| | Advanced Search


Hasbro Will Open Exhibit on the Creation of “Transformers”—Hasbro Inc., will unveil its new exhibit “From…

Stan Tran Unveils Job Plan—Republican candidate for Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District…

Commerce RI Partners to Lower Costs of Solar Power in Rhode Island—The Rhode Island Commerce Corporation (Commerce RI), the…

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to Speak at “Defense Innovation Days” Event—Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and several other…

Misquamicut Beach to Present FallFest—The Misquamicut Business Association will host FallFest at…

Gronkowski “Good to Go” Week 1—Rob Gronkowski told reporters at Gillette Stadium that…

Russell Moore: Experience Makes Caprio a No-Brainer for Treasurer—Let's face it: politics is strange business.

Smart Benefits: Two Regs Issued on Contraceptive Coverage—Two regulations on contraceptive coverage were recently issued…

Peace Flag Project to Host Rhode Island Month of Peace in September—The Peace Flag Project will host over 30…

Don’t Miss: Fall Newport Secret Garden Tours—The Benefactors of the Arts will present a…


Arthur Schaper: Gay CounterMentum

Friday, February 28, 2014


“You have to accept me!” -- Gay activist in Hermosa Beach, CA

“Arthur, you ignorant bigot!” -- Lewis Charleston

People keep talking about “gay this” and “gay that”, and “proud to be gay”, even though the advocates for the lifestyle claim that people are born that way. If you have nothing to do with it, then what is there to be proud of? Should I be proud of being white?

Someone once told me that Providence, Rhode Island is the “Gay Capital” of the United States, not San Francisco or West Hollywood, or even Dallas, Texas (that city had an openly gay mayor, I believe). From Rhode Island Assembly Speaker Gordon Fox to former Providence mayor now Congressman David “Grand Theft Auto” Cicciline, homosexuality is prominent in the politics and the people in Providence.

What would Roger Williams think? Besides being appalled, he probably would have cited scripture upon scripture condemning the practice, not an identity.

Bigotry or Free Speech?

No, wait. If Providence’s colonial patriarch showed up on the steps of city hall (or the statehouse) and declared his opposition, he would probably be pilloried as a bigot, a hater, or from even less reflectie minds “a racist”. In effect, he would have gotten the same reception he had endured in Massachusetts, the first state to recognize gay marriage. No, wait again. The state supreme court forced the Commonwealth to recognize gay marriage.

Then again, Williams might have shared his thoughts on the Internet, as did GoLocal MINDSETTERS™ Don Roach and John Perilli. Writing about a(nother) controversial bill in Arizona, Roach broached the clash of gay marriage vs. religious beliefs with “What do you think?” Perilli identified the “Therimdorian” (read, conservative) backlash to gay marriage.

About homosexuality and civil rights, the conflict is indeed unique. Unlike the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s, homosexuals claim that they are born gay and thus any discrimination cannot be tolerated. Opponents disagree and support the right of religious institutions and private establishments the right to refuse certain services.

The opponents are right: people are not born gay. There is simply no compelling evidence to support any other idea. From the ancient Greeks, who prized homosexual love yet recognized marriage between one man and one woman, to the present day, growing evidence determines that homosexual conduct is a choice, and a bad one, fraught with disease, dysfunction, and death.

Now, in a free society, adopting a libertarian, live-and-let-live mindset, consenting adults are free to use (or abuse) their bodies as they choose. Also in a free society, individuals must recognize the crucial element of tolerance, which not only permits others to live as they please, yet accepts that everyone cannot be forcibly entitled to other people’s opinion. Furthermore, other people may recognize and protect themselves and their children from the risks associated with certain behavioral choices.

People of religious persuasion, or of a cultural stance, should not be forced to cater to homosexuals, if they deem such offensive or immoral. Nevertheless, a growing infringement on freedom of speech, press, and religion is manifesting in the face of resistance to homosexuality.

In Sweden, a pastor was jailed for preaching against homosexuality.

In Canada, a court of appeals ruled that religious ministers have to perform same-sex weddings , regardless of their convictions. The Supreme Court ruled that criticizing homosexuality amounted to “hate speech”, which could be penalized. Excuse me?!

Anti-Freedom Legislation

But that’s Sweden and Canada, critics would counter. Perilli has argued that such anti-freedom outcomes would never be passed here.

Think again.

