Rubin, wouldn’t you like to be a conservative too? | Jen Kuznicki

It’s been the height of humor since the election, to watch people scurry and position themselves as conservatives.  The same people who nastily rebuked every conservative choice for president during the Republican primaries, as “too conservative�?, while holding Mitt Romney as the most, “severely conservative�? choice for President.

While it makes an observer try to define what conservative is, there is caution, because within conservative circles, there is much argument.  There are SoCons, FiCons, PaleoCons, NeoCons, and Libertarians.  These parts of a whole argue on what should be stressed within the conservative argument, and what should be minimized.

But everyone wants to be one.

Notice how politicians, and their ardent supporters, claim every mantle.  One argues he is a Social Conservative, but argues for abortion under certain conditions.  One argues he is a Fiscal Conservative, but fully backs a State-run public-private partnership “to create jobs.�?  One argues he is a Paleo Conservative, but backs amnesty.  Even within Libertarian circles, individualism and freedom mean very different things.  And nobody wants to be what has become a slur, NeoCon, after the Ron Paul faction gets through with you.  Defend our nation’s interests? How dare you?

But the funny aspect of all of this is that people who want to be defined as conservative, have no truthful claim to it.  Like say, Jennifer Rubin.

Mark Levin this morning on his facebook page about Rubin’s latest blog post which she comically titled, “.�?  Rubin, who is not a conservative, although she and the Washington Post insist she is, tries to express truth with no ability to determine it.  The beltway definition of conservative has those of us who live outside of it bursting into laughter, as well as shaking our heads at the ridiculousness of it all.


The right is not divided into moderates and conservatives, as a smart pollster told me, but between those who can count and those who cannot. If conservatives do not attract larger numbers in the fastest-growing parts of the electorate, they will not win elections, their agenda will become a dusty artifact on the shelf and the country will slide further into decline.

No, the right is not divided into moderates and conservatives.  The right is conservative, because conservative is right.  If truth is what is asked for in Rubin’s post, it should be obvious upon this simple truth.  The charlatans like Rubin gloss over the fact that people can be influenced by those who know the truth, because Rubin is actively influencing with illusion, hiding behind a word that has been bastardized by the very people she defends.  Sloppily degrading conservatives as math-challenged dimwits and carrying the water for useless immature consultants is more Rubin’s style.  In fact, the conservative ‘agenda’ is the only thing able to turn the country around, so it would be right and true for ‘Right Turn’ Jenny to use her influence to defend the way of life she herself wants to belong to.  The country will slide further into decline by not doing so.

Rubin wants to chastise conservatism to make it what is not, so she can be called conservative.  Nothing doing, not because I say so, but because it just doesn’t work that way.

Those who say that the right needs only to be more articulate and more forceful in defense of the exact same agenda are kidding themselves.

See how Rubin wants to change the agenda because she thinks it isn’t working?  It is more that those who claim the agenda do not understand it, yet want to promote themselves in defense of it.  If being a moderate was the cool thing to do, she’d be laughed off the stage by trying to defend that label, but it is obvious that being a conservative is cool, which is why she wants the label.  Cutting out all the conservative things about being a conservative is a monumental task, but Rubin is up to it.  Dan Riehl has shown and again, Rubin’s disguise.

But in order to be a conservative, you really have to think introspectively, determine what you believe, understand nature, the founding of the nation, revel in the glory that is the United States of America, and speak truth to power.  Rubin hasn’t done so, instead, she lazily redefines conservatism to make it what she agrees with.

And redefining things suits Rubin:

It is time to get out of the 1980s and into the 21st century.

Of course, the clever rewording of the obligatory, “Reagan is dead�? maxim from the anti-conservative faction of the Republican party.  To say that Reagan is dead is to say conservatism is dead, and if conservatism is dead, why try to define yourself as one?  And beyond that, getting ‘into the 21st century’ is not what will happen if conservatism isn’t applied, strenuously and without reserve.  We will be heading backward, into the dark, before there was a great republic that showcased the greatness of the individual and became the world’s superpower.  Rubin has no historical context, and is shrilly offering impossible conclusions in unison with those who are the enemies of conservatism, reinforcing their irrational views.

