Russia’s Newest Law Inches Nation Closer to the Utopia American Conservatives Want to Create Here

Putin_candleA lot of liberals have joked about Russian President Vladimir Putin being a bit of an icon for conservatives in the United States.  His views on homosexuality mirror those of many conservative Christians in the U.S. and quite a few Republicans were heaping praise on him for his “strength” compared to the “weak” President Obama.

They were literally bragging about what a “strong leader” he was while lobbing partisan attacks at our own president.  It was embarrassing and disgusting.

But why wouldn’t conservatives support Putin?  Hell, from everything I’ve seen from the guy he’s exactly the kind of leader conservatives want.

He’s a “manly man” who goes out hunting with his shirt off to prove how “strong” he is.  You know, kind of like how conservative gun advocates like to stroll around Chili’s with loaded AK-47’s.  Or how they seem to think that the more guns they own, the more powerful they are.

Putin also strongly opposes homosexuality.  Last year he essentially took the first steps toward making homosexuality illegal in Russia.  It’s a process, you see.  You can’t just come out and ban homosexuality.  But if you slowly chip away at their rights, eventually you build up to the point where homosexuality is illegal.

Many conservative Americans believe homosexuals to be an abomination, oppose them having equal rights and even support laws that would legalize discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation.

Oh, and he loves to invade other counties.  Just like they enjoy doing.

But now the latest law passed in Russia bans swear words in movies, the media, art and theatre.

Apparently this law is aimed at restoring “conservative values” back to Russia as opposed to the “liberal western culture.”

In other words, he’s a conservative trying to restore “conservative values” in the face of the “dirty liberal” culture that’s trying to “morally corrupt” society.

Sound familiar?

Think about it.  Decades ago when we were much more conservative as a society, swear words were taboo.  I remember my grandmother telling me about when Gone With the Wind came out there was a controversy over the fact that the word “damn” was used at the very end.

Needless to say, a lot has changed.

And what’s the driving force behind these laws Putin keeps passing?  Religion. 

For those who say I’m being outrageous with my claim that conservatives would follow in Putin’s footsteps if they had the chance, just take a look at this.  It outlines the fairly terrifying movement that’s currently driving many of these conservatives.

But all of these radical laws being passed in Russia tie into Putin’s desire to control people based on religion and conservatism.

Which is exactly what conservatives in the United States want to do.  They want our government based on Christianity, laws derived from scripture from the Bible and a society where other opinions not in line with these conservative religious views are suppressed.

And that’s exactly what Putin is doing to Russia in the name of “conservative values.”

The main difference between what Russia is doing and what conservatives wish they could do in the United States, is that Putin currently has the power to enforce his ignorance on millions – whereas conservatives are still trying to gain that level of power so they can impose theirs.

Another reason why I can’t stress enough how important this year’s elections are for shaping the future of this country.


Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • a.mann

    Conservatives have “hahahaha’d and lmaooo’d” slapped their knees, kissed ass and sucked on Putin’s c^ck while Americans stand behind their President regardless of his political party because they understand the complexities of international crises,and holding one man (Obama) only accountable is just ridiculous

  • Patriocy

    Relics from the 20th century trying to live in the 21st century are having a hard time adapting to change…speed up or get out of the passing lane, you’re slowing the rest of us down. The US will be so much better after the Baby Boomers are gone, truly the Worst Generation.

    • Me

      As a member of the Baby Boom generation my first reaction, purely visceral, is to take offense at your remarks. My second reaction is to consider carefully why I would take offense. I don’t necessarily agree that we comprise the worst generation as each generation has little choice but to try and deal with the wreckage left behind by those who came before. But sadly, we are leaving a hell of a lot of wreckage. We can in no way claim that we are leaving this place better than we found it. I’d like to think we came close and were simply derailed by the dark side of our nature but as I look back on history since World War II I’m not sure we ever truly had even one brief shining moment before we were consumed by the darkness.

      Our legacy to you is this smoking hulk of a planet that humanity has been fighting over since the dawn of humanity and that we have finally managed to render nearly uninhabitable. The challenge we leave you is to figure out a way to fix it so that you won’t be the last generation.

      To think, all of this has resulted from little more than humanity’s overblown sense of our own importance just because we talk to the voices in our heads and call them “God.”

      • BobJThompson

        I try not to blame every boomer I see for the mess that we are in today, but it’s so hard when you realize that they voted in Reagan. The “Reagan Revolution” pushed down this path we are on. Democrats decided to out-conservative republicans on economic issues (here’s looking at you Bill) and the republicans went even more to the right.

        I don’t feel like there’s much hope for my generation either. True we may see the end of legalized homo-phobia and we may get weed legalized finally. But I see my facebook feed still filled with hate for the poor and people thinking the government is the enemy. It currently is of course, however it can be reformed to get the businesses that are corrupting it out. Business will not change though and if government is starved to near death levels, there will be no way people can push back aside from using all these guns we have floating around.

