Meghan McCain issues Civil War warning...look out!

Meghan McCain, daughter of John McCain, is warning the GOP of an impending civil war. She cites her desire for an "out with the old, in with the new" philosophy for the Republican party. I do applaud Ms. McCain for stepping out from her father's shadow and making her voice heard--and encouraging other young women to do the same. However I think that her general idea is a bit misguided. Ms. McCain seems to want to be "more inclusive" as a party by "...[b]reaking free from obsolete positions and providing real solutions that don't divide our nation further." By "obsolete positions," she means support for traditional marriage. I have to wonder if Meghan has actually read the 2008 Republican Platform. Her assertion is that by using "more gay-friendly language" the Republican party will garner a wider base and the attention of a younger, more hip crowd. The latter may be true. Welcoming gay marriage may quite possibly attract the attention of a younger crowd, but it would do so at the expense of the Republican crowd. Ms. McCain seems to want the public, and the gay community, to believe that the Republican party is currently "anti-gay." She is mistaken. The Republican party is pro-traditional-marriage. I have yet to encounter a Republican, regardless of his/her age, who was opposed to "civil unions" to allow gay couples the same legal rights as married couples with regard to health care, next of kin notification, etc. Republicans are opposed to the redefinition of the sanctity of marriage. Please don't be fooled, this is not an issue of rights. There is no unalienable right for each person to marry his/her partner of choice. Our unalienable rights were endowed by our creator. We acknowledged this in the Declaration of Independence, and this term is referenced widely. If we are alright with acknowledging that we do have a creator, aka God, then why would we think that He got it wrong when he designed us for procreation?

As a conservative Republican, I could care less what two grown people do in their bedrooms. Contrary to what you may read in salacious headlines, the Republican party is not trying to butt into peoples' sex lives. Instead it is trying to ensure that the definition of "marriage" is upheld. Can we just call a spade a spade here? If the issue were one of rights, civil unions would be welcomed by people like Ms. McCain. We probably should address marriage vs. civil unions. Essentially the problem as I understand it, is that there is no uniformity. Some states, not all, recognize civil unions. And some states recognize only their own civil unions, but not others. Apparently some states allow certain benefits for civil unions, while other states do not allow or address the same benefits. I vehemently agree that this is a problem. There should be uniformly recognized laws which regulate civil unions. I would support a federal level of protections under civil unions. But I cannot and will not support the redefinition of the term "marriage." A marriage and a gay union is inherently different, and as such, the recognition of them will differ. We cannot grant the right to procreate to a gay couple, it isn't within our power. Instead that right is granted by our creator. The best we can do is to protect the rights of partners to have insurance benefits and the likes. Even if every state in America guaranteed the right to marriage for all--gay and straight--the two types of marital relationships would still be different. No amount of legislation will ever make them the same. That is not discrimination, it is a simple genetic fact. I, like Meghan McCain, have gay friends. But that doesn't mean that I am kidding myself into thinking that they could ever look forward to having a marriage like my husband and I share. I do wish that they could have that. But it wouldn't be a matter of us changing the definition of marriage to suit their relationship. It would be them pursuing different relationships that would allow them to procreate. That is not my law, it is God's law.

There is no storm brewing within the Republican party. There is not a huge divide of the "young" and the "old." There is most certainly an awakening going on, but it has nothing to do with a war within the party. To the contrary, if Meghan hasn't noticed, the party is energized and electrified at the moment on a unified front. I'd like to invite Meghan McCain to join the Republican party, but I would respectfully request that she not ask us to check our morals and values at the door.

