June 30, 2015

Shame and shamelessness: How the Right makes itself useful to the Left

Joshua LiebleinRebel Blogger
 

The paradoxical - double standards, hypocrisy, the difference between intention and action - forms the basis for my writing, and for many other conservative writers. By contrast, the leftist is uniquely suited to not only tolerate but thrive in the presence of paradox. 

Consider this brainwave: “Restorative Justice.” This is what they want to replace the criminal justice system with. What is Restorative Justice? When there is a crime committed- say, a murder- the murderer and the victim’s family meet in the presence of a mediator and talk things out and share their feelings.

Now, once you have finished throwing up in your mouth after reading the description of what Restorative Justice is, consider also that the left is quite happy to adhere to the old ethic of punishment - the same one that informs the court and prison systems - when it comes to public shaming. This is when some poor fool says something triggering and an online mob materializes and destroys that person’s life as punishment.

Surely this is a paradox that, if brought to light, would give the left pause. But why should they pause? On the one hand they get to attack something they don’t like, while on the other they get to use some features of it when it benefits them. By not acknowledging the paradox they get to have their cake and eat it too. Thus, they push their agenda forward.

So what must they do instead of acknowledging the paradox? The answer is: displacement.

Let’s illustrate this by asking a common question that attacks a left-wing paradox - “Why are you so reluctant to criticize ISIS for their terrorism and human rights violations?”

A sample leftist answer may look like this: “First of all, ISIS was created by the United States to further their agenda of creating a terror problem that needs to be solved. Second of all, why are you only labelling Muslims as terrorists when white people are the real terrorists? And finally, your concern over victims of terror is nothing more than concern trolling."

Do you see what’s happening here? They blame us for the situation so they don’t have to accept criticism for their own shortcomings.

Now here is where things go completely into the Twilight Zone, in case we weren’t there already. If the left must blame the right so they don’t have to take the blame themselves, then it logically follows that they need us. We are the Disney villain, the Snidely Whiplash that acts as the catalyst for the left-winger to spring into action and save the day.

Back at the height of his power, Jean Chretien was careful not to be too effective in pounding his Reform opposition. Of Preston Manning, he said: “We need this guy.” Da Boss knew that when someone from Reform made a bozo eruption, it would take the heat off his corrupt Liberal Party for a few more weeks.   

In this is a tacit admission that everything from the media firestorm over ex-Senator Don Meredith’s indiscretions to the controversy over Bristol Palin’s pregnancy is, in part, a politically motivated distraction. The problem is that the distractions work, and they work because conservatives don’t call them out for what they are.

Luckily for us, the voting public knows that it’s all a political game. That’s why none of the scandalmongering stuck to Rob Ford - because he treated it like what it was instead of getting defensive. But, the question is, who among us is capable of doing what Rob Ford did, refusing to be shamed by the left all the way through his term and afterwards? 

 

Follow The Megaphone on Twitter.

JOIN TheRebel.media for more news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-07-05 19:16:44 -0400
Neil, those things are easily defined, but they are not authoritatively defined. Most politicos know the simple stereotypes of “liberal” and “conservative” and “Left” vs “Right.” But when it comes to defining who is a “true conservative” or defining where the “Right” stops and the “Left” begins then no person or group has authority over anyone else. These are arbitrary terms, relative to the time/place in which they’re being used. And further, they’re not the end-all, be-all of politics. Politics is not just Left vs Right. That’s only one dimension of it and it’s not the sole one everyone considers when decided who to vote for.
commented 2015-07-05 14:11:30 -0400
Great piece, Joshua. David, don’t know why you consider yourself the authority on all things here. Joshua’s opinion is more than valid and if you don’t think there’s such a thing as “right” and “left” then I’m not sure what universe you are living in, those two things are easily defined. Jimmy, you are extremely annoying.
commented 2015-07-04 15:01:56 -0400
Jimmy: “You probably can’t get more conservative than Rick Santorum. Name me someone who you would deem even more conservative than him by YOUR standards?”

Rick Santorum is not a conservative. He’s a narcissist and a theocrat and a homophobic bigot. The only reason you think he is “conservative” is because the media parades him around and labels him as such. On economics and foreign policy he does not have a conservative record at all. On foreign policy he’s more of a Fox News neoconservative whose positions blow around to whatever is fashionable. On economics he’s a George W. Bush style “compassionate conservative” who wants to use big government his own way, not a Tea Partier or Libertarian serious about shrinking government.

