There Are No Lost Causes

Saturday, March 30th, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Family Values, Immigration

“I think that if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it,” Bobby Knight famously remarked to Connie Chung.

That was 1988. No, Bobby Knight was not a Republican candidate for Congress. He was answering a question about stress and how he dealt with situations in which he was not able to get his way. Twenty-five years later the Bobby Knight Stress Release Tactic has been adopted by the GOP (and some prominent conservatives) as a way to deal with the reality that Democrats aren’t going to let us have our way.

On gay marriage, no less a figure than Rush Limbaugh picked up a white flag this week and joined the forced march to cultural re-education Dick Cheney, Rob Portman and many others are on because it is “inevitable”.

The GOP autopsy (aren’t autopsies for dead organisms, not living ones?) reported that Republicans need to get over their fixation with ideas such as borders or citizenship in order to remain a viable party. Amnesty  A pathway to citizenship is inevitable and won’t hurt our electoral prospects a bit. It will only increase our base. In fact, John McCain was recently touring the Mexican border where he saw a woman so eager to become a Republican voter she scaled an 18-foot fence to get here. Senator McCain, I’m told, immediately handed the woman a Green Card and hired her to clean the second story gutters on his house. Just kidding. It was only a 16-foot fence.

We’re told by well placed counselors in the GOP that we’ll have to give in to legalizing drugs and to certain aspects of nationalized health care because young people like smoking dope and staying on their parents insurance until their parents are grandparents. Young voters will inevitably become Democrats if we don’t relax and get hip.

Conservative causes are not inevitably lost. We control the majority of governorships and the House of Representatives. Gay marriage has lost in 30 state referendums. No poll has shown a majority of the American people are in favor of amnesty.  Those issues, along with the size and scope of federal spending, are up for grabs.

We are facing an implacable foe determined to comprehensively change American politics and the American polity. It is a stressful time and what is being revealed on the Right is a deficiency in will, in courage, in imagination and in wit. No party gets its way in politics without making its case. 2014 is about creating a Republican Party that will fight — not lie back and enjoy what’s coming.

Author Wendell Talley

Mischaracterization of DOMA

Thursday, March 28th, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Family Values

The general gist of the outcome from this week’s oral arguments on the marriage cases is that there are 5 Justices who are inclined to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but not enough members of the court who see a constitutional right for a “gay marriage.”  It was particularly disturbing to see that Anthony Kennedy has no understanding of DOMA.  He asserted that “the question is whether or not the Federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage.”

No, Justice Kennedy, the question is whether the federal government has the right to recognize marriage as what it was since the dawn of times – just for the purpose of federal laws that interact with marriage status.  This idea that DOMA violates the federalism scheme is absurd.  It never seeks to regulate or even define marriage in a way that precludes states from creating their own definition for marriage.  It merely uses the definition of marriage accepted by 41 states (49 states at the time of its passage in 1996) and applies it to federal law.  It also protects states that want to keep marriage a marriage from subsidizing gay marriage and from onerous lawsuits.

What it doesn’t do is prevent other states from adopting gay marriage.  Indeed 9 states have accepted gay marriage since passage of DOMA.  In fact, Chief Justice Roberts got Solicitor GeneralVerrilli to admit that the federalism argument is bogus:

Read More

Roe v Wade 2.0?

Monday, March 25th, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Family Values

How have we fallen so low as nation that we are on the precipice of descending to the moral abyss and on the cusp of mandating chaotic absurdity?

What is at stake this week at the Supreme Court is not just the redefinition of marriage and the fabric of civilization.  It’s whether Americans will continue to have the liberty to recognize and defend the most fundamental building block of civilization.  States are already free to recognize anything they desire to be a marriage.  That has never been negated by DOMA, nor will it be countermanded by any outcome of the two court cases.  On the other hand, we already know that 4 Justices will almost certainly rule that gay marriage is enshrined in our Constitution, to the extent that states and even the people are precluded from retaining the most basic definition of marriage.  All they need is one more vote from either Anthony Kennedy or John Souter Roberts.

