Values, Morality, and G-d Given Rights are Winning Issues

Santorum has put forward an economic plan, a path to increase our energy, and his views on foreign policy. There’s one plan which he hasn’t put forward, as the others have, and I commend him for that. It’s the type of plan he had fought against in blue Pennsylvania both as a Senator and as a congressman. That plan consists of sweeping moral values under the carpet because it’s not too popular especially amongst the youth and thereby bidding goodbye to a normal society.

Santorum had been extremely outspoken on the conservative view of social issues during his representation of the state of Pennsylvania, he did not lose his seat because of social issues. He lost his reelection run for the Senate – after winning twice – because of his strong support for Bush on the Iraqi Surge and his calls for serious sanctions on Iran before they become nuclear. The Democrat Party pounced upon the vehement anti-war and anti-Bush emotions at the time and spent millions upon millions in ads against Santorum depicting him as a lover of war and warmonger. Indeed, many Republicans had lost their seats that year, including Rick Santorum who represented a purple/blue state. As an aside, since his warnings about Iran had gone largely unheeded, Iran is now mere months away from amassing nuclear arms and the world is currently deep in debate whether or not to bomb Iran.

Many conservatives are concerned that if one speaks in defense of moral values than it is impossible to win. This is inherently false. Firstly, speaking of social issues doesn’t mean the candidate ignores all other issues. Santorum has a great economic proposal, discusses it far more often than he does of social issues, and released a powerful video last week in which he makes the speaks directly to the voters explaining why they should support him for economic reasons.

Secondly, many are making the argument that Gingrich is every bit a social conservative as the former senator from Pennsylvania and that they therefore both carry “the same historical advantage “social conservatives have proven to have. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case with Newt. Newt Gingrich had melted the phone-lines of Republican candidates in 2010 warning them to not dare mention they support a single conservative social issue. This is in exclusion of Newt’s past lack of values and morality in his personal life and his fuzzy political record regarding social issues. Keep in mind as well that Newt served as a representative of a conservative district within a conservative state while Rick Santorum represented a blue state.

Newt’s advice and position on social conservatism has thus placed him at a historical disadvantage as explained by Jeff Bell in the link provided above. Bell proves that including social issues in one’s campaign agenda has proven throughout the last hundred years of American history to serve as an advantage to Republican presidential and congressional candidates. From 1932-1964 social topics were off the table, and Republicans won only 2 out of 9 presidential elections and had control of Congress for only four years. Comparatively, from 1968 when social conservatism became alive again, Republicans won 7 out of 11 presidential elections. Far more states support social conservatism than states that don’t. Read the entire article for additional surprising information.

The left and media desire to silence the conservative voice on social issues and have therefore resorted to the use of force against morality. They’ve passed hate-crime legislation so they can threaten conservatives who dare to speak out against immorality and have turned to courts and legislation to redefine marriage. They’ve thus forced through the legalization of gay marriage even in states where the people have voted against it, thus proving they don’t care what the people truly desire. They are now attempting to make contraception the new civil-liberty rights as though women are unable to purchase it on their own and are helpless if their employers don’t cover for their irresponsible and/or immoral behavior.

Santorum had said he wanted to throw up when listening to Kennedy’s phony separation of church and state speech in which Kennedy misinterpreted the true intentions of the founding fathers. Indeed, thanks to Kennedy’s revised definition, the liberals have been able to force their ideology upon the American people such as banning all religion from all public arenas including the mention of G-d’s name in public schools.

Lastly, If the last hundred years of history in is country is not enough to sway your belief that social issues are a detriment, or you dismiss it as merely coincidental, here’s proof from the last couple of years. Think of liberal California which is the bastion of liberalism. Despite their liberalism, the people of California have spoken out against their legislators and supported proposition eight which overturned the legislation which legalized gay marriage.

Here’s an even more recent example and one which I’ve experienced from up-close.

I am an Orthodox Jew from Brooklyn and live near NY9 of which the disgraced congressman Anthony Weiner was forced to resign. Both parties chose candidate to represent them in a district where the GOP hadn’t won a nomination in close to hundred years and was sure to lose once again. If this was the case when they put forth polished politicians, then it was certainly a given if an unknown candidate without any charisma, money, or political experience were to compete. Yet, this is exactly the type of guy the GOP had put forth for they had no-one else willing to run; a non-politician with limited money, no professional smile, and absolutely zero experience in running a campaign.

The Donkey Party, on the other hand, handpicked an Assemblyman who was an experienced fundraiser, had many political connections, and loaded with charisma. To top it off, the Democratic candidate was a Jew and NY9 is a district where 33% of its voters are Jewish. It was thus clear to all from the start that Weprin, the Democrat candidate, was heading to a landslide victory.

