A Culture of Lawlessness, Arrogance and Deception

President Nixon infamously kept an “enemies list”, one which included all who he believed had crossed, slighted or opposed him in some way, and who deserved to be silenced, harassed and destroyed if possible. While many of the people on the list never even knew about it at the time (the list eventually emerged), they undoubtedly felt the consequences of being on the wrong side of a vindictive, petty and arrogant administration.

Fast forward 40 years later, and a new administration promising hope, change and transparency has used identical tactics to silence dissent, the key difference is this – on December 20, 1973, the Congressional Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation concluded that people on the “Enemies” list had not been subjected to an unusual number of tax audits.

Now the deliberate targeting of conservative groups and groups with conservative ideals has given Conservatives, liberty lovers, patriots and the Republican party additional evidence to substantiate long-standing claims of bias, intimidation and an administration overreaching its authority and punishing its enemies. The result being the perception of the Obama administration as fair and transparent are effectively shattered.

The IRS deliberately targeted groups which identified themselves with terms such as “Constitution“, “Patriot“, “Liberty” – qualities which are celebrated by Americans as desirable and worthy of admiration, but in the eyes of the Obama IRS became targets for intimidation. The targeting of these groups by the Obama IRS was either malicious & tyrannical or stupid & incompetent. Either way, the Obama regime has once again failed spectacularly  The decision to carry out this program of harassment may well have come from low-level managers out of a regional office (language eerily similar to the Fast And Furious program), but is has become increasingly obvious that they were acting on attitudes and tone set from the uppermost levels of the Obama regime

Via Brietbart: A Saturday report by the Associated Press, citing a draft of a forthcoming Inspector General report, found that “senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew agents were targeting Tea Party groups as early as 2011.” The AP notes that this report’s findings “seemingly contradicts public statements by the IRS commissioner.”

The IRS apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was “inappropriate” targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status. The agency blamed low-level employees, saying no high-level officials were aware.

But on June 29, 2011, Lois G. Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt organizations, learned at a meeting that groups were being targeted, according to the watchdog’s report. At the meeting, she was told that groups with “Tea Party,” “Patriot” or “9/12 Project” in their names were being flagged for additional and often burdensome scrutiny, the report says.

It has become increasingly clear with incidents like the Fast And Furious gun-running operation, the one-sided forced passage of Obamacare legislation, the Benghazi embassy terrorist attacks and subsequent cover-up, and now the deliberate targeting of Conservative groups by the I.R.S., the Obama administration’s policy of intimidation, harassment and obstruction of justice is an intrinsic function of its operation, not merely an occasional response. In other words, we are witnessing an increasingly arrogant, iron-fisted and lawless regime whose targeting of political enemies is reminiscent of the proscription lists of the civil wars during the times of the Roman Republic.

Barack Obama has become unmasked as a tyrant on-the-make.

For additional information, follow the links below:

IRS apologizes for targeting tea party groups

AP EXCLUSIVE: IRS KNEW TEA PARTY TARGETED IN 2011

Sen. Cruz: IRS has no place assessing or monitoring Americans’ personal health information

IRS admits targeting conservatives for tax scrutiny in 2012 election

UPDATE 05/13/13 8:45 pm – As if Benghazi, Fast And Furious, and the IRS scandals weren’t enough, now comes startling (only to committed Kool-Aid drinkers) news that the Obama Regime’s  ”Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative’s top executive called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into how news organizations gather the news.”

In other words, Team Obama was spying on reporters. From the AP; “The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.”

Regardless, it seems like the final nail in the coffin of the Obama Regime’s “transparency”. The evidence is not only stacking up, it is starting to reek.

Nobel Prize

Nobel prize committee awards the Peace Prize to the European Union, ignoring that without the ultra-violent, right-wing, cowboy-led United States of America, Europe would have burned to the ground and blown away in the wind as ash decades ago. Cognitive Dissonance is a crisis. Also known as sand-bagging.

Europe continues its slow, inexorable decline into oblivion. Very soon, there will be nothing we previously recognized as “European”, other than the shells and facades of buildings and an occasional statue. Demographics point to an inevitable self-destruction, led by atrocious birthrates and a sharp rise in Muslim population. The end is near. Let them award themselves all the prizes they want.