CPAC should pass out some writings of Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk. They were practical and prudent, and they understood that we cannot remake our fellow citizens or reinvent their habits and inclinations. They understood that limited government is not an end unto itself but a guarantee of liberty. And they knew that by rejecting the utopianism of the left and remaining grounded in the world around us, Americans can expand freedom and create a prosperous, vibrant and decent society.

If CPAC has to pass out writings of Burke, we can stop right there and fold it.  But Rubin has been using the same quotes from Burke and Kirk for months now, and she applies their words to her little project of destroying conservatism.  She isn’t fooling anyone, except perhaps the rest of the beltway bubble-dwellers who can’t figure out how to stay socially plugged in while defending that which they decry as ‘out of date’ and losing.  Those of us in flyover country are not interested.

 Younger conservatives have to take the movement into their own hands, refurbish it, revitalize it, cast off what is not relevant and persuade others to join the movement.

Sounds cool.  Young conservatives should read history and the enlightenment, the Bible, and then tell Rubin she is the one not relevant.

Tagged with:

48 Responses to Rubin, wouldn’t you like to be a conservative too?

  1. Ken-in-VA says:

    Yes, Jenny, more moderation.

    No more right-wing extremists like Ford, Dole, Bush41, Bush43, McCain, and Romney.

    Who needs 49-state landslides, anyway?

    Thank God we dimbulb conservatives have the top advisor to the biggest-spending Republican president in US history working to solve this problem for us. How could we ever do the arithmetic without his cute little white board?

    Just what we need … more Rove/Rubin Republicans. NOT!!!!!!

  2. S. Boney says:

    Conservatives can't ignore the math, but re-defining ourselves is not how to tilt the equation in our favor. Conservatives need to become more effective at connecting the true conservative message to the average citizen. Senator Marco Rubio has shown that he can do this effectively. It is amazing to me, and I have done this experiment myself a number of times, how many people, when given a blind set of values to choose from will align themselves to true conservative values, until the label is attached. Even people who claim to be very liberal in their politics, reflect greater conservatism in their personal values. So again, it isn't about modifying our position to become more aligned with more 'modern" values, it is about finding a way to take the core conservative message and connect it to the majority who truly live it, but who don't see the connection.

  3. Kate Curry says:

    Thanks. I probably wouldn't have figured out Rubin's game without your help.

  4. inconsiderate says:

    I really don't understand why the definition of a word is so incredibly difficult for many people to understand.
    Conservative-Root word-Conserve;
    a. To protect from loss or harm; preserve:
    b. To use carefully or sparingly, avoiding waste
    Conservatism is an economic policy, and should not be an idea of values. We are individuals and the only label we should wear, and wear proudly is American. I know this is difficult since many citizens are only "truly proud" when their husband's are elected to President but those people will recognize their stupidity over time. Like whiskey, it's only good after sitting for many years. Until then it's basically the worst thing ever. I don't want conservatism wrapped up in a bunch of individual ideologies. Religion is the biggest, and it has no place in politics. Greed is another, though greed has religious undertones, we all know greed when we see it. Our public officials are greedy, cut their pay in half and see who complains. The public sector politician has no right making more money than 80% of the population. This job was to be seen as a job of servitude and not privilege. I've been telling my son for years that he is going to Emory Riddle and studying aerospace engineering. It seems more advantageous to just get a law degree and run for office. He'll be making $175k in his first years out of school. The liberal american dream….be a politician, or community organizer. I despise this generation I live in. Just for making me think that public service is better than individual achievement.

    • Jen Kuznicki says:

      but you are suggesting that conservatism is only fiscal. Whether you like it or not, it is much more than that. If religion is to be kept out of politics, how then, can we have the rule of law? Whether you like it or not, most basic laws are founded upon the same laws of God written on tablets eons ago. Thou shalt not steal, kill, covet, lie and so on.

      However, if you don't mind that people on your side are religious, it's not an issue, and the argument will ensue on what principle needs to be dealt with first. The problem comes in when people who are against any religious person becoming a public official, when that person might just be the best fiscal conservative we've ever seen.

      Look, people loved Reagan because he was truthful, and in being truthful, hit upon the truths that we all see. It is that American Spirit that needs resurrection (if you'll pardon the religious connotation.)