And on social issues he doesn’t have “conservative” positions — he has radical and theocratic-positions. I will not defend Santorum — or Huckabee who is a different variation on the same thing. You are making a very common mistake. You are confusing “Christian Family Theocracy culture warrior” with “conservative.” They are not synonyms at all except for bigoted secular leftists who want them to be.

I am not naive — I used to be when I had views like you and talked like you when I was 17. Seriously — at age 17 I was very similar to you. Now I’m 31 — one doesn’t get more naive as they get older, son. You just don’t realize that you’ve bought “the Left’s” own lies. You’ve bought your own BS. There’s so much more to politics than Left vs Right ideological warfare. And in the real world people don’t just vote for the candidate they think is the most conservative or the candidate they think is closest to their own ideology. Sometimes candidates we like ideologically have other problems that prevent them from being the candidate to support.

Left vs Right is a fantasy land that radically oversimplifies politics. You’re just too naive and indoctrinated to realize you’re still stuck in it.
commented 2015-07-04 13:07:51 -0400
David,

You are just so spectacularly naïve. It actually scares me that there are people like you walking around, but it’s not surprising. You are living in a fantasy land and your position here is laughable.

Of course candidates can be ranked on how liberal or conservative they are based on the shit that they say and their political platform. You probably can’t get more conservative than Rick Santorum. Name me someone who you would deem even more conservative than him by YOUR standards?

See this is your problem. You spew your non-journalistic blogger bullshit all over the internet, but when you are challenged or asked questions – you avoid at all costs.

I want your response to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_ek5Dtsrcw

and your answer to this:

Name me a politician that hasn’t lied, is completely honest and who hasn’t sold out to some degree to be able to move forward in their political career – I mean someone who actually could be President or at least mayor of a major city like New York for example. In other words, some dipshit politician in some small city or town doesn’t count. He will never be President.

And let me get this out of the way now – every single Republican running for President right now – has indeed lied and sold out to some degree to get to where they are. So don’t embarrass yourself by picking any of them.
commented 2015-07-04 01:01:38 -0400
Jimmy, I tried to be nice to you but if you insist on continuing to be a rude jerk then I’m just going to give you right back what you give me. You are a total moron if you cannot comprehend the fact there is no objective way to measure which candidate is the genuine “true conservative.” Every website that would rank candidates from most to least conservative is going to have a different standard of doing it and value things in a subjective way. No website or magazine or organization has the absolute authority to say what actually counts for judging “most conservative.”

And you’re not getting too that a candidate’s ideology isn’t the only thing that matters when deciding if they should be president. When a voter chooses which candidate they’re going to support the ideology is only one factor – temperament, knowledge, age, character, track record, the team they have with them…. There are other factors too that people consider when choosing who to support. I’m not naive. I’m just more educated than you and have more first hand, real world experience with politicians and political activists of all ideologies. You are the one just regurgitating cliches and stereotypes and acting like a teenager peppering your comments with F-words. How old are you? 17? You both talk and think like I did at that age. Grow up.

Reminder to everyone that this is Jimmy’s moral value system that he admitted that drives his political activism: “Hell I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama was an atheist. If you want to be electable – you have to play the game and everyone lies.” In all of his comments just assume that any fact he supplies or position he claims he believes is actually a lie. He is a total liar and admits that he serves liars. That is what one must do to be a “progressive” or “liberal” or “leftist” or “Marxist” or whatever name they’re calling themselves today to try and dupe more idiots like Jimmy: Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.
commented 2015-07-03 15:12:53 -0400
David,

Yes they do operate by the same rules. This is why you are stupid, because you seem to think that the right are the good guys and the left are the bad guys.

I never said that no politician ever actually means what they say or runs to implement a policy they actually believe in. I see you have comprehension issues. What I said was that politicians have had to lie in certain situations to become electable and yes, they do sell out to varying degrees. The reason isn’t necessarily that they are corrupt – it’s just a matter of the voting public not agreeing with their view of things thus the candidate loses the election.

Which is why Republican candidates in 2020 will be for gay marriage and pro-choice – even though they don’t really feel that way. But if Republicans want to ever see the inside of the White House again, they have to play the game.