By extension, once they are graced with special protection status pursuant to the corrupted interpretation of the 14th Amendment, it will be impossible to forestall the torrent of lawsuits that will ensue to force all individuals and organizations to recognize the full smorgasbord of the homosexual agenda.  So much for personal liberty.  Don’t even begin delving into the liberties of those children who are forced to live with homosexual parents – of no fault of their own.

As we’ve noted before, the definition of marriage does not emanate from the government; rather it is a fixed institution of the civil society.  In its interaction with the civil society, governments recognize the institution of marriage the same way it recognizes any other fixed institution when the need arises.  The Defense of Marriage Act merely protects that definition from the legal assault on states that want to retain marriage as what it was for thousands of years.  It reflects that definition in federal laws as well.  It does not, however, preclude other states from redefining marriage for the purpose of its own laws.  That would have required a Federal Marriage Amendment.  In that sense, if the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA it will be exposing 41 states to lawsuits; it will not be protecting the 9 states that recognize gay marriage.  They already are protected.

Read More

re: The Color of the Sky

Saturday, March 16th, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Family Values, Issues

I don’t have much to add to Daniel’s excellent post on gay marriage yesterday. I’ll say only that Senator Portman’s reversal on the issue is symptomatic of the corruption and sentimentalizing of conservative thinking. We do not know how to talk about rights anymore.

It used to be axiomatic to the thinking in our circles that a man’s rights corresponded to his abilities. It is not a right if you need me to give it to you or can only get it by the force. Our understanding about the true nature of rights is why the Left’s jibber jabber about supposed rights to health care and education puts a twitch in our eyes. The Left’s conception of rights is actually a license for the use of force by the State.

If a man has a right to marry, some woman must have the duty of marrying him; if a man has a right to rest, some other person must have the duty of supporting him. If rights are confused with desires, the mass of men must feel always that some vast, intangible conspiracy thwarts their attainment of what they are told is their inalienable birthright. Those are the words of Russell Kirk.

Marriage pre-dates the State. Governments can only recognize the institution — not enforce it. Marriage is foundational to the way society is ordered. It creates a bulwark for the protection of women and children. It creates self-governing units of people (we used to call them families in antiquarian America) who in turn erect governments that protect the natural rights already existent in the populace.

It is a bad sign for America that so many conservatives don’t know or won’t defend the elementary convictions of their philosophy. They cannot discern rights and order from force and disorder. They have been swept off their feet by the romantic inventions of cultural radicals.

Author Wendell Talley

I’m Evolving on the Color of the Sky

Friday, March 15th, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Family Values

I have come to believe that if three people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married.

One day, my son came home from playgroup and told my wife and I that he desires to marry both of his friends – a boy and a girl.  Henceforth, I have decided that it’s time for government and society to recognize that the term marriage should include a threesome.

OK – that is not exactly the story of Senator Rob Portman’s post-election evolution on the issue, but it is quite close.  I only changed one word of his in my first sentence – I swapped out the word “two” for “three.”

There is no other issue that is debated with more non-sequiturs and red herrings than the issue of marriage.  We hear cries for compassion, sympathy, fairness, equality, choice, love, pursuit of happiness and fulfillment,” and even liberty.  What supporters of changing the reality known as marriage fail to comprehend is that you can no sooner change the institution of marriage than you can change the color of the sky.

The definition of marriage does not emanate from the government; rather it is a fixed institution of the civil society.  In its interaction with the civil society, governments recognize the institution of marriage the same way it recognizes any other fixed institution when the need arises.  If three or four individuals seek equality of choice, and in their ‘pursuit of happiness and fulfillment’ they seek to form a common bond and live together as husband and wife, they are at liberty to do so.  They can choose any lifestyle that strikes their fancy.   They can eve hire a band and celebrate. They can also choose to get married as well and pursue that fulfillment with one human from the opposite gender.  But none of that changes the reality of marriage.