Invitation

Reblogged from blog in search of a new name :

The Queen’s Henchmen
request the pleasure of your company
at a Lynching – to be held
at 23rd and C Streets NW
on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
just past sunset.

Dress: Formal, Masks and Hoods -
the four being lynched
must never know the identities
of their executioners, or what/
whose sin required their sacrifice.

A blood sacrifice –
to divert the hounds -

Read more… 136 more words

Profound and relevant words from Raymond Maxwell.

On The Concept of Compromise

When liberals purporting to be “progressive” dismiss black, Hispanic, women and gay Conservatives as mere tokens, sell-outs, “Uncle Tom“, “pool boys”, “house ni***rs”, self-hating, delusional opportunists, how and why should anyone take their arguments seriously that they are the party of diversity, liberty or choice? How are we to persuade those who have already decided they will not be persuaded but dismiss arguments out of hand as “unreasonable”? How are we to reason with those who have already decided they reject any reasons other than their own? How are we to compromise with those who have rejected the concept of compromise, deciding that their side need not give ground on anything? When one side of the argument is a lamb & the other side of the argument is a coldly calculating, vicious, ravenous, bloodthirsty wolf, what other possible outcome could there be?

There can be no compromise with an opponent who seeks only our destruction. There can be no partnership with an opponent whose view is diametrically opposed to our own. There can be no bipartisanship when the opponent is committed to the end of the party. There can be no middle ground when the opponent has pushed you to the edge with a sword.

There can only be war.

#WAR

Chicago and Detroit Follow the Zimbabwe Path

I was speaking with a new friend recently. Suzanne is from Zimbabwe, a country she says is the most beautiful in the world, one where she grew up, spent most of her life (she’s 54 now) and where most of her family lived, married, worked and died in their time. I can see the wistful expression on her face when she speaks about it, and in her voice there is love for a place dear to her. She moved to the USA in 2002.

Despite these happy memories of Zimbabwe, beginning in the 1980′s with the arrival of strongman Robert Mugabe‘s policy of confiscation of land and property from white, wealthy landowners Suzanne told me that things began to change. Her black neighbors and friends - people with whom she’d grown up and worked – now turned against her and her family. Their formerly peaceful town saw a sharp rise in violence, marked by robberies, assaults and kidnappings.

The government (local and national) slowly crept toward socialism as the tyrant’s friends, associates and followers took power at all levels of government. Suzanne and her family began fearing for their safety on a daily basis as the government began to confiscate private property by force. The issue of land distribution, which Mugabe’s party had promised to solve by consensus, came roaring back as the ruling party’s governing philosophy around 1997. Mugabe began forcibly redistributing this land to his associates in 2000. The legality and constitutionality of the process has regularly (and unsuccessfully) been challenged in the Mugabe-controlled Zimbabwean High and Supreme Courts.

Citing “fairness”, broad public support and promising a better future for all Zimbabweans when wealth had been “shared equally”, Mugabe’s forces began violent attacks against any opposition. Whether face-to-face or in media, the policy effectively created division and strife in the country, pitting neighbor against neighbor and branding those who opposed the policy as “greedy”, “selfish” and “traitors”. The brutal police state and tyrannical bureaucracy that emerged during that dark time held power in its iron fist - and no compunctions against using it.

Suzanne and her family were forced to flee Zimbabwe when it became impossible for them to leave their homes without being attacked for their views. With the arrival of hyperinflation, people began carrying paper bags full of worthless currency to purchase the most trivial items with $1 Trillion bills. On the black market, American dollars became the currency of choice as store owners began refusing the local money.

When their family business was shut down by Mugabe’s thugs because the family refused to pay protection money or “donate” to the Mugabe presidential campaign, the family packed up as many belongings as they could in the dead of night over week-long period and fled Zimbabwe, never to return.

Suzanne told me all of these while pointing out how much of America has changed, sadly for the worse. She said, “I left my home to escape these ideas and madness. And it has followed me here.” She looks at cities like Chicago and Detroit, and the State of California with sadness. “They have chosen to go this route, willingly and with eyes wide open.” I asked her to elaborate and she said, “I see the same anger here that I saw at home. People are turning against each other, and the leaders are saying things that make us hate each other, not trust each other, and be jealous of each other.”

