After a decade plus of unrelentingly positive portrayal of gays in the media and entertainment industry, the public has been thoroughly brow-beaten. I await the day when the first gay character in a TV show will be anything but a paragon of goodness and sympathy, let alone the villain.
On other issues, such as abortion, you are in the minority.
Fiscal| 2.1.13 @ 2:29PM
Please explain how I am forcing my culture on you, specifically. Your argument is intellectually dishonest at best.
I watch all of the networks, including Fox, and actually check the facts. It's too bad you don't do the same so we could have a real discussion here.
And why shouldn't gays be portrayed positively? Just be cause you think it is wrong? Even the regular Fox network portrays gays positively because that's what their young audience wants. It's not about ideology -- it's about ratings.
Regarding abortion, you are actually wrong. The majority of people in most objective polling support the right to abortion with some limitations (as do I, by the way). When you call for women who are raped to go through with the pregnancy, YOU are in the minority.
JD| 2.1.13 @ 2:35PM
Supporting abortion "with exceptions" is less defensible than either "extreme". It is indeed the current majority opinion in America, but you should be clear - the actual position is "opposing abortion except in cases of rape or incest." In other words, opposing 99% of abortions.
What makes this position absurd is that the only argument against abortion is the personhood of the unborn. If one doesn't believe this argument, how could one oppose any abortion? But if one does believe this argument, how could one support any abortion?
Such a position suggests that we should be allowed to kill other persons if their existence causes us pain beyond some threshold. This is a terrible thought. And why should it be restricted to the unborn, then? Women who drown their toddlers may suffer the same feelings. What if a woman decides to have a rape baby, but then the child (doubtless inheriting traits of his father) behaves badly, reminding her of his father? Slit his wrists?
This self-contradicting position reminds me of the politicians who say "I believe there are many paths to heaven" in an attempt to garner support from many religions, when in fact what they propose is blasphemy to ALL religions and also cheeses off the atheists who hate kowtowing to "religions".
Simon Templar| 2.1.13 @ 2:25PM
Yes, you are correct, stop passing laws that support gay marriage and change its definition. Create your own ceremony and institution, and do not use our government to create special rights, privileges, and cart blanche power to redefine our institutions and the meaning and purpose of them.
Simon Templar| 2.1.13 @ 2:29PM
Yes, Stop forcing your false perverse culture on the rest of us, the majority, via your thought police, political correctness, intimidation, insistence on making people accept it and celebrate it, use of our schools to indoctrinate it, and government enforcement of special rights surrounding your perversity and world view.
Fiscal| 2.1.13 @ 2:30PM
Also stop passing laws that supports "traditional" marriage, and I'll agree.
Simon Templar| 2.1.13 @ 2:44PM
Get rid of all of them and stop your support of them.
Simon Templar| 2.1.13 @ 2:49PM
gay marriage is now favored by a majority of Americans....
Oh yes, an MSNBC poll? That is horseshit. If that were the case California would not have struck your efforts down. You lie like a liberal. You distort your opponents positions. You make claims that can not be backed up. You make arguments that are illogical. You attempt to put words in people's mouth and misrepresent their positions. Like a liberal, you start with a false premise and spin from there.
JD| 2.1.13 @ 3:29PM
While MSNBC and CNN polls show results that skew left of other polls, it is still true that the majority of Americans today supports gay marriage. There has been substantial change just in the last few years.
We know well how years of media bias can affect the public.
RCV| 2.1.13 @ 7:47PM
Many on the right, including Mr. Templar, always refuse to believe any poll that does not support their views. That's why they were "shocked" that President Obama was reelected by a comfortable margin, even though the polls were consistent with the results.
Public perceptions on gay marriage have been radically changing and fast, as all polls confirm. That's why gay marriage has won the last battles at the polls and will likely to continue to win more victories at the polls.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.1.13 @ 7:56PM
And should "public perceptions" change to allow man-horse marriages, or man-child marriages, will you be shocked?
RCV| 2.2.13 @ 12:27PM
Yes.
Simon Templar| 2.2.13 @ 10:59AM
You have just demonstrate another characteristic of a liberal. Selective listening.
I do not believe in any polls. This is why I did not quote any as I could have that support the opposite. This is why I referred to failed legislative efforts and other indicators. Given the last election that should even be clear to an idiot like yourself. The polls were not consistent. Every polled indicator from winning independents, favorability, dissatisfaction and others indicated a Romney win. This is why "we" were shocked. I was not shocked as I predicted he would not win, the GOP would force a moderate to be nominated, and that all they care about was their reelections, congressional appointments, etc. 9 months before the election.