Read More

Chief Rabbi of France’s Sagacious Thoughts on the Implications of Gay Marriage

Tuesday, February 19th, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Family Values

How have we found ourselves in the midst of the a fight to the death against something so preposterous as gay marriage?  We have failed to articulate the deep implications – societal, legal, and generational – of such a dramatic and impetuous alteration of the civil society.  The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has written the most insightful and authoritative piece on every aspect of this issue in a long essay posted online here.  American conservatives would be wise to extrapolate on some of the cogent points made by Rabbi Bernheim.  Here are some key points:

On the straw-man argument of equality:

From the fact that people love each other it does not follow necessarily that they have the right to be married, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual. For example, a man cannot marry a woman who is already married, even if they love each other. Likewise, a woman cannot be married to two men on the grounds that she loves both of them and that both want to be her husband. A father cannot marry his daughter, even if their love is uniquely paternal and filial.

Of course, we understand the wish of people who are in love that their love be recognized. Still, there are strict rules defining what kinds of unions can be recognized as marriages and what kinds cannot. Thus “marriage for everyone” is only a slogan, since after the authorization of homosexual marriage the law would maintain forms of inequality and discrimination that would continue to apply to those who love each other but to whom marriage is not available.

On adoption:

To love a child is one thing; to love a child with a love that provides the necessary structure is another. There can be no doubt that homosexuals have the same capacity to love a child and to convey this love as do heterosexuals, but the role of parents extends beyond the love they feel for their children. To reduce the parental bond to its affective and educative aspects is to overlook the fact that the parent–child bond is a psychological vector of fundamental importance for the child’s sense of identity.

All the affection in the world will not suffice to produce the basic psychological structures that address the child’s need to know where he comes from. For the child establishes his own identity only by a process of differentiation, which presupposes that he knows whom he resembles. Thus he needs to know that he issues from the love and the union between a man, his father, and a woman, his mother, thanks to the sexual difference between them. Even adopted children know that they originate from the love and the desire of their parents, even when these are not their biological parents.

Father and mother represent a genealogy for the child. The child needs a clear and coherent genealogy in order to find his place as an individual. What has always and will always constitute our humanity is the capacity for language in a sexually differentiated body and as part of a genealogy. To identify a child’s parentage is not only to indicate who will raise the child, with whom he will have affective relations, and who will serve as his adults of reference. It is also, most important, to situate him in a generational chain. The chain guarantees each individual a place in the world in which he lives, for he knows where he came from.

Be sure to read the full essay when you get a chance.  It is well worth your time.

Emancipation & The Master Class

Friday, February 15th, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Family Values, Issues

by Wendell Talley


Replace this guy as the guiding light of a ruling class with this guy and a vulgar, vicious and idiotic society is certain.

We’ve done just that and the resulting American aristocracy has turned malevolent, rapacious and low.

Of course we have an aristocracy. Every nation does. In the United States we don’t overtly recognize it otherwise the hot dogs wouldn’t go down as smoothly on the Fourth. Instead we mutter about “the elites” or “ruling elites”. Any word but the A word.

An aristocrat in John Adams’ definition, by way of Russell Kirk, is any person that can command the votes of two persons — his own, and another man’s. In other words they are persons of influence whether by nature, by birth, by education, by wealth, by character, by cunning or by notoriety. No one will deny the existence of such people in America.

Two large problems fester within our unacknowledged aristocracy and they need to be addressed if we are to have a healthy and thriving public square. Generally speaking, our elites are 1. obscene and 2. of a narrow political persuasion.

One type of obscenity — the $15M payoff to Meg Whitman  for her role in guiding Hewlett-Packard with all the grace and skill found in the Hindenburg landing — I have discussed before.