  5. inconsiderate says:

    Jen, I suggest that Conservatism should be strictly fiscal. I do not like that it is more than that because that puts us into a gray area of definition. Which is why I think my father in law thinks that I am a racist homophobe, being that I'm Conservative and all. It's what MSNBC decides to call us that day. When we muddy the waters of definition we can be defined in any way. Without a rock such a Reagan to set the liberal media straight we seem to flounder around. Letting Jon Stewart and Bill Maher define us to the mush filled brains of the 18-25 year olds who don't want to be in the conservative movement because it's not cool enough. According to the Daily Show and whatever Bill's program is. I can not disagree with you regarding our Judo Christian laws, they were presented via God on clay tablets from a mountain in the desert…….oh wait….maybe they weren't. Perhaps that is just how we as humans should know how to behave, not killing, not raping, that sort of thing. Religion means nothing to me, belief is what matters. Religion was created by man and it has made one hell of a mess of things, nowadays people thing you're uneducated because you believe in Christianity and the bible. It has no place in politics, just like you said, even the best man for the job is eliminated simply on what he was taught as a child in Sunday school…..this is ridiculous, I don't need this building to be a good person. I don't need this book to be a good person. I just need to be a good person, I think that American exceptionalism is far better than any church.

    • Jen Kuznicki says:

      you can suggest that conservatism be fiscal, and you can advocate for fiscal conservatism above all else, but you cannot make conservatism strictly fiscal.

      you can make any argument about government largess about fiscal issues, correct? Well, what about abortion funding? You would argue that we cannot afford it, right? The fact that it is abhorrent and was never put in front of the electorate doesn't bother you? yet, both of the other reasons I gave to end abortion funding are legitimate conservative stances. So what would you do? reject those who are actually arguing on your side? or embrace them?

      what I'm getting at is there are too many people trying to make conservatism what it is not, because they are squeamish about talking about (let's admit it) social conservatism. When I just showed you that social conservatism IS fiscal conservatism, constitutional conservatism IS fiscal conservatism.

      look, not all people think you are uneducated because you believe in Christianity, in fact, I am in awe of those who study the Bible and can quote it line by line. I happen to be less educated than many in the ways of the Bible, but you cannot discount that faction of conservatism, and win ANYTHING electorally, so stop trying to push them away.

      • Ken-in-VA says:

        On his radio show last night, Mark Levin talked about William F. Buckley's mission statement for National Review, published in 1955. Here's a link:

        Allow me to quote Buckley very briefly …

        Among our convictions:
        A. It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens’ lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side.

        Back to me. While I am not particularly religious, I nevertheless have conservative views on the social issues. However, I DO NOT have a litmust test for Republican candidates on these issues. I will vote for candidates who clearly and unabashedly subscribe to the Buckley 'conviction' quoted above … REGARDLESS of their views on same-sex marriage, abortion, etc..

        The greatest threat to this nation and our liberty RIGHT NOW is NOT coming from Republicans who put greater emphasis on the social issues than on anything else. It's coming from Democrats and liberals who want you and me to sacrifice our freedom to their vision of utopia.

        We will need ALL conservatives to work together to save this country.


        • Jen Kuznicki says:

          I understand your position. However, social conservatives, namely pro-lifers for sure, WILL NOT vote for a pro-choice candidate. The difference between them and you are that you have no real qualms with voting for a pro-life candidate, as long as they adhere to fiscal conservatism. That means you lose pro-lifers if you nominate a pro-choicer. So, with that in mind, conservative nominees must be sufficiently pro-life. sorry, but that's the brakes. Not trying to upset you, but it just is a fact. And why can we not help our fellow conservatives understand how important life is? Is that so much to ask? Too much to expect?

          • Ken-in-VA says:

            "And why can we not help our fellow conservatives understand how important life is? Is that so much to ask? Too much to expect?"

            We certainly can and should keep trying, hopefully through the power of civil persuasion, and without driving them away from conservatism altogether. And if it takes another 20, 30, 40 years, I hope we still live in a country where we can make 'pro-life' the law of the land through a free & open democratic process.

            Meanwhile, anytime I'm in a position to choose between a pro-choice TRUE fiscal conservative and a pro-life Rove/Rubin big-government Republican, I will choose the former. But that's just me.

          • Ken-in-VA says:

            While we're helping our fellow (pro-choice) conservatives understand how important life is, how about we also help our fellow (pro-life) conservatives understand how important it is to not let this country continue down the path to utopian statism? What kind of chances will the pro-life position have under THAT scenario?