Ms. McCain stated in her blog that Republican resistance to gay marriage goes against conservative values—and our own self-interest. I wonder why it is that Meghan thinks sacrificing our values is good for the party? Obviously she has a different idea of what conservative values are, than I do. Certainly we would gain Democrats' favor if we adopted their values, but what would the result be? Do we really NEED two Democrat parties? I mean I guess we could feasibly hold an election with one "liberal Democrat" and one "conservative Democrat" but somehow I think that is not what is best for our country. Isn't that the goal of having more than one party in the first place? Is our goal not the betterment of our society? As I understand it, we have differing philosophies, and the will of the population is served when the majority wins an election. I may not agree with the Democrats who are in power, but I do respect the process which placed them there. I don't ask that their party, in the future, become more conservative, or even Republican for that matter. I am not promising to support them if they would only change this or that about their party's stance. Their party is what it is, I happen to not agree with it. That is precisely why I am a Republican. If I wanted to vote according to a Democrat's values, I would change party affiliations. I would suggest Meghan think about that in regard to her own views if she feels that strongly about them. Before this gets blown out of proportion, I am not suggesting that people who support gay marriage should not remain Republicans. But in the same vein that I would not agree with changing our views on the sanctity of life and the horror that is abortion, I can't support her view that we change our stance on the sanctity of marriage.

Passion of the Christ and American Politics

Happy Easter! When we hear that, if we're adults (and Christian) we know on some level that this is meant to be a time to reflect on Christ's choice to give his life for our salvation. We know that it is to represent His resurrection 3 days later. But if we're all being honest, I think most all of us would say that when we think of Easter we think of bunnies and little girls with frilly dresses and kids hunting for colored eggs. And kids: they just see the candy. I'm guilty myself.
My family and I sat down to watch The Passion of the Christ this Easter Sunday. I had seen it, and I had been moved before. But our pastor mentioned it in church that morning, and my 9 year old asked if we had it and could watch it. Before we left church, we visited an exhibit that they had there of museum quality displays of items from Christ's crusifixion. They had a true crown of thorns that we were able to hold in our hands and truly take in. Like all of the other kids, my 9 year old kept touching the thorns and poking himself and freaking out at how sharp they were. There was a life size cross that we could touch. They had a "cat of nine tails" whip, complete with shards of bone and metal for all of us to hold and feel the tips, imagining what damage was done to our Saviour with such an instrument. The robe and the dice were there. The bread and wine was there, and finally, they had a velvet pouch of silver coins. It should be noted that the pouch with the coins in it wasn't a big favorite amongst the kids. It looked kind of boring, I think. Who wants a few pieces of silver when there are weapons or sharp things to look at? Granted, they did take note of what the sign said about it being 30 pieces of silver, but it didn't get any of the oohs and aahs the other displays got.

Fast forward to a few hours later when we were sitting on the couch watching the crusifixion story unfold before our eyes. If you've seen the movie, you will remember it has subtitles. My 9 year old was afraid that he would miss something if he had to read it himself, so he asked me to read the words aloud for him. I highly suggest you try that. Reading of what happened to Christ is extremely moving, but saying those things out loud to a child touches you on a level that I didn't know existed. As each item from the exhibit came to light, a deeper understanding of the reality of the situation shone on my son's face. He saw the pouch of silver and grew visibly outraged with Judas, even calling him names and saying how stupid he was for doing such a horrible thing, "FOR THAT???" When Jesus was "chastized" with the cat of nine tails, among other things, it was not some theoretical event for this 9 year old. He had held and touched one the same morning. When the crown of thorns was rammed into Jesus' scalp, that too, was "real" for Zackary. He had just been holding one a short while before, and I think he could still feel the pricks in his own fingers.

All of us were taught as children, that "sticks and stones may break our bones, but words will never hurt us." We probably teach it to our own children as well. But I must tell you, that what disturbed Zackary the most about the mistreatment of Jesus was the laughing and mocking of the Roman soldiers and the followers of Jesus who didn't say anything until it was too late. "Why don't they stop?" he kept asking. And I think then and there, it became clear to me that words and the smallest of actions, DO HURT. And a lack of words hurts just as bad. I look around at society today and everything from gay marriage to abortion is touted as being "ok" by even men and women who claim to be, "of the cloth." I was told by a female pastor who I went to grade school with that, "the Bible doesn't reference abortion, so it doesn't take a stance either way." Sure, she said that any abortion was a tragedy, but still thinks that any woman who wants one should be allowed to have one. She blogs about and supports gay marriage, I presume "in the name of God." I am unfairly picking on her at this point, but she is not an abstract media source, she is someone I knew once upon a time. I don't think that she is alone in the least. Far too many "Christians" claim to love God, but when we see things that spit in the face of our Saviour in society, in politics, and in the media, we mutter something to ourselves and then steer clear of those people. Why don't we stand up against it? Why do we allow it to continue to go on? We have allowed those in the media to literally laugh at and mock Jesus, just as those Roman soldiers did so many years ago. America, God love her, just elected a president who used as a campaign line, that people, "cling to guns or religion." In my opinion, and in my heart of hearts, every vote for Obama, after such a statement, was someone spitting in the face of a bleeding and battered Christ, who was knowingly and willingly walking for miles to die for the same people's salvation.

