CPAC Condemned
By Amit Singh | Saturday, February 20th, 2010 | PolicyJust before Bob McDonnell made a surprise visit to CPAC, one of the student activists made a total fool of himself by condemning CPAC for allowing GOProud to co-sponsor the event. Sitting in the crowd I was shocked this actually happened and couldn’t boo this idiot loud enough. This was right before Ron Paul was scheduled to speak so apparently Ryan Sorba didn’t realize this crowd was more interested in individual liberty than normal. Thank goodness he was booed off stage and he left.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Amit Singh
I'm left handed but right brained.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
28 Responses to "CPAC Condemned"
This guy was booed before he even got to the podium.
Total set up.
I agree with Agricola here, this was a set up incident.
By the way, what Ryan Sorba said was not bigoted, he stated opposition to homosexuality, in no way was he ever suggesting that Constitutional rights be stripped from anyone. By bringing on GOProud the leadership at CPAC demonstrated that they have embraced socially “progressive” thought. This incident demonstrates what will happen if these supposed “rights” are extended to the homosexual activists, the First Amendment will come under attack.
Exit Question: If the crowd was so interested in individual liberty, then why did they try and deny Mr. Sorba his right to free speech?
Maybe Steven, just because you have something to say doesn’t mean I have to give you a platform to say it? And are you so entirely unfamiliar with what the First Amendment says that you don’t know that it guarantees freedom of speech from state action?
Timothy, thank you for explaining the First Amendment to Constitutionally challenged Steven O.
Kudos to CPAC for standing up for individual liberty and denouncing homophobic bigotry.
The guy was booed before he got there because when another student was speaking about goproud ryan was giving a big thumbs down
Timothy,
I am well aware of the First Amndments language concerning freedom of speech. Too bad this crowd doesn’t live the concept out when it comes to other people’s speech in a political context. They had every right under the Constitution to boo him, however, do you honestly think that this crowd supported Mr. Sorba’s freedom to speak?
This demonstrated a point that I and others have made in the past. If certain groups have their way, people like Mr. Sorba will eventually be shut out from a legal standpoint. That is not individual liberty.
Mark,
From you that is a compliment
Individual liberty can be crushed by the very people claiming to promote it.
This is why the Tea Party sticks to fiscal and economic issues instead of this nonsense. One way to alienate and separate people is to start grandstanding on social issues which is fresh meat for the mainstream press and diminishes every other important agenda.
While I was one the many people booing him as loud as I could, I still support his right to make a fool of himself on CSPAN
Tim J,
If groups like GOProud have their way and the definition of family is redefined from a government standpoint, it will be much easier for collectivists to diminish the free market. Because the nuclear family is a deterent to socialism.
Steven, this it is important to run and elect strong Constitutional conservatives that won’t pander to single issue social activists.
the guy seems to have been set up and unfortunately acted like a jerk, but he represents the truth unlike the social liberals in the crowd. GoProud does not belong at a conservative event. just because some group is fiscally conservative but morally and ethically bankrupt doesn’t make them conservative. Promoting sexual deviancy is not a good value for conservatives even if they are fiscally conservative.
Remember right is right even if no one else is saying it and wrong is wrong even if everyone seems to be saying it.
How do I put this?
His delivery and his actions prior to speaking, were what got him booed so strongly. He had a legitimate point. Not that I agree, but then I’m a Libertarian anyway. Speaking as a social conservative at CPAC of all things, this guy has a point.
He was being booed for being a jerk and being closed minded. That cost the delivery of a legitimate contention. We’re he to more politely state that in his opinion, CPAC made a mistake with GOProud because validation of homosexuality is not a social conservative stance, people might have at least listened. He could have found a way to state that he doesn’t object to gay Republicans being a part of the GOP, but CPAC is conservative. Validating sexual practices and orientations of gays by the GOProud official presence, is not conservative. He could respectfully repeat that he feels this is a mistake on the part of CPAC.
In that case, maybe there would have been a cold silence and a few people slapping him on the back afterward because they agreed. I don’t think he was being booed for being a social conservative. Even if you disagree, you could understand the arguement. Unfortunately for him, his contention was drowned out by his venomous delivery. Condemning CPAC? There’s a real winner. Losing his temper and declaring people his enemy just made him look worse.
Ya know, I bet there are some proud members of GOProud that wanted to individually participate in CPAC and are glad to belong in GOProud, but also see the issue of sexual preference in this particular event as likely to end up negatively.
This whole issue with friction between different GOP factions has troubled me for a while now. Look, pesonally, I believe in intelligent design. I believe in God and yes, I think he played a part in evolution. Whether evolution exists on the level of fish to ape to man, is not so clear. What is fact, is that there is some level of adaption and evolution. You see it in man and lower life forms. Maybe evolving from apes is impossible(or is) but, evolving to a lesser extent definitely is. I’m a bit torn on that and don’t necessarily agree that creation can’t include evolution.