          • Jen Kuznicki says:

            there is no America without our unalienable rights, of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Life. is. the. first.

          • Ken-in-VA says:

            If the born lose their LIBERTY, who will protect the LIFE of the unborn?

          • Jen Kuznicki says:

            Are you seriously suggesting that it matters not how many innocents die while you are trying to reclaim your lost liberty? Are you saying that life is immaterial without liberty? Are we, as a society, to ignore the capacity of an unborn life to save those who do not see? If those who are unborn have the capability to produce the liberty argument that enlightens the masses of those opposed, are you still sure that liberty for ourselves comes before the life of the innocent unborn? Shall we allow those who are living without liberty to die because they haven't learned, or perhaps they are ignorant of the fight for their own liberty? I'm sorry, your sentence is extremely short sighted.

          • Ken-in-VA says:

            I'm saying none of that. I merely asked a question.

            I will vote for a big-government pro-life Rove/Rubin Republican when the opponent is a Democrat.

            In a GOP primary, I will not vote for a big-government pro-life Rove/Rubin Republican if there is a TRUE fiscal conservative on the ballot. I won't deny my vote to a fiscal conservative JUST BECAUSE he or she is pro-choice.

            Characterize that any way you wish. But however YOU choose to vote in a similar situation, I will respect your vote as a matter of personal conscience. I will not impugn your motives.

          • Jen Kuznicki says:

            I'm not voting for a big government anything anymore. You put big-govt and pro-life together as if they are one in the same. that is my key argument. I'm just pointing out that pro-lifers will not vote for pro-choicers. So, therein lies the search for candidates.

          • Barry Dale says:

            Well, I think we got to vote for both positions at once when we voted for Romney! This is a tough one for me up to a certain point. Many non-Catholic Christians do not take the full Catholic position. Obviously, they agree with Caths. that a life form takes begins at conception. But it is not clear to them when a fertilized egg- successfully implanted embryo-fetus becomes a soul, so ending a pregnancy in the extreme early stage does not strike them as a mortal sin. Likewise, it is unclear at what point the likely baby-to-be would be due constitutional protection.

          • Jen Kuznicki says:

            we are at the point that most abortions happen either after there is a heartbeat, or, the day after conception.

            my only argument here is that, again, pro-lifers will not vote for a pro-choicer, and in that revelation, any candidate that is viable is a pro-life candidate.

          • Barry Dale says:

            I agree with your general point, but could it be overstated? First, what is the definition of 'A pro-lifer.' That was the point of my first comment. Many non-Catholic Christians accept using birth control, the morning after pill, and even the 5-day pill- and do not see that as abortion. If they oppose abortion beyond that point, are they pro-life or not? In addition, I have known quite a few who are pro-lifers in personal conviction who do not hold that as an absolute litmus test if everything else is in place & there is not better choice. Many are willing to let God decide the issue during the first few weeks of pregnancy rather than have the State rule us at that early point. They have in fact voted for pro-choice candidates.

          • Jen Kuznicki says:

            the definition of a pro-lifer is a person who is against murder of the unborn.

            I think many people do not understand that there are pro-life people who will only vote for pro-life candidates. Absolutism is not key, but those who will, in every case, fall upon the side of LIFE.

            Because of current media, many are unaware of just how many people tend to look at that as the main important view, because it was a breach of not only the constitution, but simple right and wrong.

            I guarantee that if a candidate for president for the GOP said that they were pro-choice because it is the woman's choice, they would lose in the primary, regardless of their fiscal conservatism.

          • Barry Dale says:

            Let me tell you where I am at on this. I have genuine questions on this issue that are very important to me. So if it seems like I'm arguing with you, I am not. I come at this in good faith. So:

            1. I believe an embryo becomes a human being very, very early based on science. I do not know when a baby is imbued with a soul.

            2. Murder is a term applied to the killing of a person/human being. At this point, I do not believe killing an embryo at 1 day to a COUPLE of weeks is 'murder.' It is definitely the snuffing out of a potential life. So when you say 'murder the unborn,' do you apply that term from conception?