What is so great about the right exactly? They have done fuck all since 2008 and their only mandate has been stop Obama by their own admission. They don’t have a plan for anything. Here is Fox News’ Chris Wallace basically calling bullshit on Paul Ryan that Republicans have a plan ready to replace Obamacare. They don’t and conservative Chris Wallace knows it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8L3tQ8pQ18
commented 2015-07-03 14:59:14 -0400
David,

Then who are all these Republicans that are demanding for a “true conservative” candidate? This is what they are saying – not me.

Hell this site – ranks the candidates in this capacity.

We ended up with this list: a ranking of every 2016 presidential prospect from the most liberal of all, to the most true conservative in the pack and who is a RINO (Republican In Name Only).

They comment that 2012 GOP runner-up and former Pennsylvania Senator, Rick Santorum is a true conservative.

http://www.business2community.com/government-politics/2016-presidential-candidates-ranked-from-least-to-most-conservative-01249980

You really are not very smart or informed and yet you somehow feel that you are qualified to blog about politics. You are not. You are incredibly naïve and quite frankly you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.
commented 2015-07-03 09:10:45 -0400
Dear Joshua,
This was really interesting: “Canadians are “non-ideological”. Belief in anything is weird and scary. That’s why we have a Liberal Party that makes a virtue out of having no principles. Discarding his principles when it suited him is the most politically successful thing Harper has ever done!”
I really appreciate this thoughtful insight here about this core problem your culture faces. It’s so funny the way Jimmy mirrors it by insisting that’s the way all politics must be and that no politician ever actually means what they say or runs to implement a policy they actually believe in. He makes the mistake I used to make when I had an ideology comparable to him — thinking that “the Right” is just a mirror of “the Left” and operates according to the same “rules.” It’s actually much, much more complex than these oversimplified little maps.
commented 2015-07-03 08:59:04 -0400
Jimmy: “The GOP don’t want a candidate like that and neither do “true conservatives”.”

The “GOP” is not some hive mind and there’s no such thing as a “true conservative.” All you’re doing is arguing with the stereotypes you’ve imagined in your head and regurgitating politically correct cliches. Have a nice life.
commented 2015-07-02 23:04:38 -0400
David,

The GOP don’t want a candidate like that and neither do “true conservatives”. The GOP wants a fiscally conservative and socially conservative candidate as well, which is why every single one of the GOP candidates is against everything deemed to be socially liberal.

But you just proved my point for me. I bet in 2020 – there will be one or more Republican candidates that are more socially liberal and are for gay marriage and even pro-choice. It doesn’t mean that they actually feel that way, but they will lie and say that they do – to become electable, because by 2020 – even more people will be for gay marriage and be pro-choice and it will get to the point that Republicans never see the White House again for quite some time – if they maintain the views of say a Rick Santorum.

Republicans will prove to be on the wrong side of history, so they will become more socially liberal just so they win elections again.
commented 2015-07-02 22:51:55 -0400
David,

I would be more than happy to meet up with you and Joshua in person to further discuss this topic if that will help you get past your view that I may be some sort of anonymous internet troll, who is just here for kicks.

Name me a politician that hasn’t lied, is completely honest and who hasn’t sold out to some degree to be able to move forward in their political career – I mean someone who actually could be President or at least mayor of a major city like New York for example. In other words, some dipshit politician in some small city or town doesn’t count. He will never be President.

And let me get this out of the way now – every single Republican running for President right now – has indeed lied and sold out to some degree to get to where they are. So don’t embarrass yourself by picking any of them.
commented 2015-07-02 20:25:28 -0400
Jimmy is a useful example of what I’m talking about but he by no means defines my political outlook. I’ve known many Jimmys and I find them boring and tiresome, but they are plentiful and loud. I have found that Jimmys can exert a lot of influence on others because he is at least engaged. Most Canadians aren’t. So, in this land of the blind, the one eyed men are kings.

I’ve been involved in Canadian politics for close to a decade, and the vast majority of partisans will stand and clap for anything the person at the front of the room says. Maybe the nuanced political observers you describe exist here, but they certainly don’t make their voices heard. But of course Americans take their politics far more seriously, spend far more money, and- most importantly- being passionate about politics doesn’t make you weird in the States the way it does up here. OK, you think the Democrats are post-American, but at least they believe passionately in the awful values they are trying corrupt America with. Canadians are “non-ideological”. Belief in anything is weird and scary. That’s why we have a Liberal Party that makes a virtue out of having no principles. Discarding his principles when it suited him is the most politically successful thing Harper has ever done!