However, one seemingly minor item went unnoticed to the Democrat party heads in their nomination of their candidate. They were surely aware of it, but didn’t dream of the effect it would have on the voters. Weprin, the Democrat candidate, had voted several months earlier to legalize gay-marriage in New York. Prior to the vote in the Assembly, Weprin had stood up and addressed the Assembly. He said that he asked his Rabbi if he would officiate a wedding between a Jew and a gentile, to which his Rabbi replied, “Absolutely Not.” Weprin then used this to “prove” that just as no law would enforce his or any religious leader to do the above until now, the current law won’t mandate any religious leaders to act against their belief. Weprin finished off in expressing pride on his vote for this “civil rights” bill and encouraged others to throw their support behind it as well.

Listen closely, my fellow conservatives. The election between Turner and Weprin took place last year. It came on the heels of the success of the Tea Party in 2010 which was instrumental in obtaining many seats in Congress through the focus on the economy and Obamacare. The Republican candidate in NY9, Bob Turner, could’ve chosen to focus on the economy –as was actually expected of him. Instead he chose to also spend considerable focus on something Gingrich said we dare not touch in 2010 especially in non-conservative districts; social issues. And as is now known to all, Bob Turner is currently the Congressman for NY9 and is actually gearing up to run for the Senate since his seat is disappearing due to redistricting.

Social issues have proven time and again to help conservative candidates, not the other way around despite the media attempts to spin it as such. And to repeat once again, supporting moral values is NOT a contradiction to being a fiscal conservative, correct on foreign affairs and many other issues.

In addition to social issues, Santorum shared the conservative viewpoint in his opposition against amnesty, TARP, government mandates, government take-overs, and phony global warming-turned-climate change to name a few. Although Newt now speaks the conservative talk, his record shows he’s walked the liberal walk in all of the above.

G-d desires morality. No religion in the world’s history except the liberal religion has proclaimed that marriage is anything else but between a man and woman/women. Thanks to liberalism many school children are now taught against their parents’ will that same-gender marriage is equal to traditional marriage!!

Why would someone who believes in a G-d who runs every aspect in the world want to throw morality under the bus simply because it has become unpopular amongst some? Why wouldn’t you stand up and support a candidate who respects morality and isn’t afraid to defend G-d’s will in public? All we need is the courage to stand up for what’s right and you’ll be pleasantly surprised that a majority of the country still respects a moral society.

Rabbi Avigdor Miller zt”l and the Current Political Election

Note:

This article is geared specifically to the Orthodox Jewish people.


Not that long ago the Jewish world had benefitted of the great legend Rabbi Avigdor Miller zt”l whose towering brilliance in Torah and Avodah combined with an overflowing passion and love to each and every yid. His humility and piety struck all who came in contact with him with an overwhelming sense of awe. He used his vast knowledge to share and spread yiddishkeit at all times in all places to all types of Yidden and his shiurim are still widely listened to today.

Rabbi Avigdor Miller zt”l was also greatly respected amongst the general public and when he felt a need to express the Torah opinion he would write articles in The New York Times. He particularly fought heavily to preserve the sanctity of marriage and decried those who wished to legalized toevah (gay marriage.) When fighting for Torah values he never backed down, and when wished death by haters, he calmly replied that it will indeed be his last act in this world.

He had also heavily protested the Israeli army’s attempt to draft females and had written an article in protest despite knowing the majority of the general public disagreed with him. The article was complete with data and proofs that women act upon emotion and therefore tend to be of greater disservice to the army for they often put at risk the lives of men who are sent to rescue them. The only reason the Israeli army was attempting to do so, he explained, was to follow the footsteps of the rest of the world in breaking all barriers between the genders thus creating an immoral and impure society.

The political world has been thrown abuzz the past week by a comment from presidential candidate Rick Santorum. Santorum was asked about the Pentagon’s decision to send women in the front lines and he responded that it could lead to compromising conditions because of the emotions involved. A female Navy vet who has held a leading role in the invasion of Iraq agrees with Santorum, as does all data. However, since we currently live in a post-reality world, the feminist movement is enraged at Santorum for daring to tell the truth as it stands.

Rick Santorum is one of the very few people out in the general world who aren’t afraid to publicly speak strongly in support of traditional marriage and sanctity of life, and has successfully fought the war to stop federal funding for partial-birth abortion.

His fearless fight for what’s right in face of ridicule and attacks is very rare in the politics of America today.

In a country where G-d may no longer be mentioned in many public places such as schools and colleges Rick Santorum has reminded the people that America had stood apart from all other nations because of their expression of faith in a creator. He reminded the American people that far more important than the “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” which is guaranteed for all in the Declaration of Independence and is widely quoted is the start of the statement which reads as follows; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, [that they are] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

He explains that unlike in other countries where rights are given by government, which can then take away those rights, the United States of America was formed on the premise that government is there not to give or take rights, but merely to protect those G-d given rights. And since they are given by G-d and not by government, government can take them away.