A Hawaii bed and breakfast faced a lawsuit, then were forced to cater to a homosexual couple, even though the owners did not support the lifestyle.

In New Mexico , a Christian wedding photographer was compelled to offer services to a gay couple.

In Oregon, a bakery was forced to close following a lawsuit from a gay couple, because the baker refused to bake them a wedding cake.

In a Hermosa Beach town hall meeting, a gay activist declared without reserve: “You have to accept me!” Have to? The United States is a constitutional republic, not a tyranny. I don’t “have to” accept people’s lifestyle choices.

A Call for Countermentum

Countermentum is necessary against this aggressive, anti-freedom homosexual agenda.

In my hometown, Torrance, a gay activist tagged “Tastes like hate!” on a Chik-Fil-A, after CEO Dan Cathy shared his opposition to gay marriage. Customers supported Cathy and “ate more Chikin” instead.

After Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson’s comments on homosexuality, then A&E’s indefinite, unjust suspension, supporters punched back, and Robertson was reinstated. Even gay academic Camille Paglia supported Phil, calling A&E’s response "Fascist and Stalinist.”

And now Arizona lawmakers have offered a bill which would protect businesses from lawsuits if they choose not to serve homosexuals as a matter of conscience. Such legal precautions seem necessary, not a nicety.

With all due respect to Rosa Parks, a true civil rights hero, more Americans, gay and straight, are refusing to sit in the back of the bus to a vocal, virulent, yet marginal anti-freedom homosexual agenda.

I say good for them. And I am sure Roger Williams would agree.

Arthur Christopher Schaper is a teacher-turned-writer on topics both timeless and timely; political, cultural, and eternal. A life-long Southern California resident, Arthur currently lives in Torrance. Follow him on Twitter @ArthurCSchaper, reach him at [email protected], and read more atSchaper's Corner and As He Is, So Are We Ministries.


Related Articles


Enjoy this post? Share it with others.


Mindblown. great post, thank you

Comment #1 by Silence Dogood on 2014 02 28

Trying to legislate "acceptance" until the lawbooks collapse the shelves will be about as successful as Affirmative Action, the resentment of which has been far higher than the benefit.

Comment #2 by G Godot on 2014 02 28

I have always thought that "don't ask, don't tell" .. requiring tolerance on both sides, would result in a good outcome, but the paranoids, having got their hands on a bit of fleeting political power can't wait, not realizing that such power is often temporary and what goes around comes around.

Comment #3 by G Godot on 2014 02 28

A video has just surfaced in which the newly minted conservative hero the "Duck Man" Phil Robertson offers more harsh comments about ALL gay folks (many of whom are fighting for our country right now in the middle-east) . In the video, Robertson says that Gay folks will receive the "due penalty for their perversions." He goes on to say that they are full of "murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, god-haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."
But he is not judging them..... Remember that...LOL

Locally we heard from the conservative former GOP Mayor Steve Laffey

In one column, Laffey said he has never seen a happy homosexual.
"This is not to say there aren't any; I simply haven't seen one in my lifetime. Maybe they are all in the closet," he wrote. "All the homosexuals I've seen are sickly and decrepit, their eyes devoid of life."
In another column he wrote that pop music was turning the children of America into sissies, and criticized the singer Boy George, referring to him as...... "it."
"It wears girl's clothes and puts on makeup," he wrote. "When I hear it sing, 'Do you really want to hurt me, do you really want to make me cry,' I say to myself, YES, I want to punch your lights out, pal, and break your ribs."
The "TOLERANT" right proves their true selves again and again

Comment #4 by Sammy Arizona on 2014 02 28

Hi Arthur,

I have a couple things I'd like to clear up:

First of all, I don't remember ever having used the word "Thermidorian," although I suppose it is somewhat related to what I meant.

Second, I only argued that laws prohibiting anti-gay speech (and speech only) would never become law in the United States. I made no such claims about other non-discrimination laws.

I appreciate you taking the time and effort to rebut my arguments. Just making sure we're on the same page.

Comment #5 by John Perilli on 2014 02 28

Using a google search as evidence that homosexuality is a "bad choice" is laughable. Please use better sources and understand the topic.

Roger Williams, the same man that is no longer alive to answer your hypothetical questions, also championed the idea of separation of church and state. Therefore, he would most likely not be be "citing scripture after scripture" in his "opposition" to same-sex marriage. I don't think he would be one to accept a violation of religious beliefs as adequate justification for discrimination.

