Not surprisingly, the New York Times, that bastion of conservative thought, reports that the GOP establishment is looking to silence the so-called, “extreme right-wing”.
I find this piece rather humorous because on the other side, Democrats are hardly seeking to limit the influence of progressive socialists – in fact, they are fully embracing it.
How is it that believing in the Constitution has all of a sudden become “extreme?”
The GOP seems to believe they have a better path to victory if they silence the grassroots individuals who will get out and mobilize and knock on doors, and the NYT is attempting to convince them they’re right. This comes on the heels of Tuesday’s elections in the comparative analysis of the victory in New Jersey and the loss in Virginia.
Why is the GOP finding it so difficult to simply present Ronald Reagan’s three-legged principles of conservatism: fiscal, national security, and social.
I believe the same and they all compliment each other implicitly. Why are so-called “mainstream” Republicans forgetting this?
If you believe, as Lyndon Johnson did, that mothers having children out of wedlock should be given a government check, you are creating both a social and an economic problem. On the one hand you are destroying the family unit and on the other, increasing government spending as part of the growing welfare nanny-state. Is it “extreme” to want to preserve families – especially black families, where only 30% of children grow up in a two-parent home?
I must ask, is rescinding “don’t ask don’t tell” more important than having combat ready Brigades in the Army? Is it “extreme” to want a military that can actually effectively defend our nation?
Every American has the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -but not a guarantee of it — and too many special interest groups are looking to government to provide a guarantee, which means expansive growth and social engineering. Why is it “extreme” to want less debt to be passed on to our children?
Why is it “extreme” to believe abortion should not be used as a form of birth control? How did it become redefined as “women’s reproductive health?” Research to eliminate ovarian, uterine, and cervical cancers — that is advocating for reproductive health. And no one should tell a woman what to decide if her body has been violated by rape, incest, or there is a true medical threat to her life by the pregnancy. But for progressive socialists, abortion is simply about killing babies. Why should the government be in the business of funding that? Progressives say we should be more “European” – well many European countries don’t allow abortions after the first trimester.
It’s clear the New York Times and other similar outlets are trying to persuade the GOP what to do with itself…and there are those in the Republican party boneheaded enough to listen and set up a circular firing squad.
Well I have some editorial suggestions for the Times: President Obama is a liar, not a “misspeaker” and how about doing a little expose on the real extremists in this country who are wrecking our economy, the lives of hard working Americans, and our national security?