The other type is just as retch-inducing but more accepted. It is commanded by the notorious division of our aristocratic class (Gaga, Kardashian, Sheen, et al.) With all of the subtlety of a streaker at a funeral this class of elite has used every available media tool to amplify behavior that fifty years ago was considered boorish, at best, and perverted in the main. The danger posed by these jokers lies in their softening the view of destructive character traits that will kill, pauperize or imprison an average person. The unchecked aggression celebrated by rappers — from gunplay to womanizing — is the bane of ghettoes coast to coast. Using a sex tape as a CV worked for Kim Kardashian but the mentality that uses such a ploy is a flaw every sensible father would want rooted out of his daughter. As Gertrude Himmelfarb has written, the wealthy can long sustain a lifestyle that would ruin a poor man within a week.

I’m no prude. I understand people have always done what the culture warriors impotently rail against. The difference is that in the 50s when Ingrid Bergman had an affair with Roberto Rossellini she was hectored from the public eye for five years. Today we would have seen vivid evidence of the Bergman-Rossellini tryst. The former can be reactionary and merciless in its extremes but it sets a useful boundary. The latter is viewed as more liberal and enlightened but it obliterates needed social custom.

This is where conservatives part ways with our Libertarian friends. No society marinated in slime can remain free.  A debauched people is not a people capable of self-government. They will eventually demand and deserve a tyrant.

The second issue with our ruling grandees is that in important ways they share common political interests that are in profound conflict with us commoners. This is most clearly seen in the debate on illegal immigration which cuts vertically across party lines. One side views open borders as a theoretical question of fairness and universal human rights. The other as a question of being priced out of the labor market, a question of life as a self-reliant citizen or life as a journeyman mooch on the government dole.

And, generally speaking again, to the extent the aristocrat is grounded in academia, law, media, finance or entertainment he is a uniform and reflexive Leftist. Individuals are entitled to their opinions but when whole institutions are under the sway of one ideology it breeds corruption, tribalism and turns politics into a low grade civil war.

All of this leaves us with a coarsened culture, a disaffected electorate and a major political party that believes it has a “branding” issue rather than a candidate/communication/consultant issue.

The black aristocracy is a gleaming illustration in microcosm of the two problems with American aristocracy outlined above 1. Its unseemliness 2. Its political uniformity.

Appraise black America’s current existence in obscenity from top to bottom and from back when up until now. From Dizzy and Duke to Jay Z and Lil’ Wayne. From jacketed, serious men dedicated to excellence to gold-toothed, marble-mouthed vulgarians who don’t know how to properly wear a hat. From married living to baby mama drama. From King to Sharpton. From Ralph Ellison to Tyler Perry. The two generation trend has been unrelentingly downward. And I’ll note for the material optimists out there that the increase in black America’s monetary wealth over those two generations has only been outpaced by its moral degeneracy. We now face the insane proposition that a large minority of American citizens take gangsters and pimps as their cultural heroes over scholars and entrepreneurs.

Put it this way: my great-grandfather (and yours) would be astounded that there is an entire class of black people who get rich by calling other black people Nigger. And that they are excused by another class of blacks who say it’s ok because the name callers use an -az ending to the slur instead of -er and because it’s said in a rhyme.

Appraise black America’s monolithic and unquestioning loyalty to the Democratic Party. To the confounding of many pundits, neither President Obama’s stance on gay marriage nor the staggering unemployment rate for blacks dented blacks enthusiasm for Mr. Obama. Despite (or maybe because of) a catastrophic first term the black aristocracy (think: Oprah, Magic, Spike) held Obama tighter. Samuel Jackson cut campaign ads for him. Chris Rock and Jamie Foxx were undaunted supporters of the Obama administration. At times, Whoopi Goldberg seemed seconds away from physically attacking people in order to defend Obama’s honor.