“If you look at Chicago, where people are just killing each other like animals, and Detroit where they are destroying their own city, you see what I saw in Zimbabwe. It is madness. There’s no sense to it, but it starts with the leaders – the mayors and the President. They’ve done nothing to help, only to hurt. Things get worse, not better.”

It appears that a perspective from the outside serves to crystallize and give voice to the reality we see all around us. America is coarsening, and slowly becoming something none of us want. It is critical we do what we can to bring about positive change.

 

In The Name of Jihad

Clarity and honesty are powerful forces. Today is the one-week anniversary of the terror attack in Boston, and it is important to remember that immediately following the terrorist bombing of the Boston Marathon on Monday, April 15, 2013, many liberal / leftist members of the commentariat took to the air angrily and slanderously blaming “right-wing conservatives”. They blamed guns, they blamed the Tea Party, they blamed Republicans. They were wrong each time.

As point of reference: after the shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords, leftists blamed the Tea Party. Jared Loughner was a registered Democrat. After the Aurora Theater shooting, Brian Ross of ABC news reported to George Stephanopoulos on the air this way:

Stephanopoulos: I’m going to go to Brian Ross. You’ve been investigating the background of Jim Holmes here. You found something that might be significant.

Ross: There’s a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year. Now, we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it’s Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.

Stephanopoulos: Okay, we’ll keep looking at that. Brian Ross, thanks very much.

The shooter, James Holmes not only turned out to be a Democrat, but was an active member of Occupy Wall Street.

I would venture to say that a clear pattern has emerged: random act of mass violence, MSM reflexively blames the right, the killer turns out to be a leftist or evil extremist, story drops from view.

Other examples (via HotAir)

* September 2009: The discovery of hanged census-taker Bill Sparkman in rural Kentucky fueled media speculation that he’d been killed by anti-government Tea Partiers. In fact, he’d killed himself and staged his corpse to look like a homicide so his family could collect on life insurance.

* February 2010: Joe Stack flew his small plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas. The media immediately suggested that the anti-tax rhetoric of the Tea Party led to the attack. In fact, Stack’s suicide note quoted the Communist Manifesto.

* That same month, a professor at the University of Alabama, Amy Bishop, shot and killed three colleagues at a faculty meeting. The gun-loving Tea Party came under immediate suspicion. But Bishop was a lifelong Democrat and Obama donor.

* March 2010: John Patrick Bedell shot two Pentagon security officers at close range. The media went wild with speculation that a right-wing extremist had reached the end of his rope. Bedell turned out to be a registered Democrat and 9/11 Truther.

* May 2010: New York authorities disarmed a massive car bomb in Times Square. Mayor Bloomberg immediately speculated that the bomber was someone upset about the president’s new health-care law. The media trumpeted the idea that crazed conservatives had (again, they implied) turned to violence. In fact, the perp was Faisal Shahzad, an Islamic extremist.

Immediately after the Boston Marathon Bombing, on the rare occasion when anyone even remotely suggested the possibility that the bombing may have been carried out by radical Muslim fanatics, bent on killing westerners, the suggestion was immediately dismissed as Islamophobic, bigoted, profiling, racist, alarmist, narrow-minded, and dangerous.

One talking head – Salon’s David Sirota – went so far as to publish an article titled; “Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American“, in which he bemoans the consequences of a bombing carried out by a non WASP terrorist: increased defense spending, vigilance against further attacks, and reprisals that further marginalize dangerous groups.

Then, on Thursday we learned that the terrorists were in fact Muslim jihadists. Again, Americans were cautioned to not take this incident as an indictment of the entire culture. This is true. Not every Muslim is a jihadist.

But every jihadist is a Muslim.

This fact, in and of itself must have some significance, whether as part of a larger, ongoing discussion, or as an external dynamic.