Our political culture, with its lack of focus on policy, bad polling, worse journalism, and debates that look like something out of a student council election- seriously, watch this mess from the last federal election (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGYE2d4LJ5M)- prohibits the kind of mature self-criticism you want to see from us.
commented 2015-07-02 17:31:30 -0400
“Do you really think if one of the Republicans running for President came out and said that he supports gay marriage – that he would still have chance to become President?”
Yes. A younger, hawkish, fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republican would be able to beat Hillary in 2016. And such a candidate will likely emerge for 2020 as more gay-friendly libertarian-conservative Millennials and Xers age. There are many issues Americans care more about than gay marriage when picking a president.

“Politics is the wrong profession for that, when everyone is bought and paid for.”
You’re thinking of prostitution, not political activism. They’re not the same thing, but if you want to be the Democratic Party’s whore then it’s not like there’s anything I can do to stop you…

“I think Gary Johnson would make a great President and is a game changing “Superman” politician, but he is unelectable and will NEVER be President. "
What’s so magical about Gary Johnson? Why is he a superman?
commented 2015-07-02 17:08:44 -0400
Joshua: you really should not let random progressive trolls in internet comments provide your model of political discourse. Internet forums like this where people can appear with anonymous and random names are not the best environment to engage in really good ideological discussions. Face-to-face discourse is better. And longer forms of media like books and articles can present ideas in longer, more coherent forms than internet comments.

“Therefore, the best thing to do is to not criticize other parts of the conservative family because that’s like blood in the water to a shark. "
Part of the point of my series explaining the different kinds of conservatism is to explain that some of the parts of the “family” really should not be. Some activists or movements claim to be “conservative” but they’re really more like anarchists or theocrats or corporatists or racists/antisemites or just narcissists out to make a buck off the political process. Just because someone claims they’re “conservative” don’t just take their word for it.

“Anyway, to your questions, David: You may regard the Democrats as evil, but as far as I know you still regard them as being Americans.”
Actually when it comes to the activist core of the party I don’t. I regard the Democratic Party as a post-American, internationalist party that would rather the United Nations’ standards rule the country rather than our Constitution. For years I’ve written about how the Democrats and progressive activists are deeply anti-American and they’re trying to subvert American values and replace them with secularist, Marxist, and postmodernist values such as what Jimmy proclaims here: " if you want a career in politics in America, you have to lie and that applies to both the right and the left, since both sides lie to become electable."

When I was a Democrat that’s how I thought — that these kinds of “white lies” were OK in the bigger scheme of things and that the smaller lies Democrats told weren’t as bad as the supposed big lies the Republicans told. This ideology is known as postmodern nihilism and it is the cold, black, slowly beating zombie heart of the Democratic Party in America.

" You can tell him all day that you support gay marriage but it doesn’t make a difference, so why bother doing it in the first place?"
He’s just one jackass entertaining himself with internet comments instead of porn. You can’t take annoying leftist internet commenters and then just assume that they represent every person who identifies with “the Left.” Of course there’s a hard, dedicated, ideological core of “leftists” and “progressives” who one cannot reason with because they admit that they do not believe Truth exists or that it matters. But that’s just one aspect of the movement. There are vast seas of people who sympathize with “the Left” or might identify as “progressive” or “liberal” who do not behave and think like some stereotype of a rude internet commenter. It’s a more complex sea of fish — they’re not all sharks out to gobble up conservatives.
commented 2015-07-02 17:07:52 -0400
Joshua,

The majority of Canadians don’t give a shit about your message. You are aware that most Canadians don’t even know that The Rebel exists and similar to Sun News Network – wouldn’t care about The Rebel even if they knew it existed. If you have a message to get out, you might want to hitch your wagon to something that gets better ratings/views than The Fireplace Channel.

I am sweating to make you mad? No, that’s how people talk in society every single day. I have heard the word fuck 50 times today just at work. And yes, conservatives swear on The Rebel.

You know what’s classic though? You ignoring the fact that Canada is primarily a liberal country and your views are embarrassing to normal conservatives. This is why I wasn’t surprised that The Toronto Sun – which has a connection to The Rebel – basically told conservatives like YOU to shut the fuck up, because you are doing damage to the normal conservatives of Canada and making people think that you are one in the same.