The man had done nothing except be identifiably black and have a D next to his name on the voting ballot. And, really, that’s all it takes when the influential are writing the story on your behalf. Obama could have given his campaign speeches standing in front of a burning cross while wearing a Klan hood and he still would have outpolled Romney in black precincts.

The Obama campaign and Democrats, in the main, do not have to hire consultants to operate an air campaign to get the black vote. The black aristocracy does it for them. I spent election morning listening to black radio stations. Between songs (and sometimes over songs) the deejays were busy whipping votes for Obama’s reelection. They were much more effective than any campaign ad could have been.

This is where the hapless, hopelessly white and perennially unhip GOP staggers onto the stage. The Republican Party surveys a landscape of violent, chaotic and morally atrophied ghettoes from sea to shining sea and concludes that the kingmakers in such a setting are pastors. Who in the world thinks a populace that leads the league in incarceration rates, bastardy, and accounts for 30% of all abortions is under the sway of Gospel preachers?

Tellingly, the Obama campaign didn’t. They relied on “barber shop and beauty salons” “Condo captains” along with “Faith captains” (i.e. laymen) to corral the black vote. They did not take it for granted. They organized with people in the neighborhood.

To turn the black vote, the GOP and interested conservatives (there are some, aren’t there?) are going to have to learn a fundamental lesson. It is not a matter of consultant driven media buys versus grassroots activism in the case of the black voter. What is necessary is to have a relationship with the black elite so that they function as consultants or guides that will facilitate the building of an effective grassroots presence in black districts.

The black aristocracy mirrors the larger aristocratic class — it is unhealthily monolithic in its political allegiance. It will not do to plead for votes on behalf of Republicans. You might as well ask Kobe Bryant to knowingly score baskets for the opponent. The Republican Party is not black America’s team. Don’t sit down with the black elite while wearing the Republican uniform.

Most of the black aristocracy do not enjoy their position by virtue of birth or family tie. They worked their way to the platform they now enjoy. They have an understanding of what success in America requires. They care about the plight of black lower class if for no other reason than many of them are the first generation in their family to escape it. They know the way of the belt-less, gold-toothed crowd is a crippling folly. They may not be credentialed historians but they know the history of their families and their neighborhoods. They know it has not always been shot through with dysfunction.

We know, and have the numbers to prove, that the federal government creates dependence not independence. It creates clients for its services not functioning citizens.Conservatives need to sit down with these folks and be question askers and note takers. Find a way to help them effectively help the people they care about and conservatism will get a hearing.

Developing an emancipationist sentiment, as Ishmael Reed puts it, would serve conservatives well if we are to expand from people hearing our ideas on education reform, prison reform and economic reform to people believing in and following our ideas. The emancipationist sentiment requires being on the scene when a black mother is thrown in jail for attempting to send her children to a better school. It requires ears and eyes in the places we don’t go.

If conservatives don’t like the narrative being spun about us in black neighborhoods we will have to engage the story tellers to change it.


Wendell blogs at The Talley Sheet

Author Wendell Talley

The Snakes in the GOP Grass

Monday, February 4th, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Family Values, Immigration

Over the weekend, the New York Times reported that the power players at American Crossroads are financing a new group to help fund candidates in the primaries who oppose conservatives. In light of their smashing success electing candidates like Tommy Thompson, Rick Berg, Denny Rehberg, George Allen, Heather Wilson, and Linda Lingle, they will expand their roadshow into the primaries during the next election cycle in search of the next candidate who is indistinguishable from his/her Democrat opponent.

In an Orwellian attempt to obfuscate their agenda, they will be naming their PAC “the Conservative Victory Project.”  They will never tell you how they plan to achieve conservative victory without running conservative candidates.