            3. I do believe after a couple of weeks, it is murder. I think the most recent science backs that up.

            4. But most all GOP candidates have been saying that they are pro-choice because it is the woman's choice…in the case of rape, incest, and probable risk to the mother's life.

          • Jen Kuznicki says:

            having sex produces life. it's the nature of things. any attempted snuffing of that which is produced by voluntary acts is murder because life begins at conception. Otherwise, why have a morning after pill? Is it not to stop what has been naturally produced?

            I have numerous reams of thought on this, so this is tough to answer all of your questions, but let me tell you this.

            People, good, honest, hardworking Americans have been fighting Roe v. Wade for decades now. they have taught their children and we should absolutely be on the side of life. The purpose of that supreme court decision was to FORCE that which is unnatural to be widely accepted.

            one of the many fights in play, and no matter what, must be defended.

            If you'd like to question me, email me, but the fact I have expressed remains the Gods-honest truth. Pro-lifers will not vote for a pro-choicer. They know right from wrong, and those are the people you want on your side in any argument.

          • Barry says:

            Thanks, will do if time permits.

          • Ken-in-VA says:

            Barry Dale … good question, re: what is a pro-lifer?

            A quick Google search will reveal, for example, that GWBush was endorsed as a 'pro-lifer' by some 'pro-life' organizations and attacked for his insufficiently pro-life positions by other 'pro-life' organizations.

            I voted for him against Gore and Kerry because he's a Republican. But in 2000 I also believed he was a fiscal conservative. Why? Because that's how he and Rove and his campaigns portrayed him.

            Turned out to be the biggest-spending president in US history … next to Obama. But I guess for some folks, that's okay, because he was also pro-life … I think.

          • Jen Kuznicki says:

            you are missing my point completely. You keep conflating big government with pro-life.

          • Barry Dale says:

            Ken, I understand what you are saying, and I agree there are many voters like you. If I'm getting the main point Jen is making, if all available candidates were pro-CHOICE, then the true pro-lifers would not cast a vote. They'd stay home.

          • Ken-in-VA says:

            So lets make sure we have TRUE grass-roots fiscal conservatives to vote for who are also pro-life. Instead of letting the GOP establishment pick big-government RINOs like Bush, McCain, and Romney.

          • Jen Kuznicki says:

            they are one in the same, if you have been following my point.

          • Jen Kuznicki says:

            There is no liberty argument that does not include the right to life. Fiscal conservatism includes social conservatism because the left has used our tax dollars to promote their party of death. for those who argue that we must abandon the social issues, they are narrow minded and stupid, because those pro-life Christians will not vote for those who kill innocent life without remorse nor repentance.

            Hey, just sayin'.

          • Ken-in-VA says:

            I'm not arguing that "we must abandon social issues."

            I'm explaining how I would vote in certain situations … and why … and hoping others will give some fair & reasonable consideration to my rationale.

            If this makes me narrow minded and stupid in your eyes, I think I can live with that.

          • Jen Kuznicki says:

            your rationale is your rationale. I'm pointing out that, again, pro-lifers are on both sides of the aisle, and they will not vote for a pro-choicer. And it lends to my argument that pro-choicers are not fiscal conservatives, because being pro-life is fiscal conservatism. Unless you believe that killing unborns to minimize the cost of allowing them to live in a system that will pay for their entire lives is cheaper than not. Life is quintessential to liberty. Without life, liberty doesn't register.

          • Kev-in-VA says:

            If being pro-life is fiscally conservative, then George W. Bush was not pro-life. Correct?

          • Jen Kuznicki says:

            Bush is a moderate and anti-Reagan. He disliked conservatism, demeaned it, ruined it. He and his family fought Reaganism, conservatism, yet knew the electorate would not vote for him unless he appeared conservative, hence his, "compassionate conservatism" crap.

          • Ken-in-VA says:

            So he was not pro-life, because he was not fiscally conservative, correct?

          • Jen Kuznicki says:

            he was not conservative. didn't you read what I wrote? here:

            “What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?�? the president asked Latimer. Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement — the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC. Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make. “Let me tell you something,�? the president said. “I whupped Gary Bauer’s ass in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement.�? …

            Bush hated conservatism. You are looking back to Bush to define it. Bad road, compadre.

          • Ken-in-VA says:

            Okay, I get it. Bush was not conservative at all. I agree.

            Do you think he was pro-life?