Rabbi Avigdor Miller zt”l is no longer alive, and we can no longer hear his pearls of wisdom. In addition to his brilliant expansions on Torah itself, he often spoke of what was the correct Torah opinion on a specific political situation. He had often stressed that as Torah Jews we must vote for Torah values and for the candidates who support morality as defined by Hashem.

Although I dare not speak in his stead or pretend to know what he would say in a specific scenario, the facts in the current presidential election speak for itself. There is only one candidate who has never been afraid to openly oppose immorality in every form. We must continue to support those who stand up for a moral society, as Rabbi Avigdor Miller zt”l had done all his life. 



 

Why Not everyone is wrong about the Gay Marriage Debate

This is a diary I've written on Red State in response to a diary written by Shoutbits which was posted on Red State the 27^th of June. It was titled “Everyone is wrong on gay marriage” and was written several days after New York became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage last week Friday.

Shoutbits argues that the gay community has not accomplished much with the legalization of gay marriage in New York because what they truly crave is for acceptance from society and this has not and will not cause those who oppose them to have a change of belief. The only thing they’ve gained was to have the same legal benefits the law provides for married couples. On the other hand, conservatives are wrong for wanting the government to ban gay marriage and define marriage, because they should really be fighting to keep the government totally out of marriage.

What bothered me so greatly about his diary which compelled me to do more than comment, but to write a diary in response, is because the debate regarding gay marriage is really not whether it is or isn’t acceptable because if you look past in the history of this world at every country and religion and every moral person believed in traditional marriage as the only definition of marriage and homosexuality has never been accepted. The debate regarding gay marriage is whether the government should recognize homosexuals as a form and definition of marriage.

Shoutbits wrote:

The government should not endorse gay marriage; the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Most of all, nobody should look to the government for validation of his life or defense of his religion. The governments of the US are corrupt, capricious, and are the biggest threat to the nation’s survival. Why should anyone expect such bodies to arbitrate morals?

When this country was founded as a country by religious people it wasn’t considered as such, not because the government got involved but because the concept of calling homosexuals as married simply didn’t exist.

This is proven because before the last couple of decades when conservatives and liberals took positions on this topic and involved the government, no one in the first over two hundred years requested the government to intervene because it was automatically understood that marriage has only one definition. Doing something immoral doesn’t constitute as marriage, and calling it as such doesn’t make the act a moral thing to do.

Human beings of all times, have always understood and believed that marriage is a sacred bond between one man and woman, thus there had been no request to change the definition of marriage. Morality is something that each of us has been created with, and someone that does or believes in immorality goes against the grain of his/her nature. This is proven with the fact that all animals follow the true definition of marriage, because they too have been created as such. Humans who have been given the power to choose between good and evil, unlike animals which lead their lives based on ingrained instinct, must rise to do that which is correct. Otherwise, such humans are considered worse than animals, which do what’s right without thought.

This world has already experienced a time when society totally crumbled and all moral behavior fall aside, as happened in the days of Noah.

The Big Flood which came because of the erosion of any semblance of morality. The filth and impurity of the people caused the animals to act immorally as well. In order to save the existence of the world which couldn’t handle the collapse of morality, Noah was commanded to build an Ark in which he, his family, and pairs of animals which have not practiced immorality resided while the rest of the world was cleansed of impurity.

There is a right side and wrong side to this debate, as in most issues, and in this case those who have been and are continuing to oppose those that are attempting to change the definition of marriage and are for the legalization of gay marriage  definition, are on the right side. For anyone claiming that homosexuals are part of the society and there’s no point in opposing them, it must be pointed out that any state that had given the voters the option to vote on gay marriage including liberal California, has always resulted in the people voting against it. They did so not because of non-acceptance, but for the refusal to allow the values that America has been built on to go down the moral drain.

This country has already faced a moral decision when deciding whether it’s pro-life or pro-choice. The result has been that anyone speaking out against abortion is accused of having no mercy on rape victims and as someone who doesn’t want to provide rape victims with the help they require. A fetus/unborn child has already lost its rights and its value has been reduced to a mass of tissue.

The path of the gay activists and equal rights fighters are leading to the destruction of the value of marriage. Marriage has always been a sacred bond between a male and a female through which future generations were created and raised. Gay marriage has no future besides for destroying the moral values of society.

Opposition against gay marriage has nothing to do with equality or acceptability. People who oppose homosexuals simply take issue with the values those people display. To them it’s strictly a question of morality and whether they take the moral or immoral side of the issue. And moral issues are not something they take lightly or are flexible about in the least bit.