As I solicit feedback from grassroots Republicans throughout the country in preparation for the 2014 elections, I’m struck by the deep sense of pain and disquiet that has penetrated the very core of our base.  They are witnessing a rogue regime that is dismantling every aspect of this country they love so dearly – one limb at a time.  They watch helplessly as a malevolent administration, which harbors no respect for our Founders and Constitution, works to destroy our free markets, saddles our children with incorrigible debt, infringes upon our liberties, assaults our family values, erases our borders, appeases our enemies, and abrogates the rule of law.  Hence, they see the demise of our Republic, with only feeble resistance to those engendering the decline.

The values of our party’s base – the values that have made this country what it is today – are being labeled extreme by those who seek to implement their extreme views.

Those of us who believe that the government doesn’t have the right to redistribute wealth are lampooned as greedy.

Those of us who seek to enforce our immigration laws are labeled as bigots.

Those of us who protest the ever officious government interventions into every aspect of our personal lives and businesses are ignored.

Those of us who don’t want our human rights violated at airports are considered rabble-rousers.

Those of us who want to retain our Second Amendment rights are being challenged by an administration that has abused firearms by selling them to drug cartels via an agency that was never brought to justice for Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Those of us who abide by the laws of the land – even those that are of dubious constitutionality – are helpless in preventing a rogue administration thwart the legal checks and balanced in its pursuit of an agenda that is foreign to our Republic.

Millions of Republican voters feel disenfranchised and voiceless as the pale-pastel figures in the party rise to the top levels of power.  All they want is one party that is willing to take a stand and articulate their values – values which were considered commonsense until recent years.

Over the past few election cycles, a number of us have worked hard to find those few but strong voices in the wilderness.  We have successfully elected people like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and a number of congressmen who are committed to fighting for the values of our Republic.  Yet, the old power players within the party will not go silently.  They obdurately seek to quell any effort to restore the Republican Party as an effective voice for the values of our Republic.

Yes, it is not enough to merely nominate a conservative; we must also find candidates who are savvy, articulate, and have the organization to go the distance.  But the minute we choose a candidate who is not conservative, we lose the election before a single vote is cast.  Voters are attracted to a show of force and decisiveness; we will certainly never change hearts and minds if we nominate candidates who are indistinguishable from Democrats.

We are looking for one party that is willing to fight for the restoration of our Republic, not jettison every tenet of our Constitution under the false allurement of electoral success.  One by one, people like Karl Rove seek to crush another sacred belief of the conservative base.  All social issues? Gone. Enforcement before amnesty? No way.  Stay strong on taxes? Forget about it. Fight Obamacare? That’s a done deal.

Folks, we must win back the soul of the Republican Party before we can effect any positive change.  For my part, I’ll be working overtime through the Madison Project Majority PAC to leave no stone unturned in the pursuit of strong voices for liberty.  There are a number of other great conservative leaders, such as the Club for Growth and the Senate Conservatives Fund, who will do the same.

In this battle, we must distinguish friend from foe.  It is a battle we did not initiate, but it is one we must win.

Cross-posted at

How To Make Friends In Low Places

Thursday, January 24th, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Family Values, Issues

Eventually, the unofficial GOP strategy of disregard will chase off even their hardcore base of black voters. You know, the five out of every hundred blacks that show up at the polls to vote for Republicans on election day. And quadrennially, after the latest embarrassing exit polls, we have to beat our breast and ask why blacks have abandoned the party of their liberators.

It’s a dumb question.

The better line of investigation is to ask why the party of education reform does not follow up on the rampant corruption and malpractice in public schools to make inroads with black voters.

Here is a short tale that illustrates the sloth and inertia of Republicans.

Kelly Williams-Bolar is a black, single mother of two who was thrown in jail in 2011 for sending her daughters to an out of district public school. Educational theft was the charge. No, her daughters weren’t cribbing off the Asian kid’s math test. They were illegal students — a powder keg of a phrase in places such as Arizona, California or Texas but apparently infused with some entire other meaning in the oozing slough of Ohio public schools.

