Dick Cheney and Republicans: Why Should the "Religious Right" Vote Republican?

What is the EXTREME judicial positon on abortion? Well, the "left wing" extreme position is the one that Roe v. Wade "enacted" into law by dictatorial judicial fiat. The "right wing" extreme position, or what I might call the "anti-federalist" position on the pro-life side, was that the Constitutioin PROTECTED a fetus (finding a "right to life" in the Constitution--certainly no less "fundamental" than a made up "right to privacy", a lying phrase which does NOT refer to your 4th Amendment right to be secrue from unreasonable serarch and seizure).


The MODERATE judicial position in 1970 was the one that I held--the federalist position. That is the position that the Constitution says nothing on abortion, and that meand that you are left with state by state DEMOCRACY (leftists, of course, do NOT believe in democracy). That also means that a Federal law on abortion would be unconstitutional (in 1970).


I do not "turn the other cheek", and nor do I take positions that guarantee the other side victory once they have supposedly "won" (in this ccase, by CHEATING). I would still, if I were on the Stupreme Court, take the "moderate" position on abortion (reversing Roe v. Wade, and letting the question be demoratically decided in the states, as should always have been true).


But since Roe v. Wade, I have supported a Constitutional Amendment on abortion to PROHIBIT most abortions. Note that this is NOT a violation of "federalism", because a Constitutional Amednment is ALLLOWED under our Constitution. Leftists simply ignore this process, and impose their views by having judges impose their personal opinions on the Constitution (without an Amendment). However, I would not care if it were a violation of federalism. The other side has violated federalsim on this very issue, and I have no compunction in ignoring federalism to overturn their dictatorial actioin. That said, a return to what should have been: a democratic, state by state resolution of the "issue" is the most feasible way to overturn Roe v. Wade. It is also the ONLY way to have the two sides have "common ground". Do I have any common ground with people who have CHEATED me out of my vote, and out of my right to fight for my views in the political arena. Not likely. I do not, and I never will have.


Patience. I am getting to Dick Cheney and the "religious right" (of which I am not a part, despite my numberous policy agreements with them, since I do not believe in religion--the same position as Nancy "total failure" Pelosi). Do i respect REPUBLICANS who refuse to support a Constitutional Amendment on abortion because they think that should be an "issue for the states". Hell no. That is a DISHONEST position. It is the position of Rudy Giuliani, and it is DISHONEST. The Supreme Court has already taken the issue out of the arena of the states, and to say that Congress should do NOTHING at this point means that you are helping the other side CHEAT. This is especailly true if you have not vigorously supported a Constitutional Amednment to return the question to the states--as most of this type of Republicans have not. These Republicans MEAN to be DISHONEST. And they succeed. Just like President Obama MEANS to be DISHONEST when he suggests that pro-life people SHUT uup and "seek "common ground" (while accepting defeat).


We are finally at Dick Cheney (a "hero" to most conservatives on foreign policy, where he probably deserves much of that designationi, but NEVER a "conservative on domestic issues of all kinds, which he shares with President Bush). Dick Cheney says he has no problem with any kind of union (translation: homosexual marriage), but that he thinks the issue should be "left up to the states". Hogwash. DISHONEST hogwash. DISHONEST Republican establishment hogwash. And the "religious right" knows it. That is why they ONLY "voted Republican" in 20004, and may never do so again (which, of course, applies to me, except I routinely voted Republican before 2006, but will probably never so vote again).


Are homosexuals "winning" democratically? Don't be silly. Their major victories hve been ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, as judges in places like California and Massachusetts have taken the issue away from the democratic process. Leftists, as stated, do NOT believe in democracy. As with the case BEFORE Roe v, Wade imposed the leftist position on abrotion, leftists fully intend to win this issue IN THE COURTS--ultimately in the United States Supreme Court. I view it as almost inevitable that they succeed at that some day, with only token "opposition" from the Republican Party.


Let me be as blunt as I can (and if you conclude this means that I would have NO regrets if the Republican Party were absolutely destroyed--as if it has not destroyed itself--you are right): The Repubican Party COULD have gotten a Constitutional Amendment through Congress, and probably ratification, IF the Repubican Party had serously pushed that Amendment. As I said, that is NOT a violation of "federalism", since--unlike leftists--they would have been using the Amendment process set up in the Constitution for that purpose. The reason it is DISHONEST to oppose such an Amendment, as many Republicans did (including, I think, McCain), is that you (and they) KNOW that the left is well on its way to taking this decisiion away from the people, and the "states". If you opposed a pre-emptive strike in this area, you FAVOR homosexual marriage (or at least are too wimpy to want to try to really stop it). Dont' bleat to me about "federalism". Almost all of these Republicans could not care less about "federalism", except when it suits their purpose. I have said before that I am really about the only person left in America who believes in federalism, and I am right on that. This is simply a DISHONES way for Republicans to duck this issue. Am I calling Dick Cheny DISHONEST? On this issue, I am.


What has the Republican Party done for the "religious right"? Well, it gave us Roe v. Wade, and David Souter (who protected Roe v. Wade when we seemed about to return to the "moderate" judicial position returning the issue to the states). Yes, a Repubican President is the only CHANCE the "religious right", not to mention people who believe in "federalism" and democracy, have to get an acceptable appointment to the Supreme Court. But on issue after issue that has PROVEN to be a very weak reed to stop the leftist subversion of democracy. Otherwise, the Republican Party has given the "religious right" effectively NOTHING. Forget it. The boat has sailed. The Republican Party will NEVER regain the credit they seemed to be gaining witht he "religious right" (seemingly the MAIN reason Republican won in 2004, on the very issue of homosexual marriage upon which Republicans BETRAYED them).


P.S.: Did Dick Cheney have to take this dishonest position because of his lesbian daughter? Nope. Cheney did not have to disown her, or criticize her in any way. The difference is the difference between "tolerance" and overturning thousands of years of human history and wisdom on the meaning of marriage. Homosexual activists, and their sympathiers, do not WANT "tolerance". They want absolute APPROVAL. Cheney did not have to give them that. But it is what he really did, and I believe meant to do. As I say, I AM accusing him of being DISHONEST here, and I stand by that conclusion (as I stand by that conclusion about the Republican establishment on many issues).