He was not elected by a comfortable margin , he won by a small one. There you go again talking like a liberal.
Furthermore, considering the unreliability and corruption of MSM polls, I would not be basing public policy on perceive shifting winds. Not a logical or sound approach but rather a typical liberal one.
JD| 2.1.13 @ 1:48PM
To be a person like me, whatever term we use for that anymore (conservative?), is to believe that government's purpose to protect rights. Nothing more.
You must understand what a "right" is to understand this definition. A right is something that a person has by nature. It must not be "provided", only "protected". It cannot be passively violated; only actively violated.
The implications of this definition are vast.
There can be no right to be given value of any kind, as in social welfare or government-provided education, for these would have to be provided, not merely protected. Any entitlement to receive something for nothing requires another person to give something for nothing, which is slavery. I know that's Randian bluntness, but it's still true.
But if one has something, be it life, liberty, or property rightfully earned, the government should protect it. These things can only be lost to a person if he willfully surrenders them or trades them. If they are taken from him against his will, his rights are violated; government exists to prevent this.
Taxation should fund only the defense of rights, and is justified for this purpose just as paying one's utility bill is justified. But as with a utility bill, the charges must clearly align with services rendered. Redistribution through the tax code is immoral.
JD| 2.1.13 @ 1:58PM
If one understands this, and one understands what money is - a measure of value and a medium of exchange - then one understands that there is no "fiscal conservative" or "social conservative". There is only "conservative".
Rights are rights; there is no distinction between "fiscal" and "social" because all that has value can be measured in terms of the measure of value - money. The right to not have property stolen is the same as the right to not be killed, assaulted, raped, or held against your will, because life, dignity, and freedom have value just as physical possessions have value.
JD| 2.1.13 @ 2:02PM
Now, as I originally said, the Left distorts this by distorting the definition of "social conservative". Even though the Left knows that all abortion opponents believe in the personhood of the unborn, the Left dishonestly chooses to argue that abortion opposition is about spending taxpayer resources to oppress women. The Leftist never engages on the subject of the personhood of the unborn, because in addition to knowing that he cannot win on that point, he also knows that to even admit that this is the issue is to surrender the lie that "social conservatism" is about government control and oppression (which are definitionally left-wing concepts).
JD| 2.1.13 @ 2:05PM
On homosexuality, the Leftist claims that he merely supports "freedom and equality" despite the fact that no one is arguing for a ban on homosexuality or restrictions on the actions of homosexuals. Seizing on the Leftist government intervention known as "government-recognized marriage", by which tax privileges and legal arrangements are conferred by government, the Leftist argues that the privilege must be expanded. He also argues that disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle must be restricted as a "hate crime", and that all are uncomfortable with the lifestyle must be blackballed both socially and by means of government. Finally, in the name of "tolerance", he wants government to actively promote the homosexual lifestyle, particularly to children in public schools.
As is almost always the case, the word "tolerance" is only invoked in the name of intolerance.
A true conservative understands that there should be no "married filing jointly" tax benefit because the tax code shouldn't contain such concepts; we should all pay for government's protection of our rights and nothing more. As for inheritance and power of attorney, these should be simple to arrange (because government shouldn't be nearly so complex), and the arrangement of these things shouldn't require any formal government recognition of a social arrangement. Marriage, like all social arrangements, should not involve government.
Simon Templar| 2.1.13 @ 2:09PM
He is not listening and he will never understand your well reasoned position and argument.
Fiscal| 2.1.13 @ 2:23PM
Actually, JD, I agree with much of your statement. Marriage should not involve government. Therefore, you should not try to ban certain types of marriage through government action of have DOMA type laws.
Government should also NOT promote any cultural activity whether it is traditional marriage or gay marriage or any lifestyle. That is NOT the purpose of limited government. It seems that most of you want the government to intervene in cultural matters as long as it agrees with you. You can't have it both ways and be intellectually honest.
JD| 2.1.13 @ 2:29PM
I do not want government to intervene in cultural matters. The problem is that you misdefine what is a "cultural matter".
Expanding government interventions, social endorsements, and preferences is something I will oppose at every turn. Expanding the social endorsement known as "government-recognized marriage" is an example. I want it reduced, not expanded, so I don't support "gay marriage".