My point with evolution, is that I don’t totally discount Darwin and his theories. Jeff Frederick does. Eventhough I disagree with him, it sickened me completely that other REPUBLICANS belittled Jeff Frederick for stating his religious beliefs publicly (right before he was fired)and politely objecting to the glorifying of Darwin. He was made fun of and basically called stupid because of his beliefs?. For what? The sake of infighting? Is that what belittling somebody’s religion is worth to you?
No, the first amendment doesn’t mean anyone has to listen to Jeff Frederick state his religious views or Ryan Sorba. Our constitution does not by law punish people for acting like asses. There is something that should prevent the catcalls, the ad hominem viciousness, and the closed mindedness at an event filled with supposed allies and friends.
It is called decorum.
One can disagree with respect and leave as brothers. You don’t have to, but you know that you should behave in a dignified matter that is conducive to positive collaboration among people that agree on 80-90% of the issues.
The infighting, name calling, and the declation of enemy status, just isn’t necessary. Your opposition party will give you plenty of that.
No, you don’t have to be polite and respectful. You don’t have to be open minded and forgiving of difference even when you are confident in your convictions. You are not required by the first amendment to work with others that disagree with you on one or two particular issues all the time. You don’t have to strive for the continual improvement of your country, party, and self. You don’t have to do any of that…….but you know……… we would all be better off if we did.
@Dry Viking, Ryan set himself up. I was there and saw the whole thing. as to your other point, what makes CPAC so great is that it is not a Republican event. Glenn Beck’s closing speech definitely highlighted that. in addition to the NRA and pro-life groups, organizations promoting the legalization of marijuana, anti-war, and privacy groups attend as well. perhaps since today’s GOP doesn’t believe in those things you think they should not be at CPAC?
Britt,
I see your point about his tone, however, I disagree with you on why the audience was booing. They were booing him for the substance of what he said. The room was packed with Libertarians who did not represent the attendance of CPAC at large. I appreciate your taking notice of the point that Mr. Sorba was actually making. This unruly mob does not believe in the concept of natural rights or natural law, and therefore, are not really conservative in the first place. Just look at Europe, the decline of the free market coincided with the decline of the nuclear family unit. The traditional family unit and liberty are not mutually exclusive, if family can be redefined to mean anything, then the concept of man, woman, child units will become obsolete, and instead of looking to their families, people will look to the government.
Amit,
Your point is well taken:
That is why this event should be renamed from CPAC to LPAC
Libertarian Political Action Conference.
To add to my last comment, some of my libertarian friends will potentially think that I am speaking against libertarian activists. The truth is that I am not. I think that there is a great basis for Christian conservatives, social conservatives, and libertarians to work together. We saw that in the effort to elect Ken Cuccinelli as Attorney General. However, this crowd and the marginalized leadership of CPAC obviously have no interest in working with social conservatives. Unfortunately, they will likely turn away many socially conservative libertarians as well. What is ironic is that many of these libertarians will become the unwitting tools of an establishment that used and abused both them and conservatives for years.
@Steven Osborne, I think the libertarian perspective is good for social conservatives. think about what happened when social conservatives tried to federalize the abortion issue. instead of making it illegal, the unintended consequence was that it was made legal in all 50 states. I can say for myself, had abortion been legal in VA when my mother was pregnant, there was a really good chance I would not be here. that is not to say that banning something is always the best way to prevent it (in fact we know that is not true) but if social conservatives want their agenda moved forward, the best way to do that is at the state level not federal. just my $0.02
Amit,
Your last comment is the basis on which social conservatives and libertarians can work together. You brought up abortion, and it would seem that we have a similar goal. Now you have a different strategy for achieving that goal than I do. However, I can still work with you on the basis that we share a common goal.
The problem with Goproud is that they do not share the same goals as the conservative movement when it comes to protecting the traditional family. There is no common goal to work from on that issue. Many conservatives, including myself, believe that redefining the institution of marriage is diametrically opposed to the tenants of conservatism, because marriage is an institution that predates human government and government has no right to interfere in such an institution. I know that you view Mr. Sorba as being bigoted, however, I would urge you to listen to the statement that he actually made, the statement that so many were booing. He stated that our liberties are based upon natural law. Our founders also held to this view. This is why the Declaration of Independence says that our liberties are “endowed by our Creator.” If Goproud is to have what they want, then the Federal and/or State government will have to take the power upon itself to change the very definitions of natural law. As a limited government advocate, can you honestly condone giving government that kind of power?