            Do you think he could have won the nomination and the general election … twice … without getting the votes of pro-life conservatives?

          • Jen Kuznicki says:

            again, I'm trying to follow your logic, and it is not clear, nor is your attempt to speak with me a cordial attempt. You said you will vote for a pro-lifer, and you are pro-life, but would vote for a pro-choicer too. I said pro-lifers, movement pro-lifers will not vote for pro-choice candidates.

            apparently, you are not a pro-life movementeer.

            so, in order to clear up any suggestion that I'm not interested in fiscal conservatism, I tried to show you that being pro-life is fiscally conservative, unless you believe that murder of the unborn is cheaper than allowing them to live in the system which they may or may not be subjected to.

            Then you brought up Bush, for no apparent reason, since he was not ever someone you would have voted for, since you believe in fiscal conservatism FIRST.

            SO, what is your point?

          • Ken-in-VA says:

            My point?

            I am pro-life. But that does not automatically determine who I vote for.

            In GOP primaries I will vote for the candidates who I believe best represent the Buckley principle I cited earlier today.

            In the general election, I can't imagine ever voting for the Democrat. However, after the fiscal disaster of GWBush, I will never vote for another moderate/liberal RINO. This means I might have to consider not voting at all or voting third party … especially if more phony 'conservatives' get nominated on Reagan's coattails.

            If all of this means I must necessarily believe that murdering unborn babies is more fiscally conservative than letting them live, then I suppose I will have to live and die with this terrible stain on my wretched soul.

          • Jen Kuznicki says:















          • Jen Kuznicki says:

            Bush was not a fiscal conservative, no.

          • Ken-in-VA says:

            Meaning he was also not pro-life … correct?

          • Jen Kuznicki says:

            see the above, you aren't thinking this through.

          • Ken-in-VA says:

            You wrote: "being pro-life is fiscal conservatism"

            GWBush was not fiscally conservative and therefore not pro-life.

            So how did he get the GOP nomination for president … twice?

          • Jen Kuznicki says:

            Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you couldn't read nor comprehend the rest of the stuff I wrote.

            The GOP nomination since Reagan was riding on his coattails. Are you not aware of this?

  6. Tim Cronin says:

    Jen- A great and insightful article. Especially for those who haven't figured out the past 4+ years. You spell it out: We the People reject RINOism is 2008, show the RINO's what we want and what we can do in 2010, and the RINO's insult us with a blue blood establishment RINO in 2012. Not hard to figure this out, where the real pissing match is. Like an alcoholic or a drug addict, the US may, unfortunately, have to bottom out to rediscover our Constitution and conservatism, but will it be too late then, and will there be the next Reagan to lead it?

    • dvn says:

      I have a deep respect for Romney that grew throughout the campaign. he may not have been sufficiently conservative, but I don't think he operates in the conservative v. liberal realm. he's a businessman and it's not so much about philosophy, it's about success. Romney is, and has been, very successful. so to judge him along that divide or disparage him with "RINO" etc I don't see as entirely fair. I believe he would have been a very "successful" chief executive. on some issues that would have endeared him with conservatives and libertarians, other times not so much. he gets free enterprise, he gets traditional values, he's at heart I believe a very good and decent human being, comparable, say, to Bush 41. oftentimes not conservative enough, but at least on the right (correct) side of the fence.

  7. Al Pori says:


  8. task says:

    There is not a thing in the Constitution regarding abortion. This issue is a product of the Supreme Court's decision regarding Roe vs. Wade. Ask any women who is pro-choice and she will defend her position on the basis of freedom to do what she wants to her own body. They never talk about killing a human being and act as though they have the property rights to anything to their reproductive tract as though they are renting space to and unwanted renter. Property Rights was the same lame argument used to justify slavery and if you look at some of the old graves in Brooklyn's Greenwood cemetery the inscriptions often list the first name and surname along with "property" designating any number of slaves buried as well.

    You never hear women talk about their right to become prostitutes and you would never get away with throwing out a tenant (at least in NYC) without due process which, first and foremost, is a constitutional clause designed to defend and protect life before it even defends the right to own and use property.

    Interestingly I recently listened to a 16 year old girl, who is a product of our public school system, vehemently exclaim that she would never vote for a republican because she did not want her reproductive rights infringed upon.

Leave a Reply