Ms. Bolar’s daughters were stuck in the local ignorance stockade known as Akron public schools. Being a conscientious parent she looked for a way to rescue her children from a blighted future. She used her father’s address to enroll them in a better public school district. This went on for four years until the Fugitive Student Team (yes, really) in the Copley-Fairlawn School District sniffed out the runaway students and had Ms. Bolar  bound and shackled. Subsequently, a jury convicted her of fourth degree grand theft of school services (so much for the wisdom of the American public). She spent ten days in jail and and was given three years of probation. Oh, and the school wanted her (and her father) to pay reparations in the amount of $30,000 for the education her children had stolen from the free public school.

What does this have to do with the Republican Party? Nothing at all, unfortunately. The only defenders of Ms. Bolar were Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, some doctrinaire Lefties at an outfit called, the Institute for Black Public Policy and Anderson Cooper. In other words, the cheerleaders for the very system that disasterizes the education of black youth from coast to coast got away with masquerading as her protectors.

The party of education reform was notably silent.

No Great American Panels were convened on her behalf, no calls to action from the RNC or Ohio Republican Party. She wasn’t a white firefighter getting shafted in an affirmative action quarrel so, it seems, it was okay to holster our outrage.

Yes, Republican governor, John Kasich, granted clemency to Ms. Bolar but that was only after the uproar from the public reaction to the parole board’s outrageous denial of a pardon reached the governor’s mansion.

Education is a tailor made issue for Republicans to steal votes from Democrats and turn blacks away from the Left. Presidential opposition to the DC scholarship program, the run of blacks into homeschooling, besides the comprehensive failure of public schools to adequately educate its black students are just a few millstones to hang around the necks of Democrats, who are irrevocably indebted  to teacher’s unions. It is laughable that the party of George Wallace and Ross Barnett gets to pretend it cares about the quality of education blacks receive.

At what point does the resolute Republican indolence when it comes to the issues that most affect black citizens lend credence to the tired old Left wing charge of racism? Really the allegation of racism is an insult to all the hard working, nose to the grindstone racists across the country. Racists care. The GOP can’t even rouse itself enough to pay attention.

Too bad, because hapless Republicans need all the friends they can get these days. Get the education issue right and Republicans will find larger audiences for their (hopefully conservative) message on immigration, entitlement reform and gun control.

It is what inclusion looks like — gathering more people under the conservative banner by emphasizing, not abandoning, core principles.

Pigmentation isn’t political destiny unless you think black mothers like being hauled off to jail for caring about their children.

(cross-posted from The Talley Sheet with updates and revisions)

You can read more about Wendell Talley here

Author Wendell Talley


Kelly Williams-Bolar (photo from oneworldpi)

Another Administrative Order: Women in Combat

Wednesday, January 23rd, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Family Values, Foreign Policy

Let’s face it: in many respects Obama has been more successful for the left that Reagan was for the right.  He has extirpated every last virtue from our traditional American culture, mostly by executive fiat.  He has vitiated the Defense of Marriage Act; he has opened the door for millions of third-world illegal immigrants to change the balance of power in this country; now his Defense Secretary has paved the road for women to serve in every last combat position, including infantry and special forces.  This is all being done with little or no opposition from Republicans in Congress.

It’s entertaining to watch liberals pretend to stand up for women.  Well, presumably, you can only champion “women’s issues” if you believe women are indeed special and unique from men.  Yet, they seek to jettison any difference between the genders, most notably, by encouraging women to act like men.  They relentlessly promote women in gender-bender activities in an effort to make women indistinguishable from men.  But at the same time, they hypocritically shed the super-woman image by demanding special standards, “protections” and legislation for women.

Republicans might feel safe avoiding these “uncomfortable” issues, but they need to understand that we will never become a fiscally conservative society with decedent cultural values.  No degree of fiscal policy can ever heal the cultural illness that is being foisted upon us from the radical left.  And if we continue to allow Obama to unilaterally fight a culture war, all of these issues will become moot.

You can follow Daniel Horowitz on twitter @ RMConservative