Here is the question as I see these two signs: “Which sign is actually advocating hate and people not being welcome?”

A clue may come from the comments of Vanessa Raymond, who is the one who posted the sign. She says, “I posted this sign and balloon today…I HAD to! I will not tolerate this behavior in my community, no matter who or where it comes from. I had NO IDEA this would gain nationwide press, but I am glad that my small action prompted this uproar…I am planning a peaceful “protest” Sunday morning…check my FB page for further info! THanks for all the support! (Love a Straight-spiritual-yet-not-religious-believer-in-what-is-right!)”

So here is something really interesting. The sign is about love and tolerance and EVERYONE being welcome in her community. But her explanation of the sign is about intolerance, causing an uproar, and Christians not being welcome in her community.

You see, it’s exactly as I called it when I posted a few days ago, saying that legalizing gay marriage will unleash a torrent of intolerance. The push to re-define marriage as including homosexual relationships is not about rights and tolerance, it’s about shutting people up because what they say makes certain people uncomfortable. The tolerance rhetoric is a mask.

Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.

The Left has gotten away with this mask of tolerance for too long. You’ll notice I call them “The Left” rather than Liberal, and I do that because they are not liberal. Their movement sprang from liberalism, because when the views of the Left were much less popular, they got their voices heard by appealing to tolerance. But as they have gained power, their intolerance has become much more evident.

A couple of months ago, the Pew Research Center published a study about tolerance. They found that “Liberals” were twice as likely as “Conservatives” to block or unfriend people on social network sites because they posted something they disagreed with. We conservatives have known about this intolerance for a long time. It’s a difficult thing for the Left to acknowledge.

So that should give us cause to question that legalizing gay marriage will be a step toward tolerance and understanding. In fact, it will be a giant step away from those values.

Gay people have the right to marry just the same as everyone else. I recently had occasion to examine a marriage license application here in Arizona. Nowhere on the application was there any question about sexual orientation. I’m confident the same is true in every state in the union. Gays can marry—they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex because that’s what marriage is. Gay marriage is not about civil rights, it’s about changing the definition of marriage.

And here is the heart of the issue. The problem radical gay activists have is that there is a word in our language whose definition implies that there is a difference between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual one. They don’t want there to be such a word.

It’s not about tolerance of gays. This is about silencing people. We are not permitted to have a word that implies a difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. And once the definition of the word is changed, they will keep pressing to ban any expression in the pubic square that there is any such difference. People who hold that view will not be welcome to broadcast their views on television or radio, maybe even on the Internet. They won’t be allowed to express those views in public schools. They will be drummed out of public office. If the locations of their homes are known, they will be in jeopardy.

Look at how they are treated already. Carrie Prejean was disqualified from serving as Miss USA for expressing her belief in traditional marriage. Gay blogger Perez Hilton exploded over her response. Proponents of Proposition 8 in California have been vandalized and attacked. Actors who backed the measure have been blacklisted.

In Massachusetts, schools are already moving to purge any expressions of preference for traditional marriage, lest the young ones be exposed to any such notions.

After my last posting about gay marriage in January, I received several responses from gay marriage activists. One, in particular, gloated over what he saw as the inevitability of public acceptance and boasting over what he saw as the defeat of religion. You see, certain religions say that homosexual acts are sinful. That can’t be allowed. And that is what this is about—silencing those voices. No, no, don’t fall for it. For the Left, tolerance is a mask, not a conviction.

Follow-up – here is a PERFECT illustration. A gay marriage advocate posts a sign at a church that speaks of including everyone, but her comments in which she reveals the thoughts and emotions that motivated her to put up the sign speak of her intolerance and her delight over the uproar that she caused. See my follow-up post: Gay marriage advocates and their intolerance of religion.

Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.

That is, unless it is black people hating white people.

I was thinking about the firing of blogger Naomi Schaefer Riley for her critique the she wrote for The Chronicle of Higher Education titled,
“The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations.”

She had the gall to suggest that the dissertations she reviewed were “a collection of left-wing victimization claptrap.” And she went further. “Let some legitimate scholars find solutions to the problems of blacks in America,” she said. “Solutions that don’t begin and end with blame the white man.”