Why do you ignore this?
commented 2015-07-02 16:54:35 -0400
David,

It’s amazing that with your education – you are still incredibly naïve and delusional as to how things work in American politics. I never that I approve of the lying, but I realize that if you want a career in politics in America, you have to lie.

Do you really think if one of the Republicans running for President came out and said that he supports gay marriage – that he would still have chance to become President? I know that there are Republicans that support gay marriage and gay rights – but they say the exact opposite politically. And in some instances, those Republican men have been caught sexually with other men. Obviously hypocrites.

The very reason why we have such shitty politicians and there is no game changing politician out there that will fight for truth, justice and the American way like some real like Superman – is because they would be unelectable.

I think Gary Johnson would make a great President and is a game changing “Superman” politician, but he is unelectable and will NEVER be President.

Apparently you don’t understand that in many ways, politics is a game and the game needs to be played if you want to win, which is why every politician does exactly that despite what you think about ethics and morality. Politics is the wrong profession for that, when everyone is bought and paid for.
commented 2015-07-02 16:42:59 -0400
David, I couldn’t do a better job of explaining to you exactly what kind of struggles we face in this country than what you got from Jimmy here. After a few hundred comments from him, the best of us would just put up our guard. This is where the left vs. right, us vs. them mentality comes from.

It’s anyone’s guess whether he’s been sent from the Liberals, the NDP, rabble.ca, avaaz.org, or is just an unaffiliated troll who really hates conservatives. What we do know is that he saw our debate and immediately jumped in because every moment we spend arguing with him is another moment we can’t get our message out. So classic. He’s even swearing to make us mad because we don’t do that here on TheRebel. Therefore, the best thing to do is to not criticize other parts of the conservative family because that’s like blood in the water to a shark.

Anyway, to your questions, David: You may regard the Democrats as evil, but as far as I know you still regard them as being Americans. That’s the difference: The CPC isn’t even looked at by some conservatives as being Canadian, to say nothing of Jimmy here who probably thinks of the CPC as a U.S. puppet government. Furthermore, the distinction he draws between Toronto Sun conservatives and The Rebel conservatives and Ford Nation isn’t really a distinction to him- he can’t see the difference between Red and Blue Tories because there’s nothing we can do to convince him that we’re not the bad guys. You can tell him all day that you support gay marriage but it doesn’t make a difference, so why bother doing it in the first place?
commented 2015-07-02 16:30:39 -0400
Jimmy: “you have to lie and that applies to both the right and the left, since both sides lie to become electable.”
You’ve bought the lie that there are only 2 sides and both have to play by the same imaginary “rules.” Not everyone buys this lie like you have. And I have a degree in political science and have studied enough campaigns to know that all politicians do not need to hide their true positions and intents to get elected. That’s just one lie that you’ve told to yourself to justify your own bad behavior and now are demanding everyone else believe too. I won’t live down to your low standards of ethics and morality.
commented 2015-07-02 16:10:13 -0400
David,

Well then you are living in a fantasy land and are completely fucking delusional – because if you want a career in politics in America, you have to lie and that applies to both the right and the left, since both sides lie to become electable.
commented 2015-07-02 16:01:52 -0400
Jimmy: “Hell I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama was an atheist. If you want to be electable – you have to play the game and everyone lies.”
I agree with you that Obama is actually an atheist — and that he just went to Rev. Wright’s racist “church” for show and the far left political connections. There’s really no point in us engaging in dialogue any further since you have stated so clearly that you are willing to lie in order to advance your deceptive atheist politicians. You think lying is moral and necessary to get elected. I do not. End of discussion. I don’t dialogue with people who defend such values. It’s a waste of time.
commented 2015-07-02 15:38:45 -0400
It is a mistake to blame just one political trademark with the ethical dystopia our political system has become. Canada is not so bad yet but the US is far advanced in end-of-life in the nation state cycle. No where is this more evident than in the latest political memes – in which values are overtly inverted – a society where liars are canonized (Obama’s tsars et al) and the truth tellers are criminalized (whistle blowers).

Things don’t get that dystopic unless there is help from all sides.
commented 2015-07-02 15:16:10 -0400
David,

First of all – Obama supported gay marriage in 1996. Obama lied in 2008, because you have to if you want a political career in America. I am sure Hillary was the same way – they always supported gay marriage, but it was political suicide to state that at the time. Hell I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama was an atheist. If you want to be electable – you have to play the game and everyone lies. I am sure there are Republicans that support gay marriage as well – but they won’t tell anyone that.