Why, as a society, do we think it ok for our elected leaders or those in power to look down on our clinging to religion in one breath, and then claiming to be religious persons themselves, in another breath. These people, in my observation, are wearing their religion like a sweater. When the winds change, they easily remove that sweater because it isn't convenient to them. And if they feel a nip in the air by way of poll numbers, they call upon the designer of the sweater, trying to remind everyone that they are still card-carrying Christians, even if everything that they publicly support goes against Christianity. I am not trying to be judgemental here. I am truly concerned for our future. I feel sick to my stomach when I think of how Jesus must feel when our citizens mock him and those who follow him. He told us that it would happen, so I shouldn't be surprised. I am just sad that more of us don't stand up against it, that's all. It wouldn't take much. There are people willing to run for office who do stand for Christian values, and if we Christians would push more, there would be an incentive for them to put themselves out there for us.

Letter to RNC Chair Michael Steele

Dear Mr. Steele,

I just received your latest survey, which you called a crucial project, without the likes of which the RNC cannot create a plan. I must respectfully disagree. The RNC has a problem, and the ultimate result of that problem was seen this election cycle. Barack Obama, as much as I despise what he stands for, did not ask people what they wanted, and ask for their money at the same time, BEFORE promising to act on the peoples' desires. The RNC has got to change this. You speak of wanting to stand for every grassroots leader and individual who shares your values. Well if this is true, why does the RNC not reflect all of our shared values? Why is it that I am still reading about juvenile bickering in the headlines of even Fox News? Have you even thought of what a laughing stock the latest "disinviting of Sarah Palin" makes us look to any and every voter who may have been on the fence? Sure I've seen your apology over the Rush Limbaugh "is an entertainer" bit, but it rings hollow. It reeks of "political strategy." If you honestly felt that way, why apologize? And if you didn't feel that way, WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU SAY IT? Rush Limbaugh is not just an entertainer. He is an entertainer, for certain. But he, like Sarah Palin, has a specific set of goals, values, and ideals for America (if you don't remember them, they're the ones that our party stands for), and he does not apologize for them. He calls it like he sees it. Much in the same manner as Rep. Michelle Bachmann calling out Geithner and asking him to show her where he was Constitutionally given any of these newfound authorities he is claiming. There is nothing wrong with that. You should be embracing that. There is a place for "moderate Republicans." It is called Independent. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If this party is still the Republican party and if our values are still worth having, shout them from the rooftops. Let no person question what you believe and what you will fight for. If we (the Republican party) don't even know who we are or what we stand for, I can assure you that no one is going to want to take a stand with us. Who jumps to a ship that they know is sinking? No one does, I'm afraid.

I have listened to your commentaries on Fox for quite some time before you became the Chairman, and at that point, I was all for you being the Chairman, or perhaps a candidate. But you seem to have abandoned your true values and ideals for the sake of "strategy." The only "strategy" that we need is to get back to our conservative (fiscal, moral, and size of government) values and ideals, and be steadfast in them. Then, and only then, should we DARE to ask for anyone's money in support of those values. We cannot contribute to the gossip in the headlines, our moral values tell us that we should be above that. And our critics know this, which is why they jump with glee every time they hear a rumble, because they know it will be so well received in the main stream media.