This isn't a matter of "anti-freedom" but once again, anti-discrimination. Should a business be able to "employ" slaves or underpay their workers because the bible endorses slavery?

Additionally, I highly doubt that the bakery in Oregon was closed because it was forced to sell a cake to a gay couple. There are clearly other reasons why this bakery closed (probably because the bakery didn't want to sell their goods to people who wanted to pay for them).

Comment #6 by Kevin Kuehn on 2014 02 28

Mr. Perilli -- thank you for your comments. I used "Thermidorian" as a reference to conservative response to a movement.

Your comments have been both thoughtful and respectful. Thank you again.

I used a general Google catch all search to demonstrate the widespread evidence which indicates that homosexuality is a choice, and a bad one.

I have referenced specific sources on other posts. I am more than willing to do so again, if need.

It's time to have this discussion.

Comment #7 by Arthur Schaper on 2014 02 28

When I listen to "gay rights" activists, they sound just as hateful as the people they say hate them. If you listen to the words of Martin Luther King, his language wasn't one of hate but of the future and reaching towards a different reality than what existed at the time. Yes, he challenged minds and people, but he did it in a way that didn't try just say "you bigot" and walk away.

That is one of the fundamental issues I have with this movement. It says accept me, but I don't have to accept you. In fact, says the movement, I can call you every name in the book because you don't accept me but you better not utter one indecent word. I find that hypocritical.

I do believe that if the gay rights movement continues to infringe upon religious rights there will be a significant backlash. And if gay rights activists continue to meet reason with reviling rhetoric the pace towards said backlash will be quickened.

True tolerance allows for belief systems that are different. True tolerance respects differences and fights for the freedom of all people, even the who hold what we consider objectionable views. I've never heard a gay rights activist utter anything similar to the last sentence. Not one. If someone would like to google search that and find one, I'd appreciate it.

At the end of the day rights have collided and ultimately our religious freedoms will be put asunder.

Comment #8 by Donn Roach on 2014 02 28

The wife of the current mayor of New York, it is claimed, USED to be lesbian. That's a might confusing to the rest of us, whenever we are told it's NOT EVER a choice. Seems to me "it's not a choice" is just a way to mantain your non-negotiable demands.

Comment #9 by G Godot on 2014 02 28

The twin towers were still smoldering, when the undisputed leaders of the Christian right, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson appeared on TV, and laid the blame for the 9/11 attacks.

""we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say you helped this happen." Jerry Falwell
"I concur" Pat Robertson
Sammy in Arizona

Comment #10 by Sammy Arizona on 2014 02 28

What a load of nonsense.
First of all, not sure what makes you think you can speak for Roger Williams, but as you alluded to, he was no stranger to persecution. How he felt about homosexuality I don’t know (and you certainly don’t either), but if there’s one thing that’s clear, he believed in personal freedom, and in view of his personal struggles, most likely freedom from persecution. So if we’re going to speculate what Roger Williams ‘would think’, my guess is he’d probably be ‘appalled’ that gays or anyone else were subject to persecution for their lifestyle or beliefs. But ok Artie, if he ‘would have cited scripture upon scripture condemning the practice’, then why don’t you? You’re a big God botherer, pull out the good book and quote us ‘scripture upon scripture’ condemning the practice of homosexuality. Should be no problem, right?
And while you’re at it, how about sharing all this ‘growing evidence that determines homosexual conduct is a choice’. Should be easy. Matter of fact I’m surprised you didn’t include it in your article, it being so compelling and all. Absent that Artie, I will offer you the following ‘compelling evidence’ that it is not a choice, in the form of one simple question: if it’s a choice, why would anyone choose it? Why decide you want to pursue a lifestyle/sexual orientation for which you know you will be hated, discriminated against, and constantly vilified for? I eagerly await your answer to that question.
And I see you’ve made a desperate attempt to portray society at large as the victims, indeed the Rosa Parks of the world, who are courageously standing up against the oppressive gays and their ‘anti-freedom homosexual agenda’. Yeah that’s what’s happening Art.
Get real Arthur. The Arizona law was wrong for one simple reason. If you’re going to have a business that is open to the public, then it’s got to be the whole public. You should not be able to discriminate against a segment of society based on their personal beliefs or lifestyle, or your own. I know you disagree, and I don’t care. You can sit and tell us you’re right because the bible says (don’t forget to provide us with that ‘scripture upon scripture’), because you know what Roger Williams was thinking 400 years ago and he was agreeing with you, That you’re just like Rosa Parks enduring discrimination at every turn by the gays, but the fact is you’re a bigot, and the more flimsy reasons you offer in an attempt to justify your discrimination, the more obvious it becomes that is what you are…

Comment #11 by Alan Partane on 2014 02 28

I don't even care what this "ignorant bigot" has to say...First Amendment allows him to speak his piece.