I disagree with your position here. Human rights are not à la carte – some states can decide if they want gay marriage or civil unions like choosing TV channels. It’s all or nothing. We don’t allow states the choice to segregate black people or give women the choice to vote – it’s absolutely the same with gay people. This is a landmark time in history – women’s rights were changed, black people’s rights were change and now finally in fucking 2015 – the Supreme Court has done the right thing in changing history for gay people.

Conservatives against gay marriage will learn that they are on the wrong side of history with this issue.

The Supreme Court must rule on Constitutional law – and when a case is brought to them, it is due to the fact that a state(s) is having an issue determining whether a law is fully Constitutional or not.

The three branches of government supersede the state level governments when it comes to certain issues – and this should be a rather simply understood point but it is not, apparently. This is the basis of checks and balances – and the Supreme Court remains unelected in order to keep objectivity in check when interpreting the Bill of Rights and Constitution. The most misunderstood aspect of the recent ruling is when people mistake the ruling as an oppression and destruction of a state’s rights and the right of the constituent to rule by majority vote. They believe this is the removal of the American citizen’s ability to vote and have a say.

Likely the largest misconception is that this is the first time the Supreme Court and federal government have struck down what the states have voted on. This is an entirely incorrect assumption – a gravely incorrect assumption. And if one believes it – they have missed the point of the Supreme Court entirely.

In 1967 – a very similar case was brought to the Supreme Court from the state of Virginia,where Richard and Mildred Loving were sentenced to a year in prison for marrying one another in 1959 – which violated the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 which prohibited the marriage of “colored” individuals to “white” individuals. Their 1959 trial ended with judge Leon M. Bazile stating “Almighty God created the races white,black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” Later in 1964, the couple (having left Virginia)became frustrated with being barred from the state, they wrote to the Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and after filing with ACLU – the Lovings took their case to Virginia’s Supreme Court, who found no violation of their civil liberties. Displeased with the results, the Lovings appealed their case to the United States Supreme Court. The opposition to this Supreme Court case was rather staggering – with the nation still embroiled in the Civil Rights era, the majority sided with the Racial Integrity Act. During their 1959 trial, most would have sided with the state and scripture on the matter. Interracial marriage faced religious persecution, as well (Genesis 28:1: “And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.”).

Yet, despite the opposition and the belief of the state – the Supreme Court overturned the conviction on June 12th, 1967. Chief Justice Earl Warren explained; “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” This case became known as Loving V. Virginia.

Yes, that is correct. We have been living in a nation where the Supreme Court can and has overturned a state’s laws on marriage equality and disregarded the votes of the majority. This is one of the most important aspects of the Supreme Court and legislation voting on a state, local and constituent level – the reason why these cases (including marriage equality) get taken to the Supreme Court and are overturned. Yes,citizens may vote on state law and that state may make that the accepted legislation in that state. However, citizens do not get to vote on the prohibition of civil liberties to other citizens, particularly minorities. In 1801, Thomas Jefferson stated in his inaugural address that “All will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.”

A majority segment of the population cannot Constitutionally vote on the rights of citizens – that is the key reason why the bar on same-sex marriage was overturned and in line with a Constitutional democracy. The rights of people is not subject to a vote by the people – that is when the federal government comes in to protect both the majority and minority from the “majority/minority rule”.

And many politicians, as well as some citizens are only calling into question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court when it disagrees with them. And to me, commenting on ridding the federal government of the Supreme Court is treasonous – because it’s against the Constitution. And if you want to be rid of the Supreme Court, then you must get rid of the Constitution you hold so dear because that would not be Constitutional.

So in conclusion, the Supreme Court decision was Constitutional and they’ve been making these decisions that overturn state laws since its inception. If we are all for the Constitution, we must follow it even when it is inconvenient for our personal beliefs. What truly is the most conservative action is honoring and valuing the notion of personal freedom and the resistance of fellow citizens and federal government from telling you what to do.
commented 2015-07-02 14:32:05 -0400
Jimmy: “As an American conservative, how do you feel about the change in gay marriage – which again, was no big in Canada 10 years ago?”