Furthermore, I find the gay agenda's tactic of suggesting that "if one is 'born that way', one's actions are beyond criticism" to be extremely dangerous. This is pretty much the solve talking point of the gay agenda. That fact is enough to make me hate this agenda regardless of my opinion of the lifestyle.
People being responsible for their actions is essential to freedom. All actions are a function of nature and nurture. We can find genetic predispositions to violence, laziness, substance abuse, ignorance, and all manner of other behaviors (both good and bad). But you're still at fault if you punch someone, rape someone, or are too lazy to fulfill your obligations.
Being "born that way" is not an excuse for ANY behavior.
Fiscal| 2.1.13 @ 2:36PM
If you are intellectually honest, then you would want ANY government definition of "marriage" to be eliminated. You simply are using this rationalization to support your religious beliefs. C'mon -- be honest at least.
There is nothing wrong with homosexual behavior unless you try and force me -- PERSONALLY -- to adopt that behavior. As long as I have a choice, that's freedom.
Again, your objection to homosexual behavior is based on your religious beliefs just like Muslims believe that all of us should change to Islam. I find no difference in that aspect.
JD| 2.1.13 @ 3:19PM
I do want any government endorsement of marriage eliminated. I am being honest.
Imposing yourself on others does not require forcing them to adopt your behavior. It can simply be forcing them to "accept" your behavior. Or banning criticism. Or government-mandated promotion using public funds in public schools.
Again, you use the word "religion" as the Left always uses it - to say "your belief is dismissed without being addressed." To your analogy about Muslims I add the following: The belief that we should all abandon incandescent light bulbs, drinks over 16 oz, and fossil fuels. There are many others.
These ideas must be supported by facts and logic, and opposition to them must also include facts and logic. Restricting that process by decree is wrong.
Simon Templar| 2.1.13 @ 2:40PM
" Therefore, you should not try to ban certain types of marriage through government action of have DOMA type laws."
You should not create laws promoting it either, or change current institutions and laws to promote it.
Yeas, that is not the purpose of limited government. So, stop using the government to enforce your world view and your so-called values. You are the one who wants it both ways, not us. Intellectually honest, LOL.
You and Ross have more in common then you or Ross will ever know.
Teflon93 | 2.2.13 @ 8:06AM
Oh no, JD---we should instead celebrate our shackles and thank Master for not having made them heavier.
The trouble with importing unfree men is that there are so few free men left in America it ensures the growth of tyranny unimpeded through the ballot box---which is precisely why the Ruling Class wants it.
How else for example would the Constitutional requirements to repeal the hated 2nd amendment be met? How else to do away with the Constitution altogether than to create a citizenry utterly alien to it?
Simon Templar| 2.1.13 @ 2:07PM
By the way, I have confronted you about your article titles before which continue to be supposedly misinterpreted. You did this on purpose and it is represents exactly what you think. You need to write for Reason magazine and take a hike. You are not a conservative or Republican, according to your own words. So, why do you present articles here? You are our resident TAS staff troll.
JD| 2.1.13 @ 2:17PM
Ross is a rare person who I disagree with on some issues who will yet have an honest discussion about them. He's the last person I want to leave.
Simon Templar| 2.1.13 @ 2:35PM
And he is my first because he does more damage than good.
Simon Templar| 2.1.13 @ 2:35PM
He is not honest.
Ross Kaminsky| 2.1.13 @ 6:39PM
Show me one time where I have not been honest. You may think I've been wrong, but calling me dishonest is something very different. I trust you are ready to back up such a statement with evidence.
aware| 2.2.13 @ 8:45AM
How about right now. Your title said it all, if you oppose law breakers getting amnesty you are a bigot. But now you are trying to back track.
Simon Templar| 2.2.13 @ 11:05AM
You nailed him! Bullseye.
Ross Kaminsky| 2.2.13 @ 2:12PM
That is not what the title means, but you are free to interpret it as you please.
For the record, Simon, of the several titles you have criticized me about, this was the only one that I created myself. The others were put on by editors.
aware| 2.2.13 @ 3:25PM
Suppose we see this title on a LaRaza banner at the next immigration protest? Would the meaning be clearer? You are still backtracking and doing a lousy job.
If you want to be for open borders then just say so. There's nothing wrong with holding that position, but to paint a picture of "reasoned moderation" in the form of Rubio(a Statist) opposing a bunch of fanatic bigots and xenophobes is veiled manipulation.
Worse, you show a remarkable ignorance of how this long running spectacle is played.