It has proven to be all too irresponsible for us – as a culture – to look at issues of healthcare, guns, immigration or elections and arrive at the conclusion with a problem so big, so dire; only a massive, the only possible  solution is an all-encroaching government intrusion  - but yet a violent, dangerous, deadly force like radical Islam and fanatical Muslims is to be entirely ignored as a existential threat… because we don’t want to profile, or stereotype.

The simple irrefutable truth of the matter is that liberals (and Leftists writ large) are so blinded by hatred of the Right and are desperate to blame all tragedies and evil – natural or man-made – on Conservatives and Conservatism. So, the left – from MSNBC to NPR all of whom (to use Rahm Emanuel‘s favorite pickup line) ”never want a serious crisis to go to waste”, immediately blames the right for anything it can, rather than the actual cause of the problem. Worst still, they gleefully ignore any terror groups on the left; Occupy Wall Street, Greenpeace, Anonymous.

Terrorist jihad is caused by radical Muslims. The sooner we accept that fact, the easier it will be to prevent future incidents and further loss of life. Acceptance of that fact does not make us bigots, racists or Islamophobes. It makes us safer. It is equivalent to understanding that fire is hot, and that water is wet. To willfully continue ignoring this fact needlessly continues to place our children in danger.

Leftists and Liberals do our families, our culture, our nation and our continued existence a grave disservice if they force us to continue down this path.

San Jacinto Day 2013

Happy San Jacinto Day to one and all. Remember Goliad. Remember the Alamo. Now, more than ever, remember Independence.

(Via Wikipedia) The Battle of San Jacinto, fought on April 21, 1836, in present-day Harris County, Texas, was the decisive battle of the Texas Revolution. Led by General Sam Houston, the Texian Army engaged and defeated General Antonio López de Santa Anna’s Mexican army in a fight that lasted just 18 minutes. About 630 of the Mexican soldiers were killed and 730 captured, while only 9 Texans died.

Santa Anna, the President of Mexico, was captured the following day and held as a prisoner of war. Three weeks later, he signed the peace treaty that dictated that the Mexican army leave the region, paving the way for the Republic of Texas to become an independent country. Sam Houston became a national celebrity, and the Texans’ rallying cries, “Remember the Alamo!” and “Remember Goliad!” became etched into Texas history and legend.

The Triumph of Liberty and the People

The Senate wisely rejected an irrational and misguided effort to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of Americans yesterday.

Under the guise of “bipartisanship”, the amendment offered by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), would have required background checks on all commercial sales of guns potentially creating precedents (where none currently exist) that could eventually result in the criminalization of certain private transfers of firearms between law-abiding citizens, and potentially require that friends, neighbors and even some family members to get federal government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face criminal prosecution.

While support for gun control proposals saw a sharp rise in support immediately after the shootings in Connecticut (rising to nearly 60%), support has plummeted back down to normal levels below 50%. During that time, a slew of proposals have been offered by liberals eager to capitalize on the deaths of the children. While it was initially praised as a “reasonable compromise” by desperate gun control advocates, hopes for the Manchin-Toomey bill faded over the past few days, and needing 60 votes to move forward, it received the support of only 54 members.

While Democrats and President Obama are desperate to blame Republicans for the failure of their efforts, the amendment (which was the last, best hope to enact any infringements on Second Amendment rights) lost the support of four Democrats on Wednesday: Senators Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.). All but Heitkamp face difficult reelections in 2014, and all come from rural states with strong gun cultures – states where the majority of citizens do not have an irrational fear or hatred of firearms. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) voted against the amendment for procedural reasons.

Four Republicans voted in favor of the bill: Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Mark Kirk (Ill.), John McCain (Ariz.) and Toomey. All of whom will no doubt face primary challenges at the first opportunity.

While none of the proposed legislation would have prevented the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary, Democrats and Obama insist on ramrodding these unconstitutional proposals through by force, emotional blackmail and thinly-veiled threats. Unsurprisingly, President Obama responded to this rejection of his gun control efforts angrily and with vehement rhetoric. Speaking in the Rose Garden after the vote, he made numerous slanderous, divisive and controversial remarks. I’ve included some excerpts from the speech transcript:

“A few months ago, in response to too many tragedies, including the shootings of a United States congresswoman, Gabby Giffords, who’s here today, and the murder of 20 innocent schoolchildren and their teachers, this country took up the cause of protecting more of our people from gun violence.”