I have been a supporter of gay marriage for more than 10 years, for my entire active, adult, political life — longer than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and most mainstream Democrats. Many of my friends and the writers I work with are gay or lesbian. For years I’ve argued that the verses in the Bible that some Christians use as blanket condemnations for all homosexual acts actually only refers to ancient Pagan sex practices and have little to do with most gay people today.

But I never wanted 5 Supreme Court justices to just imagine that the Constitution requires all 50 states to recognize the gay marriages recognized from state to state. The 5 justices who ruled that way have a judicial philosophy that I understand deeply and strongly reject. When I was still a leftist more than a decade ago I agreed with gay libertarian-conservatives who supported the strategy of each state choosing to set its own laws. If some states wanted gay marriage, if others wanted civil unions, and if others didn’t want to provide any special tax benefits to gay couples then I was fine with that kind of gradual approach, as were most non-radical gay rights activists. People could go and live where they wanted. That’s how America works — 50 states means people go to the states that most suit what they want. That’s the general “conservative” position on gay marriage — that it should be a state’s rights issue, not that there should be a national law one way or the other that decides the issue for all states. The federal government doesn’t have the authority to do that.

Note the way you frame your question to me: " how do you feel about the change in gay marriage" as in FEEL. What should it matter how I FEEL? Shouldn’t it be more important how I think or how I reason? How do you think someone should come to their political positions, morals, and ethical values, based on just what FEELS right to them? Or should they suspend their emotional impulses and think rationally and logically in the light of history’s lessons? Reason or Emotion, both are needed but one needs to be in the driver’s seat, both can’t be driving the car. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvp3zAPraF4
commented 2015-07-02 12:33:58 -0400
David,

I don’t know if you are racist, homophobic, bigoted and hateful – we haven’t spoken enough. As an American conservative, how do you feel about the change in gay marriage – which again, was no big in Canada 10 years ago?
commented 2015-07-02 10:20:41 -0400
" Many are racist, homophobic, bigoted and hateful – and some have admitted it."
Jimmy, please name names. Who are the actual racists on The Rebel who have “admitted it”? And do you believe that I too as an American conservative who strongly supports The Rebel am therefore racist, homophobic, bigoted, and hateful?
commented 2015-07-02 10:13:21 -0400
Dear Joshua,
I very much look forward to learning more about the battles you’re facing up here!

“This isn’t the States where Republicans and Democrats respect each other’s existence.”
What leads you to believe this? I don’t respect the existence of the Democratic Party. I think it’s an evil, criminal party responsible for most of our country’s political problems for centuries and that it shouldn’t exist. Likewise the diversity within the Republican and Democratic Parties is very wide. There are SOME centrist Republicans and centrist Democrats who are very corporatist and interested in themselves and they do basically respect each other and treat politics like a game or a business. But there are more radical Democrats who don’t respect any Republicans at all and are out to destroy them at all levels.

“Conservatism in any of its forms is treated as a foreign invasion up here.”
Seriously: it is here too. The Republican Party is not a “Conservative” party most of the time. Ronald Reagan was an anomaly. Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney and now Jeb Bush are the norm. When Reagan California Conservative types try and take control of the establishment GOP then they’re treated comparable to what you describe you guys experience.
commented 2015-07-02 00:57:19 -0400
I love this notion here that somehow the right are the good guys and the left are the bad guys – without taking into account that the majority of Canadians would say that they are liberal/progressive/lean left and that Canada is a liberal country certainly by comparison to America – who often get around to changing laws and the like – years after Canada has already done it because we are not uptight conservatives and Jesus doesn’t control things here. Gay marriage being the latest example. Canada is more European.

If I didn’t know that The Rebel was Canadian – I would assume that this was some conservative website from Texas, because that is how many people who post here come across. Many are racist, homophobic, bigoted and hateful – and some have admitted it. That is the kind of conservative that The Rebel attracts, which explains why nobody really gives a fuck about this place beyond a tiny batshit crazy conservative demographic that would love nothing more for Canada to be like Texas.

The majority of Canadians – including normal conservatives are not interested in what this place has to say and what it stands for. The worst of the worst conservatives are here. This is why I wasn’t surprised that The Toronto Sun – which has a connection to The Rebel – basically told the types of conservatives that post here to shut the fuck up, because you are doing damage to the normal conservatives of Canada and making people think that you are one in the same.