I'm more shocked the GoLocal Prov is not offering a counter-argument from the opposing side to make it a fair debate.

Comment #12 by John Donovan on 2014 02 28

John - I can assure you that for the last 9 years I've solicited enough liberals saying, "hey let's debate topics in the open" to know that an open debate is not anything that side wants.

Comment #13 by Donn Roach on 2014 03 01

John - I can assure you that for the last 9 years I've solicited enough liberals saying, "hey let's debate topics in the open" to know that an open debate is not anything that side wants.

Comment #14 by Donn Roach on 2014 03 01

John Donovan:

I cited two prior articles on this issue published in Go Local Prov.



Comment #15 by Arthur Schaper on 2014 03 01

You want to end this argument quickly? Let a couple dozen businesses discriminate against Christians. Let a few bus drivers refuse to pick up a Christian, and let a few gas stations refuse to service Christians, let a few cab drivers refuse to give them rides and let a few restaurants refuse to serve them. You'll watch this entire thing go away real fast. Why? Because it's OK for them to discriminate against others, but it's not fair for others to discriminate against them because everyone came to this country to found it as a Christian Nation. It's all in the history books as clear as crystal. They came here, slaughtered the Native Americans (a.k.a. heathens) that helped them survive their first winter, stole their lands, marginalized them, and forced them onto reservations, (just like the Bible would want you to). So, it's clear that these Christians are truly the blessed of all of us and we should defer to their righteousness. If anyone walks the walk, it's Christians.

Comment #16 by Phil Paulson on 2014 03 01

Sammy Arizona wrote:

"The twin towers were still smoldering, when the undisputed leaders of the Christian right, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson appeared on TV, and laid the blame for the 9/11 attacks: 'we make God mad'."

They were wrong. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, or me, Don Roach, or any person on this earth is not the standard for God's Word and Will. The Bible is.

What does the Bible say about God's wrath?:

"In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer."

This verse speaks of Christ's death on the Cross, where He became sin, that every person can receive His righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:17-21)

God is not angry with the world anymore, because one sacrifice covered all the sins forever -- Jesus's death on the Cross. I like what another pastor said: If God were still judging the world, He would have to apologize to Jesus."

Comment #17 by Arthur Schaper on 2014 03 02

Alan Partane:

"But ok Artie, if he ‘would have cited scripture upon scripture condemning the practice’, then why don’t you? You’re a big God botherer, pull out the good book and quote us ‘scripture upon scripture’ condemning the practice of homosexuality. Should be no problem, right?"

First, I want to establish that the Bible accounts for two covenants: Old and New. The Old Covenant was provisional for the Israelites. The New Covenant is for everyone who is willing to believe on Christ and Him Crucified.

Having said that, here are the references in the Bible regarding homosexual conduct:

"Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty." (Leviticus 5: 3)

Read also:

Leviticus 18:22,24-30; 20:13

Duet 22:5; 23:17

Here's a reference in the New Testament:

"26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." (Romans 1: 26-27)

Now, after Jesus died on the Cross, a New Covenant has been cut:

"10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel [and all who believe in Jesus] after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." (Hebrews 8: 10-12)

With this Covenant of grace in place, Peter declared in a Jerusalem Council:

"18Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." (Acts 15:18-21)

These were not directives for salvation, but the meet sort of conduct because of salvation.

Everyone who believes on Jesus is saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2: 4-8)

But this grace does more than save from death to life, but grants life even now:

"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;" (Titus 2: 11-12)

I hope these Scriptures clear up some concerns or distortions regard God's true nature (Love and Light, but not Hate), yet at the same recognizes that homosexuality is a choice, and a bad one, not God's best for anyone.