By making this statement, Obama slanders anyone who opposes his gun control efforts as being opposed to protecting children from gun violence. Unless – he and Democrats believe - you embrace and support his legislation, you are in favor of kids dying.

“A few minutes ago a minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn’t worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms, even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery.”

Here, Obama claims that those who voted against the legislation not only had no interest in “protecting children”, but that they were callous and heartless enough to do so in the tear-stained faces of heart-broken parents – something only evil or incredibly stupid people could possibly do.

“As they said, nobody could honestly claim that the package they put together infringed on our second amendment rights.”

Here, Obama continues to insist that anyone claiming that legislation could even potentially infringe on second amendment rights is dishonest. Harry Reid has referred to those questioning legislation as the “black helicopter conspiracy crowd”. This administration has decided that the only important objective is passage of legislation designed to affect the role of guns in American society. Anyone opposed to that objective – by any degree and for any reason – is dishonest, deranged, and de-legitimized.

The list goes on and on. With his Rose Garden temper tantrum yesterday, President Obama further reinforced the increasingly common perception that his efforts are motivated by leftist political policies, not a measured response to a tragedy. The American people support the Second Amendment rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and upheld by the Supreme Court. They are not prepared to support legislation that would erode and weaken those rights.

Margaret Thatcher 1925 – 2013

Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of Great Britain and the United Kingdom from 1979-1990 died Monday, April 8, 2013 following a stroke.

Thatcher’s economic policies restored Great Britain’s economy which had been devastated by long-term stagnation following implementation of socialist policies and the rise of labor unions after World War II. Her death comes less than a decade since the death of Ronald Reagan, who has been rightfully credited with one of the longest periods of economic prosperity and peace in American history. Thatcher was Reagan’s philosophical counterpart across the pond, championing parallel economic revival and an aggressive stance against Communism on the other side of the Atlantic, restoring British pride, patriotism and burgeoning allies in Europe.

Thatcher presided over a dynamic economic transformation in Great Britain, following epic unemployment, massive inflation, and the takeover of various basic industries by the government – roughly equivalent to “stagflation” experienced in the  United States at the same time. The times were marked on both sides of the ocean by politics of leftist nihilism. America’s Democratic President Jimmy Carter seemingly gave in to an inexorable “malaise” and the British Labour Party advocated “more of the same” in elections despite the union-driven “Winter of Discontent” and the documented misery of average British families. Both nations turned to the right in an act of self-preservation, entrusting Thatcher and Reagan with the future.

Thatcher also is beloved and revered for helping to end the Cold War by standing in solidarity with Ronald Reagan against Soviet threats across the globe, especially in Europe, and also by maintaining a British nuclear deterrent, ignoring leftist / appeasement calls for unilateral disarmament which at the time were prevalent. Soviet officials later acknowledged that the willingness of the American-British delegation to “walk away” at the Reykjavik talks ultimately forced an unsustainable increase in Soviet defense expenditures, the subsequent inevitable collapse of the Russian economy, and the victorious end of the Cold War.

Margaret Thatcher had more impact on the world than any woman ruler since Catherine the Great of Russia. Not only did she turn around – decisively – the British economy in the 1980s, she also saw her methods copied in more than 50 countries. “Thatcherism” was the most popular and successful way of running a country in the last quarter of the 20th century and into the 21st.

However, there is no need to glamorize or embellish her achievements, because her legacy is a statement in and of itself. More importantly, she rose to power not through family connections or nepotism (indeed, she did not grow up well-connected or wealthy) but through hard work and grim determination. In other words, there’s a reason why she has inspired so many young people (not just women) both in America and Great Britain to get involved in politics and fight for conservative principles. And as long as freedom and liberty are under assault, she will continue to do so for generations to come.