In this episode the script reads: The hated Obama plans something so awful on immigration that "conservative" hopeful Senator puts forth a "reasonable" plan that even jellyfish can stand up for. And you get something about 3/4s of what you had with Obama.
Said Senator goes on to presidential bid for being a good little minion of the Establishment and is touted the "New Ronald Reagan" by Jefflord and the rest of Conservative, Inc.
Come on, man! It's as plain to see as ZIRP and digitized money driving money into stocks so the rug can be pulled.
RCV| 2.2.13 @ 12:31PM
I have disagreed with Mr. Kaminsky on many, perhaps most issues. But his integrity I have never doubted. To call him dishonest is a flat out lie.
Pecos Pete| 2.1.13 @ 2:13PM
Control the borders first ... then we talk. Enforce current laws first ... then we talk. Otherwise, the current discussion is a sham.
Look, Ross, the feds and some states/cities don't enforce current law. What makes you, or anybody else for that matter, believe that they will enforce a new law?
Fiscal| 2.1.13 @ 2:19PM
Unfortunately, for every law you pass, you must also fund enforcement. Laws are not enforced primarily because law enforcement doesn't have the budget to do it properly. You can't call for enforcement of current gun laws, for example, and at the same time defund the ATF. It is not the law that is the problem, it is the funding.
JD| 2.1.13 @ 2:24PM
How can you possibly make such a statement? Your party believes in reducing funding of defense and law enforcement in order to spend more on social welfare.
Fiscal| 2.1.13 @ 2:39PM
I'm not a Democrat and never have been. I'm primarily libertarian but have always been registered Republican and until the social conservatives took over the Republican party, had never even voted for a Democrat. As to funding on defense, our federal budget is bloated as legislators fund projects that bring jobs to their districts, and not for projects that will actually help our defense. Regarding law enforcement, that is grossly underbudgeted and is one of the few budgetary items I think needs to be increased.
Simon Templar| 2.1.13 @ 2:42PM
You walk, talk, think, and argue like a liberal. You are one.
JD| 2.1.13 @ 3:22PM
Simon has a point. I have a hard time reading your posts without seeing alignment with the Democrats on these issues.
Regardless, where do you think we disagree on law enforcement budgets? I have a suspicion - the Left lumps all of its regulatory and redistributory framework under the category of "protecting rights", such that cuts to these abominations are considered on par with defense cuts.
I support funding government as necessary to defend rights, and oppose all other funding.
aware| 2.2.13 @ 12:02PM
How the Hell can a "libertarian" call for funding the Police State? Especially the ATF. Not enough tanks, drones, SWAT teams, and militarized police forces to suit you?
I think you are a fascist that happens to be liberal on social issues.
Teflon93 | 2.2.13 @ 8:07AM
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Simon Templar| 2.1.13 @ 3:04PM
"It is not bigotry to believe that we should keep America as a large majority white European, Judeo-Christian country."
Ross, I bet you just had a thrill when you read this and this was the very reason you published his or her letter.
But believe it or not there are some legitimate and logical arguments surrounding this particular point. I will not defend this person as I do not really understand exactly what they were attempting to say.
The reality, however, is this, we as a nation do not have to promote a multicultural left wing immigration policy and insist that America MUST NOT be a majority European white nation or think that there is something fundamentally wrong that it is such and attempt by force and discriminatory policy to make it not. This is not bigotry to think otherwise. In fact, insistence that it must be different and something is wrong as it is now is bigotry. And to deny Europeans and others from coming here with ridiculous laws, restrictions, and requirements so as to allow other non Europeans to enter is the height of bigotry especially after these people have broken the law and are going to be given amnesty.
JD| 2.1.13 @ 3:27PM
White - no. Judeo-Christian - yes.
The Left-wing attempt to categorize beliefs as "religion" and "non-religion" is arbitrary and dishonest. If one can say that we shall not be Communist, one can also say that we shall not be Muslim. However, both statements must be defended, not merely dictated.
It is not bigotry to oppose ideas.
Teflon93 | 2.2.13 @ 8:15AM
Can anyone name one multicultural nation which has survived free?
There can be many races within a people but there must be one culture or they are not a people.
We are importing people of a radically different culture than our own---that is the problem. It would be the same if we were importing huge numbers of unassimilated Chinese, Africans, or Russians---race is not the issue.