Comment #18 by Arthur Schaper on 2014 03 02

Kevin Kuehn wrote:

"This isn't a matter of "anti-freedom" but once again, anti-discrimination. Should a business be able to "employ" slaves or underpay their workers because the bible endorses slavery? "

The Bible does not endorse slavery. Period. Refusing to serve someone in a private business is not the same thing as forcing someone to work for you. In fact, the real slavery would be government coercion toward a private business to cater to a gay couple, even though the business owners do not support the conduct.

Comment #19 by Arthur Schaper on 2014 03 02

Phil Paulson offered:

"You want to end this argument quickly? Let a couple dozen businesses discriminate against Christians."

The federal government has instigated discrimination of a sort by forcing businesses to provide health insurance for abortions and contraception. It would be discrimination to force private businesses run by Christians who do not want to cater to homosexual couples.

Homosexuality is a behavior, not an identity. I would further add that businesses also discriminate by not allowing certain businesses to post certain ads on their sites or in their businesses, too. The general principle of free enterprise has been defined in certain respects to permit business owners to refuse service in circumstances as they see fit.

For the record, any business which discriminates against anyone based on race, I believe, would not stay in business very long. The Free Market does a much better job of punishing invidious discrimination than the government ever could.

"but it's not fair for others to discriminate against them because everyone came to this country to found it as a Christian Nation."

I do not agree that the United States is a Christian nation, in that the federal government has the right to establish a religion. I do recognize the positive role of civic religion, though. And Biblical principles were foundational to the formation of this country.

"They came here, slaughtered the Native Americans (a.k.a. heathens) that helped them survive their first winter, stole their lands, marginalized them, and forced them onto reservations, (just like the Bible would want you to)".

This statement is false. Roger Williams, for example, treated the Native Americans with great respect. Do not judge Christianity by other Christians, professing or possessing, but by Christ as revealed in the Bible.

Comment #20 by Arthur Schaper on 2014 03 02

Arthur, apparently the hyperbole was lost on you, but I would ask your opinion on one thing that you brought up. The "birth control" statement you make. As we know, there are medications available that among other purposes, can be used to prevent a woman from becoming pregnant. Let's call it "the pill" just to simplify the discourse. I can respect someone's stand that we should not be forced to pay for someone's medication that they use to prevent themselves from becoming pregnant so they can have sex without the risk of becoming pregnant, but what about the woman who would have their lives threatened by a pregnancy? What about the women that take this medication for a medical reason other than trying to prevent a pregnancy? Should they be allowed access to this medication for those purposes? If so, should the employee demand a doctor's note so they know what medication you're taking and for what reason? How about erectile dysfunction medication? Should that be covered? I would say that if a couple is trying to have a baby and the man has a medical condition that effects his ability to maintain an erection, it should be covered, but what if his partner is post menopausal? At that point aren't we paying for someone's "fun". Would you care to share your thoughts on these issues?

Comment #21 by Phil Paulson on 2014 03 02

Hey Jerk-Off: try researching things before you type it. Dallas hasn't had an openly gay mayor, you moron; that was Houston. BTW, your posts suck.

Comment #22 by Lewis Charleston on 2014 04 07

Lewis Charleston Mr Arthur Schaper always plays fast and loose with his "made-up" FACTS "many folks on both sides, left and right have condemned his MANY LIES

As "Mr Hollywood" Ronald Reagan famously said
"Facts are optional" ... for Righties

Comment #23 by Sammy Arizona on 2014 04 08

Sammy: Hiding behind Dick Cheney? Wow! For the record, Cheney still lives in Wyoming -- if you want to give him a piece of your mind, help yourself. (By the way, he's no longer in office, but anything to distract -- or rather attempt to distract - from the shameful sideshow of scandal which is the Obama Administration and the Gay-Bully movement, right?

If anyone qualifies for the "facts are optional" slander, look no further than President Obama and his corrupted White House Coterie: from You can keep your health care, your doctor, we are the change we have been waiting for" President Obama is one corrupt scandal after another.