UPDATE 04/22/2013: A great cartoon by the inestimable Michael Ramirez captures the feelings Americans and people around the world have for Thatcher and her ideological counterpart, Ronald Reagan:

Same-Sex Marriage Fundamentally Transforms Families, Faith and Society

It is deeply troubling and disappointing that as a culture, we’ve now arrived at the point in which a person who believes in the importance and cultural significance of traditional marriage (1 man + 1 woman = marriage), a position even Barack Obama shared until his recent “evolution”, is now expected to defend their position on the grounds that it is discriminatory, bigoted and homophobic. During the 2008 campaign, at a forum held by Pastor Rick Warren at the Saddleback Church in California, then-Senator Obama declared: “I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, for me, as a Christian, it is also a sacred union.” There is no doubt that his expressed views have changed since that time due to political expediency and opportunity. There is also no doubt that his “change” reflected his truest beliefs on the subject. His opportunism was sufficient to increase his share of the GLBT vote in the 2012 election, and presented Newsweek (a defunct magazine) an opportunity to proclaim his beneficence on their cover.

Unsurprisingly, the views of numerous other politicians have also changed as opportunity and expediency have presented. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Senators Harry Reid, Rob Portman and Bob Casey have all undergone an “evolutionary” change. Speaking of which, the term “evolution” being used in conjunction with one’s position on same-sex marriage (SSM) is deeply insulting and offensive. The term implies the progression from lower to higher form; ergo, anyone opposed to SSM is lower, less evolved than those who support it. This hateful conceit allows SSM proponents to dismiss any arguments by the opposition which may raise valid points, because by their logic anyone opposed to SSM is a mentally deficient, misogynistic, sexist, patriarchal, racist, bigoted superstitious, religious fanatic, one step removed from Neanderthal, whose opinions are not worthy of a hearing.

It seems that only a short time ago the mere idea of gay marriage was so unconscionable, so out of the mainstream, so completely out of line with traditional values, morals and beliefs, that to merely speculate about it was to engage in a thought exercise immediately dismissed as impossibly alarmist. I remember bringing it up in high school (less than 20 years ago) and being laughed at as needlessly worried about something “that will never, ever happen in a million years”.

This is the age of rejection, refutation and repudiation. We’ve arrived at the point at which all we have taken as given, as clearly demonstrated fact, as natural and logical and good, has become outmoded, outdated, turned upside down and rejected – not because they’ve been proven false or inadequate – but because they do not conform to modern tastes. While the idea that someone who believes that marriage is defined as a union between a man and  a woman is a bigot, ignorant, hateful and backward is ludicrous on its face, many people are finding that now, in everyday conversations, they are viewed as being rabidly prejudiced if the conversation turns to the issue, and they voice their opinion that the implementation of same-sex marriage fundamentally alters traditional family values, religious freedom and American culture in ways that cannot be counted as positive or beneficial. The question “What is wrong with them?” becomes the standard sneer of apparatchiks, progressive talking heads, and liberal lawmakers.

However, this concern is not limited to the unwashed, uneducated masses populating the flyover country, clinging to guns and God. During the recent oral arguments at the Supreme Court challenging Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage, Justice Samuel Alito made his disquiet clear when he described gay marriage as newer than such rapidly changing technological advances as cellphones and the Internet, and appeared to advocate a more cautious approach to the issue. “You want us to assess the effect of same-sex marriage,” Alito said to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. “It may turn out to be a good thing. It may turn out to be not a good thing.” For SSM supporters, this question in and of itself is nonsense because they hold their point of view as sacrosanct and in no need of defense.

Unsurprisingly, proponents of the redefinition of marriage ignore or distort historical precedent in an attempt to bolster their argument. They compare the fight for SSM to the Civil Rights struggle, holding up the Stonewall bar riot as equivalent to Rosa Parks refusing to move from her seat on the bus, drawing the ire of patriots who marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., or they try to form a corollary by clutching desperately to the fact that the court likewise ventured into the unknown in 1967 when it struck down bans on interracial marriage in 16 states (failing to mention that interracial marriage had existed for centuries globally and was widely accepted in much of the United States and across different cultures). Worse still is that throughout history (Dennis Prager makes this case expertly), not one eminent philosopher, religion or cultural system (across the ideological spectrum) has ever endorsed the concept or even the mere idea of same-sex marriage – not one.

