Your identity and your rights are not a product of your humanity, but a product of your race. If you are a member of the oppressed, you have a right to the opportunities and even the property of the privileged. If the government will not assist in protecting and delivering your rights to these opportunities and property which is being withheld from you, then the government is a part of the system which, instead of protecting the rights of the people, is actively abusing them. If the government will not protect the rights of the people, then the people must rise up, seize the government, and take their rights by force. And so another mass genocide is committed in the name of collectivism.

What I find most interesting about Mr Medved's article is how closely it aligns with leftist opposition to secession. All of the left's goals require a strong national government. State's attempts at central planning and confiscatory taxation are always frustrated by the ability of people and capital to pack up and leave. Unionized states, for example, are increasingly frustrated by right-to-work states, and therefore petition our national government to standardize labor laws in favor of unions. Here we have the same argument, except this time it comes from Medved in favor of American military hegemony. Our global military goals are paramount, and if they cannot be achieved if the union breaks up, then the union must never be broken.

I would encourage Prager, and everyone else, to split the subject into 3 (maybe 4) distinct questions: 1) Should society tolerate romantic same-sex cohabitation? 2) Should same-sex cohabitants be able to share property, list each other in their wills, and generally create all of the various contractual relationships that are typically associated with marriage. 2a) Should same-sex cohabitants be able to raise children from previous relationships, from adoption, or from artificial insemination? 3) Should same-sex cohabitants enjoy the benefits that society provides thru legislation and taxation to marriage partners? i.e. should the family and medical leave act apply to same sex cohabitants, social security checks, etc?

Exceptions suggest that the unborn are punishment for irresponsible behavior. If you got pregnant by your own misjudgment, you should be forced to suffer the consequences. If you were forced, and the pregnancy is not your "fault", you should not be forced to carry the child. It's morally confusing to say the least. Either it is life and worthy of protection, or it is not. The conditions that created it are immaterial. For those that make exceptions, I offer this challenge: at what point would you remove your exception? At birth? A week before? Third trimester? That's the point at which you believe a fetus becomes a child and it doesn't matter how it was created.

His comments drew truths from multiple places, but as a whole, they are wrong. You've got something like 40% of voters that are devoted to the Democrats, that won't consider a Republican. You've got 47% of Americans that don't pay income taxes, so lowering taxes doesn't affect them the same way it does others. Lastly, you have an entitlement class that will resist any change that takes government subsidies out of their pocket. There's some crossover between the groups, but they are not a single group. Some conservatives make up that 47% that take care of themselves and would prefer to reduce the welfare state.