I would argue then as a social conservative and libertarian working together on the marriage issue, that the only prudent thing to fight for is not to give the govt the privilege to define marriage in the first place. as I’m sure you believe along with me, that marriage is a religious sacrament and is strongest when held in traditions that are not watered down by govt regulations and restrictions.
my parents were married in India and are still together after 37 years. perhaps many Christians and Muslims would not recognize their marriage because it was done with a Hindu priest but honestly I don’t care because they can believe what they want and my family can believe what we want.
Amit,
I believe that government only has the power to validate the institution of marriage that already exists. It is not a matter of defining marriage, because marriage is already defined as a union between one man and one woman. For legal purposes, government validates the religious institution. However, the government cannot validate something that does not exist. Gay marriage is an oxymoron, because marriage is a union between one man and one woman, that is not by government’s decree, that is by virtue of natural law. Here in Virginia we passed a marriage amendment, some would consider such an amendment to be statist, however, the amendment that we passed here in Virginia basically limits the state government from interfering with natural law. I believe in limited government, and I believe that government does not have the right to play God with the institution of marriage.
@Osborne, where is marriage defined as the union of one man with one woman? I don’t think the Mormon’s or the Muslim’s religious institution is being validated here. also, in my family’s religion, marriage is more narrowly defined as one man and one woman from the same caste. should I propose the govt only validate marriages following my customs and traditions because it is unnatural for a Brahman to marry a Pariah?
as far as natural law which is being discussed, homosexuality does exist in nature and I would argue that one man and one woman is not natural. especially in the day when men went to war, it was more common for them to “spread their seed” with many women or in other societies for women to have multiple “husbands” to ensure atleast one could help raise their children. at the rate of war we are having now, we may need to resort to those primitive natural law practices!
Amit, The requirement that marriage involve one man and one woman was held to be essential to Western civilization.. see http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Marriage+%28traditional%29
To suggest otherwise would be like suggesting that a Hindu must daily eat the meat of a cow.
Regardless of one’s opinion on marriage and its definition, this guy acted like a bigoted jerk. Sure, lot’of us were waiting to here Ron Paul speak and booed the guy but I guarantee that if he said the same thing before Mitt Romney or John Bolton, the exact same thing would have happened. CPAC is for all conservatives, be it gay conservatives, social conservatives or libertarians. Even some social conservatives that I knew who were in attendance booed the man.
Sometimes the only thing Democrats have going for them is Republicans.
“homophobic bigotry.” Funny how this buzzword is the one used EVERYWHERE and on EVERY blog or youtube video or facebook post. Being against an aberrant behavior is not bigoted. It may be narrow minded but gay people are not a race. They are a microscopic militant minority of less than 2% of our population. Embracing them will do more to alienate conservatives interested in joining the GOP. Funny thing is that this was not started by the GOP but by the Libertarians that were participating in CPAC and so it will work out well for them in that it will further marginalize the GOP and yet will do nothing to advance conservatism because it will fracture the movement more. The God haters in the Libertarian party will continue to push us off into the abyss and push people into the Constitution party. Where will that leave conservatism? How will that help our cause? It won’t!
@James Hawkins, actually old-school Hindus (perhaps I can call myself one of them now) used to eat beef!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7708836/A-Brahmins-Cow-Tales-History-of-Beef-Eating-in-India-by-Hindus
and I don’t know the specifics but didn’t a lot of America’s early European settlers leave because of some king who wanted a divorce? I hardly think govt enforcement of “traditional marriage” is essential to Western civilization
Even if it is essential to western civilization, natural law in theory is not equivelant to western customs. If something is a natural law, it is universal across all humanity. In the US marriage as reinforced by law was based on the western notion of the custom. And therefore the law is promoting some reigious/ cultural concept. Now i personally belive that marriage is by its definition a man and a woman… I see it as a religious instituion. However, the piece of paper that state gives you is not marriage… its a legal contract based on western historical cultural custom and is entirely seperate from the religious practice. If you actually believe in minimizing the power of the government, you wouldnt want the state even involved with marriage in the first place.
Amit, please forgive me for not answering you sooner with this. Thank you for your link to A Brahmin’s Cow Tales. This showed me that my belief that a Hindu considered the eating of beef like some religions hold the eating of pork to be incorrect. I thought the cow was sacred because of its association with Prithvi or Aditi . I have read the Bhagavad Gita and I am still trying to understand that. Gandhi’s teachings helped clear things up a bit for me.
Sorry that my understanding of Hindu religion and customs is less then it should be, however I do know the answer to the question “which country is the world’s largest democracy?”.
no worries James. as a kid, my mother always told us cows were sacred because it was the main source of milk after a mother. perhaps she didn’t know the truth either!
Leave your response