Throughout human history, marriage was and has been always understood and accepted as a relationship between a single man and a single woman. Not one philosophical and / or religious leader - not Jesus, not Confucius, not Mohammed, not Buddha, not Gandhi - ever even considered the idea. Yet modern gays and their supporters have arrived at the conclusion that the most radical and disruptive restructuring of society is not only possible, but necessary. They have decided (within the last 40 years, ignoring the previous 9,960 years of human civilization) that the bedrock foundation of social norms and values must be destroyed and rebuilt in order to implement their agenda of redefining the most fundamental, most ideal social institution the world has ever known. As author Mark Steyn has noted, “I think there is something absurd and ridiculous in an appellate court defining an institution that pre-dates the United States by a couple of millennia.”

There exists today no other challenge to the fabric of society that carries more dangers and more potentially destructive force. With the national implementation of SSM we will inevitably, with the inexorable force of a tsunami, slowly but surely arrive at a point in which religious freedom, parental sovereignty, and freedom of speech will all be effectively curtailed, if not eliminated outright. A minister will be unable to preach his faith’s view against homosexual acts without the threat of prosecution. Parents will be unable to decide for themselves what views their children will be taught on the role of gays in society. Citizens will be unable to express their opinions freely without fear of recrimination, or charges of “hate speech” being leveled against them, chilling discourse. Sadly, these things are happening already.

We consider normal those things that happen most often, those things that are most universal. That does not necessarily entail a judgment that the normal is superior or good and the abnormal is inferior or bad. But – when the normal is good –  it does entail an acceptance of the historicity and preponderance of the normal, and not its dismissal or refutation. Even more importantly, when the normal is the most important part of a foundation, part of the critical support structure that undergirds a system built upon it, to change, alter, destroy or remove the normal by necessity changes, alters, destroys or removes the structure built upon it.

With the change, alteration, destruction or removal of the normal comes a change in its historical perception. Our view of the Founding Fathers, Christopher Columbus, and the Pilgrims have all been subtly altered over time by liberal, secular, humanistic cultural changes which gradually have come to paint these historical figures in a negative light, based not in their actions in the context of the times, but based on the changed mores, values, and beliefs of the new generation. We have come to hate them because they do not mirror us as we are now. With this changed perception comes a loss of reverence for these figures, their accomplishments, their values. Rejection of those values is rejection of the Constitution they created, rejection of the battles they fought, rejection of everything they cherished – including their God. What comes in its place? What fills that void? Inevitably something that is not equal to the task. This change affects society even to the degree that the immediately preceding generation may also be considered tainted and becomes necessarily disregarded. For most Americans, their parents’ generation may well be considered one day to be the “Last Bigots”. Their accomplishments, their dreams and their contributions will all be measured and found lacking by their refusal to accept that which their children embraced. What then of family cohesion, pride and tradition?

The implementation of SSM fundamentally alters the relationship between people and their families, their speech, their history and their religion. Look north to Canada, where pastors and churches are being prosecuted for preaching the same message they’ve given for the last 2,000 years. Regardless of their faith, most adherents believe that their doctrine embraces the traditionally and historically understood definition of marriage. If SSM becomes the law of the land, whether through legislatures or by judicial fiat, where will this leave religious groups who do not accept the redefinition? Will they be attacked for bigotry? Will they be endangering their tax-exempt status? Will they be targeted by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center as “hate organizations”? Will they be vilified by political radicals? Will their members be harassed by government agents and activists? Will they be forced to close their doors or go underground for preaching a faith that does not embrace the new view of marriage? Will they inexorably be changed, degraded, and ultimately destroyed by a society that views them as outdated, out of touch, and out of time? Sadly, it seems increasingly likely that the answer to all these questions is yes.

Doubtless, the intolerance and persecution will not stop at a citizen’s front door, as has already started happening in other countries. What happens to the child (and her parent) who has the temerity to say at school that she and her family believes in traditional marriage? What happens to the parent who does not want his child participating in “Gay Week” at school? What happens to family that believes that a Biblical view of morals does not embrace the alternative lifestyles? What happens to the teacher who doesn’t want to expose young children to such loaded topics such as “GLBT Rights”? What happens to the homeschooling parent? What happens to the Boy Scout troop? Not only are none of these questions are being answered – is it considered bigoted and homophobic to merely ask them.