Imagine telling African Americans to not blame the white man.

Black people hating white people—that type of racism is not only considered okay—the Left actually makes it noble. It’s a qualification in the eyes of some for being a “civil rights leader.” And for African-Americans to try to preach that this ill will should be put aside, well, they’re not “down for the struggle.” They’re not authentically black.

The Chronicle editor Liz McMillen originally responded to the outcry over the article by encouraging readers “to debate Riley’s views, challenge her, set things straight as you see fit.”

But after the weekend, she caved to the criticism, apologized to readers in “A Note to Readers,” and fired Riley.

McMillen explained that Riley was asked to leave, as her post “did not conform to the journalistic standards and civil tone that you expect from us.”

No, Liz, the problem with Riley’s piece is that she was asking African-Americans to put aside their hatred, to turn the page of history and get on with their lives, freed from the shackles of victimology. Liz, they just don’t want to hear that.

Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.

The only way Obama can get re-elected – the only way he got elected in the first place – is by pretending to be something he’s not. Taking more credit than he deserves for this grand achievement of the Navy Seals helps people see him for what he is.

On Special Report with Bret Baier last night, Juan Williams was one of the all-star panel. Juan is one of the two or three biggest apologists for Obama to appear on that panel. Even he said he felt that Obama’s excessive celebration over this was appearing disgusting.

It makes things so much easier when people of low class actually appear to be low class. It makes it so much easier to figure things out. And that’s especially important in an election year.

Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.

The main premise of the article is that the spirit of contention is wrong and that we shouldn’t harbor ill will against political adversaries. While I agree with that, and, in fact, with almost everything the article says, I disagree somewhat with what it seems to imply. And it implies that political adversaries are not our enemies. And he goes on to suggest that we should not impute evil motives to our political adversaries.

I just finished reading Alma, chapter 2. This article by Dr. Goddard helped me see it in a fresh perspective. If you will remember, this is about the Amlicites. It is five years after the Nephites had decided to change their form of government from having a king to a system of judges. Amlici was the founder of a political faction among the Nephites that wished to revert back to the old system. He wanted them to have a king. And specifically, he wanted to be the king. And it seems that enough people were on his side of the issue that when it was decided that a popular referendum needed to be held on this issue, the outcome was not a foregone conclusion. The text breathes a sigh of relief when Amlici’s faction lost.

Now, as we read this text, we have the benefit of the inspired commentary that labels Amlici as “a wicked man” and gives us great clarity as to his intentions. But I would not be surprised at all to have learned that his intentions were not all that clear at the time to the people who were rallying to one side or the other. Is going back to a system you followed just five years ago a radical idea? It doesn’t seem to be. And so it is in our time. Some seem to be able to see clearly the intentions of various political players to take away our liberty, to overthrow the family and Christianity. Others feel that it is wrong to ascribe those motives to those who differ on political issues and are more disposed to want to compromise.

When Amlici lost, he was very angry. Interestingly, we don’t read in the text of any efforts by the free Nephites to try to compromise, “get along,” or see if they could smooth over some differences. So the whole political dispute ended up in a war. Furthermore, Amlici, before he was defeated, ended up forming an alliance with the Lamanites, the external enemies of the Nephites. Analogies with our present political climate in the United States are eerie, as certain political factions seem to have a disturbing affinity for foreign countries and philosophies that many of us would consider enemies of freedom.

As we continue to read in The Book of Mormon more about their politics during the period of the judges, we become acquainted with that political firebrand, Captain Moroni. I come to the disturbing conclusion that Captain Moroni does not meet the standards of political discourse as laid down by Dr. Goddard.

And there was one comment written by a reader of the article that I found particularly troubling: “I am going to school at a very liberal university and it is hard to keep quiet, especially over the issues of abortion and especially when facts are so distorted. But if I said something, I would only fuel the fire of contention. The best advice I heard anyone say during a political discussion is to: ‘Smile and Nod.’ ” Really? Is that what we have covenanted to do when we accepted the gospel, that when the lives of innocents are treated as worthless, that we should just “smile and nod?” But that is where this thinking leads.