Please visit and share:


CFP Main Menu

Doug Hagmann's
Most Recent CFP Columns
Columnists' Archives
Cover Stories
Canada Politics

American Politics
American Freedom
American Healthcare
American Life, History
Business, Financial
Christianity - Religion
Crime - Security
Global Warming
Energy - Environment
Gun Control
Media, Media Bias
Science, Technology
World News
CFP Magazine

Medical Pages
Travel Pages
Automotive Pages
Weather - Gas - Markets
CFP Cartoons
Life, Pets, Gardens, Food
Letters to the Editor

Caruba: Professional Writing Services

Costa Rica Homes for Sale


Americans are tired of Cummings, Obama, IRS abuses, Benghazi cover-ups, ObamaCare failures

Comment #24 by Arthur Schaper on 2014 04 08

Oh Sammy and Lewis:

The Saul Alinsky playbook of "personal, polarize, demonize" is no longer working for the Left, for you guys, since the lies have been exposed.

Your shame is your shame now, and there is nothing you can do about it. Are you mad? You have yourselves to blame at this point.

Oh, Charleston and Arizona (who are likely both the same person), the following people (and more) displace your hollow criticism:

"What does a brain-dead right-wing hack blogger from California know about Rhode Island? Not a g0ddamn thing."

Hmm. . . .

{From "Gay CounerMentum"]
Silence Dogood

10:17am on Friday, February 28, 2014

Mindblown. great post, thank you

[From "Speaker Fox in the Hen House"]


Killary Klinton

7:49am on Friday, October 25, 2013

Arthur -

Very well written and to the point,

donatello gori

8:22am on Friday, October 25, 2013

nice article about one of the biggest tools in RI politics.

[From "Roger Williams would be a Republican in RI]
Dexter Liu

2:31am on Monday, January 06, 2014

It is amazing how utterly "tolerant" my fellow RI citizens are of the conservative point of view. For that matter of anyone's point of view that dares to shatter their bubble. Last I checked, Torrance is not a foreign country, and we have freedoms in this country that permit free speech across state lines. Torrance residents do not have a monopoly on the goings on in their community any more than the provincial Rhode Islanders have on our fair state. And no, you are not the "enlightened" contrary to your delusions. Sadly my state remains infested by those who know not just how fast the ahip has been taking on water, so rather than bail or patch the hull, they'd rather shoot the messenger so they may go on rearranging the deck chairs on the promanade deck. Go ahead... shoot the messenger, it's the likes of you idiots who have sustained the 75 year "Progressive" destruction that will doom Rhode Island to a future modeled after Detroit. Bravo, Arthur for continuing to tell the truth and bravo Golocal Prov for carrying the only sensible point on view to those of us who acknowledge reality.
[From "Langevin Quotes (Racist, Statist) Woodrow Wilson"]

Art West

9:20am on Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Thank you Mr. Schaper for a very eye-opening article.

Langevin is a tax-and-spend politician who follows the Democratic leadership without much question. Now that I understand his inspiration a little better, perhaps it is ideology as much as job security considerations that drives him

joe pregiato

3:18pm on Tuesday, August 20, 2013

And after 80 yrs of progessive failure, we still vote these morons in? Stop beliving the "Gov't will solve your problems" drivel. What made this country great was self reliance, independence, freedom, opportunit-- A free market system that takes advantage of the hard working entreprenuer, risk taker, self motivated---And benefits all of us by creating jobs, careers, wealth, a huge middle class. Dopes like Wilson have been PROVEN wrong.

[From "Round, Rhode Island, GOP + School Choice"

Mike Govern

10:41am on Thursday, July 25, 2013

Thanks Arthur. Well stated.

[From: "RI Education: End the Pillage, Restore The Village"

James Berling

5:22pm on Friday, September 06, 2013

Arthur, maybe you could write an article on how we could go about getting some ballot questions in RI. For years the General Assembly has had a stranglehold on democracy in this state. The public sector unions and the Democrat Party have a too cozy relationship. As a result the General Assembly—totally dominated by one party—won’t even allow important issues like Right to Work to be discussed. Instead, when this state suffers from high taxes and high unemployment, they vote on what the official state appetizer should be.

I am totally convinced that if we could get some commonsense ballot questions before the voters we would have a very good chance of turning this state around.

To Sammy-Lewis-Cheap (My haters):

Those are just a few comments from Rhode Island readers. Their responses have been affirmative as well as respectable for the work which I have submitted.

They differ with the sad commentary of Charleston and Arizona, who resort to name-calling and epithets because the "cherished" values of progressivism are falling apart before his and many other "true liberal believers'" very eyes.

Repost the Reproach! Thanks again for the forum, Go Local Prov!

Comment #25 by Arthur Schaper on 2014 04 08

Write your comment...

You must be logged in to post comments.