It may very well be inevitable that SSM will become legal across the nation. If so, the rationale that went into its implementation have other consequences that are yet unseen, or have yet to be perceived or acknowledged. For example, if the rationale for “marriage” may be construed as “being with the one you love”, what is to prevent changing laws and statutes that would allow a mature woman to marry her equally mature father, brother, or son? What is to prevent the changing of laws and statutes that would allow a man to enter into a consensual sexual relationship with a minor with the approval of the child’s parents? What is to prevent the changing of laws that would allow a person to simultaneously have multiple spouses of varied genders? If the only impediment to these changes is the existence of laws that could be overturned, by what standard are we to judge the moral certitude of human relationships? Are we instead to remove all values, all morals, all strictures designed and intended to structure marriage and human relationships in ways that ultimately benefit society, produce families that are grown over succeeding generations and which contribute to the development of communities and humanity at large? Do we simply become “beings” that interact as we choose with other “beings” and all other distinctions are lost to the mists of time?

As a nation that prides itself on valuing the “voice of the people”, let us do just that – listen to the people. In those states in which voters have decided that the protection of the traditional, historical definition of marriage is paramount to such a degree that it has become enshrined in their state constitutions, let us not impose by fiat the converse. In those which have elected to allow SSM, let us see what develops. Over time, events and circumstances will shine a light on the benefits and drawbacks of SSM, its impact on families and society at large, and allow us as a nation to move past the hypothetical stage. Only this approach will serve to dampen the hot rhetoric, cool tempers on both sides, and encourage the natural development of a workable solution. Anything else will create a situation in which conflict will flourish. Above all else, we must be honest with ourselves about the enormous challenge of fundamental, transformative changes to a cornerstone of society which has existed for at least the last 10,000 years.

Proponents of same-sex marriage arrogantly claim that they are on the “right side of history”, but are they on the right side of humanity? Are they on the right side of families, of faith, or freedom? The evidence thus far is murky at best and alarming at worst. We are entering dangerously uncharted waters, with foreboding precedents. A society as large and diverse as ours, with the range of individual liberties we hold sacred as rights has never before undertaken such a drastically profound and monumental change as the redefinition of a cornerstone of society. We would do well to stop and think. We would do best to stop and reconsider.

* UPDATE 04/30/13 – below are some additional stories published since this post was originally released. Each of them bolsters the argument that SSM presents fundamental changes and challenges to traditional family values and society.

Calif. tax bill seeks to punish Scouts for gay ban – An attack on the Boy Scouts by some SSM supporters via the legislature. It has now become unacceptable that a group may choose to exclude members who do not agree with their principles, essentially depriving these groups of their First Amendment rights. “California lawmakers are considering taking some tax exemptions away from youth groups that do not accept gay, transgender or atheist members – a move intended to pressure the Boy Scouts of America to lift its ban on gay Scouts and troop leaders.”

State Sues Florist Who Refused to Decorate Gay Wedding – Free enterprise, freedom of speech and freedom of association are under attack in Washington state. We have now arrived at the point at which the government may use threats and force to compel you to perform business with anyone as they see fit. No longer is a business owner entitled to make business decisions on her own. “The State of Washington is suing a small flower shop after the owner declined to provide flowers for a homosexual wedding – based on her religious beliefs. Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Wash., is facing thousands of dollars in fines and penalties for allegedly violating the state’s Consumer Protection Act.”

Lesbian activist’s surprisingly candid speech: gay marriage fight is a ‘lie’ to destroy marriage - Supporters of SSM have long maintained that their desire to have “equal rights” would not in any way harm or diminish the importance of marriage. As Masha Gessen asserts in this speech, for many supporters of SSM, the push for acceptance of SSM is specifically about changing and subsequently eliminating marriage as an institution. “A 2012 speech by Masha Gessen, an author and outspoken activist for the LGBT community, is just now going viral and it includes a theory that many supporters of traditional marriage have speculated about for years: The push for gay marriage has less to do with the right to marry – it is about diminishing and eventually destroying the institution of marriage and redefining the “traditional family.””