If you have not figured out why so many average, heretofore uninvolved or uninterested citizens have backed Sarah Palin, I will attempt to explain it to you. She is who she claims to be. Her record in the past, and of the present, reflects the conservative values that we hold dear. She does not apologize about those beliefs or voting records. She does not change her stance to go along with some newfound strategy. One can never win when pretending to be someone he/she is not. People WILL donate if they are hearing Sarah Palin speak as a voice for the RNC because they believe that she truly does support and would vote the way our values sway us. I have the utmost respect for Newt Gingrich. But "uninviting" a loved and admired speaker does NOTHING to help in our efforts, and is probably about as anti-strategy as you were able to be. Did you poll your constituents to see where we stood on the uninvitation? No, I know this because I didn't get an email about it. I read about it in an article in which the author couldn't wait to point out to America how ignorant our party has become.

I will share something with you that I shared with Sarah Palin a few days after the election. I voted, for the first time in my life, this past election. I am 32 years old, a mother of 4, and am very conservative. I live in Texas, and for the most part, it is felt here that we're a Red state, so I've always felt that my vote didn't matter that much. And to be honest, I've never been moved by a politician before because they always seemed to talk the talk when it was strategically prudent, and then act in another way that helped them best in the polls. You all seem to know on a basic level that you are our employees and were "hired" on our behalf, but at your cores, you all disregard that when it comes down to it. Sarah Palin was different. Representative Bachman seems to be different as well. She is speaking up, however unpopular it is, to highlight the lack of constitutionality of many of the President's initiatives. That could turn out to be political suicide. But what these 2 women seem to have grasped, that most of you have not, is that even if you don't win another election and it is some other Republican who takes your place, it is NOT ABOUT YOU. It is about what is best for our country. If you truly believe that Conservative values of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the value of life are best for America, then wear that on your sleeve. If one or two or three people speak out against you for it, so be it. THAT is what being a leader is about. Even those few who don't like what you are saying will admire and respect you for staying true to who you are and what you claim you stand for. For the record, I sent a handwritten letter, 2 days after the election to Sarah Palin, detailing much of what I'm telling you now. What would you have done in response? Probably sent me a generic form letter thanking me for support, with my name merged in, and a scanned signature, so that you didn't have to take time out to actually sit down and care about me on a personal level, right? That's what most politicians do. Do you know what Sarah did? She, when no one was looking, the cameras were gone, I didn't matter on a global scale, sat down and handwrote me a note back. She wrote it on her son, Trig's, birth announcement, and mailed it back to me. It would have been easier, I'm sure, to have a staffer do a mail merge for the bags of fan mail she was getting, and I'm sure she does that sometimes. But please take an example from her. Get back to basics. Stand for our Constitution, and the values, as written, of the Republican party, and then just run with them. You have the ability to send out these mass emails asking for our thoughts. Well then REALLY LISTEN TO US, and act on what we say, even if you don't think it is strategically the best move. We are the ones voting, and whatever it is that we want IS the best strategic move because if we don't feel that you support our values, we not only aren't donating, but we're not wasting our time to get out and vote or convince others to.

Please don't turn me, and the many others out there who have found a love and passion for involvement with our government, off to the idea. Please don't put us back on the bandwagon that believes, "my vote doesn't count...they will tell me one thing and then act in another way to better their political standing." Please show me that you are still a person, and not just another part of the political machine. I've attached a scanned copy of the note that Sarah Palin wrote me, front and back. I'm only sending it, hoping that you will look at it, and see what such a small gesture, can mean to someone, and how actually caring about how we feel can make us supporters for life--and you have to know that with that support comes our pocketbooks. Please don't be so naiive and do the RNC such a disservice as to ask for our money BEFORE you have adopted and acted on our values and ideals. Show us that we can depend on you not to change with the Washington winds, and the money and support will come. Myself and many others, will be your grassroots movement at the most basic level, but you have to stand for what we believe in. That simplistic idea is exactly how a man as extreme as Barack Obama landed himself in the Whitehouse so easily. He promised to do what his constituents wanted, the whole way through the campaign. He may be changing his tune now on some issues, but when he needed the support, he got it by reflecting the Democratic values. He wasn't telling them his values were the only ones and that people could vote for him or no one. This is the feeling that many of us get from the RNC at the present time. I'm frankly shopping around looking for another party. I can't consider myself Libertarian because of their stance on Abortion. I truly feel that THIS--the Republican Party--is where I belong, but please get back to what the party has always claimed to stand for, no apologies, no excuses.

With the greatest respect and hope for a positive change,

Natalie Nichols