Indeed, how many liberals shouting "bigot" even realize that a) Hispanic was a concept completely invented by Tricky Dick to offset Democrat gains among African Americans and b) it is purely a cultural label, Hispanics being comprised of native Americans, blacks, mestizos, and even---gasp!---whites? Moreover the vast majority of these are Christians---they are Catholic by and large---so there is no religious bigotry in opposing the abrogation of our laws to accommodate them over every other prospective immigrant group, with the exception of those liberal WASPs and Ruling Class atheists who hate Catholics.
ejp| 2.1.13 @ 4:59PM
"the party’s positions on gay marriage make it all too easy to portray the GOP that way"
You know Ross, this kind of crap is precisely the reason why I get fed up with seeing how so many so-called "conservatives" keep forfeiting what should have been no-brainer principled issues and instead create the necessary fissure in the ranks of conservatism that allows the extreme liberal and yes, bigoted perspective to triumph. To be against gay marriage should not be reagrded as a sign of "bigotry" or "intolerance" by anyone who claims to be a conservative, and I am long fed up with the efforts of the gay marriage Gestapo to dictate this narrative when they had no groundswell of public support for this other than having the bigoted elites of Hollywood and the media to be their perpetual cheerleaders to keep wearing down opinion on this subject. You say you don't consider yourself a "conservative"? Well Ross, that makes you just as much a part of the problem when real conservatives who should be seeing unity on these points have to see their ranks corrupted and the victories ceded to the Far Left. No wonder this country's going to hell in a handbasket, because it frankly deserves this when there's a lack of spine on issues such as these.
JD| 2.1.13 @ 5:16PM
Ross did not say that he considers the GOP bigoted because of its position on gay marriage. He said that this position makes it easier for others to dishonestly call the GOP "bigoted".
He didn't explicitly suggest a solution to this problem, though I understand if some read that he thinks we should abandon the position.
Teflon93 | 2.2.13 @ 8:09AM
The dishonesty and foolishness of his position is that Democrats ALWAYS call the GOP "bigoted" and it has nothing to do with the facts.
Shall we therefore adopt all the Democrat positions? What will they call us then?
Simon Templar| 2.2.13 @ 11:25AM
What will they call us then?
Democrats.
Simon Templar| 2.2.13 @ 11:22AM
We are saying that the position has nothing to do with it, it is the progressive and their media that spin whatever they like no matter WHAT IS SAID. The position makes nothing easier, this is a downright lie and a distortion of reality. Yes, he thinks we should abandon the position like a host of others that he has written about the last two years.
Simon Templar| 2.2.13 @ 11:25AM
In fact, he sees know culture rot at all, nor does he believe cultural or social issues should even be entertained or a part of the GOP platform like many "libertarians."
Simon Templar| 2.2.13 @ 11:34AM
That is no culture rot. Sorry about the typo.
ejp| 2.1.13 @ 5:29PM
To which my response is: We should be the ones calling the advocates of gay marriage bigoted against the Judeo-Chrisitian tradition, which they are and always will be, and which we are seeing duplicated on a widespread basis with HHS mandates on abortion services, the removal of faith from the public square (unless its Muslim!). But conservatives it seem always lack the spine to bring this up and call these anti-Christian bigots of the Far Left the bigots they are and that is to their everlasting shame and discredit.
JD| 2.1.13 @ 6:14PM
If we called them bigots, then we would be like them. We are not like them; we are better.
We can do it sarcastically to illustrate their foolishness, but not seriously.
ejp| 2.1.13 @ 9:34PM
No we would not "be like them." We would be telling the truth and frankly this kind of passiveness is as much to blame for the sorry state conservatism finds itself in as anything else.
Simon Templar| 2.2.13 @ 11:16AM
Excellent point. You have hit on something very important here and many have not been able to grasp. We must tell the truth, the whole, truth, and nothing but the truth. If the truth is that they are in fact and deed the real bigots or anything else for that matter, than it needs to be said. Anything less than that, we lose.
ejp| 2.2.13 @ 3:56PM
Exactly. For decades I have seen passive Republicans and conservative respond to the lies and demonizations and bigotry of the Left with the upturned nose "I'm not going to dignify that" attitude and in the process this naive approach allows the lie and the demonization to get repeated over and over in the media and in Hollywood to the point where the lie becomes an ingrained part of the culture BECAUSE the "conservatives" were too feckless to fight back and call these people what they are in blunt terms that happen to be TRUE. When it's THEIR positions that reek of genuine bigotry and we don't call them out on it, we are cutting our own throats and frankly we deserve it.
Simon Templar| 2.2.13 @ 11:18AM
Remember an old saying, "Silence is consent."