Satan is using politics to further his causes. And those causes include: getting people to envy one another, tearing down the family and morality, and taking away our liberty. Is it not Christian to resist that with energy? So while I agree that we should treat political opponents with Christian charity, I also believe that in some cases they seek our destruction or overthrow and they are our enemies, and they should be resisted with all the fire and zeal of Captain Moroni.

Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.

Mark brought out a number of audio clips from Romney’s past that expound his moderate position. If you are one of those who like to think of Romney as a true, consistent conservative, I invite you to listen to these short audio clips. Most of them are about 30 seconds long.

Here’s the one I like the best, because it’s the most clear that he considers himself a moderate. This is from his campaign for governor of Massachusetts, where he defines himself as a moderate and a progressive:

Romney: A moderate with progressive views.

I had an interesting personal experience with this. In 2007, I ran a publishing company that was asked by a bookstore distributor to publish a biography about Mitt Romney. They felt the market needed an inexpensive paperback on Romney. I knew a couple of authors I thought would be great for the project. Though they were not deeply into politics, they were great researchers and had just finished collaborating on an excellent history book for us. When I got their final manuscript of the Romney book, I saw that they had described Romney’s political philosophy as moderate. I objected. They told me this was their conclusion from their research. I told them that we wanted this to be a pro-Romney book, and that calling him a moderate would be a kiss of death in the primaries, so I instructed them to take that out. I chuckle now, remembering that. You can still find the book (Mitt Romney: The Man, His Values and His Vision, published by my publishing company, Mapletree Publishing Company) listed on Amazon.

It’s interesting, too, Romney’s criticism of Rick Santorum for voting for “No Child Left Behind.” That vote was in 2001. I mentioned in another post that all of the solid conservatives in the Senate: Phil Gramm, Strom Thurmond, Rick Santorum, and Jeff Sessions, voted for that. The three Republicans who voted against it were all liberal. But after it was implemented, there were misgivings among conservatives as they saw its effect. But not with Romney. In 2006, after five years of implementation, Romney had high praise for “No Child Left Behind.” Here’s the clip Mark Levin played:

Romney: Praising Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act.

Mark also dug up this clip where Romney comments on gun rights. While the other clips are about 30 seconds or less, this one is two minutes because it includes some commentary by Mark Levin, and a long preface the interviewer gave to his question, asking Romney to explain his opposition to NRA policies as governor, and then signing up for a lifetime membership in the NRA when he decided to run for president.

Romney: Defending his evolving position on gun control.

There’s more. Here is Romney, again in 2002 when he was running for Governor, saying that he thinks Utah has too many Republicans and that wasn’t a good thing.

Romney: Utah has too many Republicans.

And here he is again, in the race for governor, distancing himself from “the Republican view of things.”

Romney: Distancing himself again from Republicans.

I can see, with all these clips, how Planned Parenthood felt comfortable endorsing him for governor.

And after the debate, Romney had little shyness in criticizing Rick Santorum for his accurate depiction of politics as a “team sport.” But apparently, as governor, he understood the value of team players as he sought to get his Romneycare passed. Here he is praising Ted Kennedy for his support in helping pass Romneycare.

Romney: Praising Ted Kennedy for his invaluable support in helping get Romneycare passed.

But when it gets really good is when you get clips of him running for the Senate against Ted Kennedy, where he tried to sound even more liberal.

Romney: The independent, not for Reagan/Bush, voting for Democrat Paul Tsongas.

(Tsongas was US senator from Massachusetts from 1979-1985, and was known as a social liberal and economic moderate.)

Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.

Rick looked sheepish when Ron Paul attacked him at the debate last night for his defense of voting for “No child left behind.” He said, in his defense, “Politics is a team sport,” upon which Ron Paul jumped on him. Team players, Ron Paul said, are the problem in Washington.

Yes, we need to fight the establishment, so to an extent, his statement resonates with me. But if you are totally combative, you get nothing done. I wish that Santorum had thought of this counter-attack at the time. It would have been beautiful. Ron Paul, as we know, doesn’t go along with anything. I’m sorry, to me that isn’t a virtue. To be effective in Congress, you need to be more than just a gadfly.

Do a Google search on Ron Paul’s legislative achievements. You will discover that in 23 years in Congress, he has sponsored 620 pieces of legislation, and only one of those was enacted into law. And that one law was the sale of the old U.S. customs house to the Galveston Historical Foundation. Whoop-de-doo.

Now Google Rick Santorum’s legislative achievements. You’ll find that when he began his service in the House of Representatives, he joined with Jim Nussle and John Boehner as one of the famous “Gang of Seven” that exposed the Congressional Banking and Congressional Post Office scandals. He was an author and floor manager of the landmark Welfare Reform Act of 1996. He wrote the legislation that outlawed partial birth abortion. And we could go on.

No, it’s easy to sit on the sidelines and carp. But there’s an art to knowing how to get things done, and sometimes, to do that, you do have to play with the team. There’s a balance you have to strike there. You can’t condone “business as usual” when it is corrupt or it undermines conservative principles. In retrospect, it is clear that Santorum thinks he should have done differently in the case of George Bush’s education agenda. But I remember those days, and there was a strong feeling that Republicans needed to support their president, who was under withering attack from the Left from the day he was elected. I don’t fault Santorum for that. I looked up the roll call vote on that legislation, and there were three Republican nay votes – Voinovich (OH), Hagel (NE), and Bennett (UT) – all solid moderates. The most conservative Republicans, including Phil Gramm, Jeff Sessions, Rick Santorum, and Strom Thurmond, all supported the president.

Ronald Reagan made similar mistakes. But that will happen when you’re a person of real accomplishment rather than just a gadfly.

And if you are finally elected President, you want to be able to effectively call on legislators to be a team player for you. If you’ve been trouble and an annoyance all along to all your fellow legislators, you won’t be very effective in asking for others’ cooperation.

Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.

I call it: “Dream small.” Click to play.

Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.

Rick Santorum Phoenix Rally

Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.

The thing is, they’re not getting anywhere. They’re offended at one of Santorum’s campaign donors, Foster Friess, making the joke that some might consider off-color about old-fashioned methods of birth control. As Rush Limbaugh put it on Friday, “All Foster Friess did was have a cute, funny way of describing virtue.” Besides, this was just one of Santorum’s donors, not Rick himself. AB Stoddard on tonight’s Fox News Special Report panel had it sized up correctly when she asked, “Is this just the media beating up on Rick Santorum? The Republican voters will love that.” The same with all the other attacks. I can’t think of one that has any serious substance to it, and they don’t seem to be getting much traction. And I absolutely love how Santorum refused to berate Foster Friess when questioned about it. Here is a man of principle who knows when he is right.

And then there are the Romney people, trying to say that Santorum is liberal and Romney is conservative. I love the Romney people. Many of them are LDS and I’m LDS. But I’ve had some comments on this blog and some personal conversations with people trying to make that point and I don’t pay much attention to them. If they can’t admit that Romney is a moderate, it has to be because of something like they are too emotionally invested to listen, so what’s the point of discussing it? Tell me you like government programs, and so you like Romney. Or tell me that you think that strategically a moderate will get more votes in the general election. Or try to sell Romney’s résumé. But if you really think he is the true conservative in this race, you’re wearing blinders, and an argument will only stir up bad feelings and will get us nowhere. Don’t try to dredge up votes here and there from Santorum’s Senate career. I’ve been around too long and I know how the Senate works, and I lived through those issues. A lot of Republicans in Congress felt they needed to support President Bush’s programs, even though they expanded government. Voting to increase the debt ceiling was routine for years. But Santorum’s ratings from the American Conservative Union were consistently in the 90s. If you want to ignore that and focus on blemishes in his record, and also can’t perceive the “government solution” instincts of Romney, then I can’t help you and I don’t want to argue.

And so Santorum, who is spending practically nothing in Arizona, is surging here. The latest polls put him within three points of Romney. I said a week ago I didn’t think he could win in Arizona, because of all the LDS support of Romney. Now I’m not so sure.

Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.