      • Hanhnibal

        Bob, I’m a boomer who was adamantly opposed to Reagan. He started us downhill, but Bush finished it off. Seems to me like now we have a nation off rightwing religious nuts who are trying to claim that Obama has caused all of our problems.

    • Hanhnibal

      The legacy of the Baby Boomers will be the spoiled, self-indulgent generation that that they raised.

  • Markovitch

    So you don’t like religion and you don’t like Putin so they must be hand in hand? Absolute crap. The Russian Orthodox Church has licenses from pre Yeltsin times to sell alcohol and tobacco without tax, as do Russian Veterans associations. The church cosies up to Putin to retain its business interests and Putin uses them when he needs them. Putin will never permit nonsense like Hobby Lobby.

    • Brian

      Are you kidding me? He had Pussy Riot thrown into the gulags because they insulted the church in a church. Putin may not be a theocrat himself, but he introduces theocratic legislation as a means of consolidating his absolute control over Russia. The man is a fascist using religion to his own ends.

  • Ed

    So while I am not a fan of Putin and I don’t like religious law. I do need to make one point. You claim in the article that you can’t make homosexuality illegal outright. It has to be done gradually, by chipping away at their rights. Now I agree with you, and I fully believe gays should be entitled to equal rights (including being able to marry and adopt). However this site frequently attacks gun rights. You just conceded the slippery slope of taking away a group’s rights so how can you become angry when conservatives call you out for attacking the rights of gun owners and claim there maybe a slippery slope to it?

    • FD Brian

      taking away gun rights? You mean sensible legislation to help keep crazy people from obtaining guns and limiting weapons that are solely made to kill as many people as humanly possible in the least amount of time? Not the same thing.

      • Charles Vincent

        The gun control being proposed by the left is not sensible. It in essence says that law abiding peoples right to own a firearm is dependent upon the actions of a criminal.

        taking away gun rights?
        Hmm Lets see the previous AWB and the ban on handguns in DC removed firearms from use by the citizens of the US I would say that qualifies as taking guns away. Furthermore the recently proposed ban would have done the same thing.

      • Brian

        Opinions.

      • Charles Vincent

        Nope pretty much fact they actually happened sorry your brain and view point are so narrow see the awb circa 1994 and the DC v Heller case which over turned the Washington DC handgun ban. And all new legislation for gun control at its core penalizes law abiding citizens for what criminals do.

      • Brian

        Dead children are the price of freedom, right? A lunatic being able to buy a gun because you see it as his right is more important ensuring less senseless deaths due to gun violence.
        You’re a bloody joke, Vincent. Go on, do your thing, cite outdated laws, give us your anarchist opinion of the constitution and enjoy the mental orgasm you get from presenting nonsense and strawmen as arguments.

      • Charles Vincent

        Hmm well freedom isn’t free or safe, and no one gets out of life alive.

        “You’re a bloody joke, Vincent. Go on, do your thing, cite outdated laws,
        give us your anarchist opinion of the constitution and enjoy the mental
        orgasm you get from presenting nonsense and strawmen as arguments.”
        You have a right to your opinion ,however you don’t get to make up your own facts.
        DC v Heller (2010) over turned The Washington DC handgun ban among other things, and is the law now. In addition the constitution is the law of the land period and people have the Right to own firearms period and until they violate a law you have no judicial standing to deprive them of any of the enumerated or implied rights in the constitution.

      • Brian

        Whose freedom? Yours or theirs? Not everyone defines freedom as lunacy with firepower.
        And no, the constitution does not guarantee the unrestricted right to own firearms. You just believe it does.

      • Charles Vincent

        I can provide SCOTUS case law that says your wrong.

        “Whose freedom? Yours or theirs?”
        You have no standing to infringe on any right until after someone has violated another persons Life, liberty, or property. That’s how the constitutions is written. Use of weapons is already restricted by laws on murder and assault, the caveat is if someone is assaulting me or anyone we have the right to defend ourselves as we see fit.

      • Brian

        The supreme court never once said that firearms could not be restricted. They are restricted now, and remain restricted, and always will be restricted. Otherwise you’d have people in the streets with bloody machine guns. And they will be restricted further eventually.
        The constitution was written 220 years ago by quarelling intellectuals back when phrenology was considered the tops for psychological science. Life, liberty, and property become irrelevant when you have a sado-masochistic lunatic whose idea of getting political points across is murdering two dozen first graders in an elementary school. Welcome to the future, Vincent. The kids have a right to life that trumps the right of a lunatic to own firearms. It’s that simple. Mental competence should be taken into account when purchasing weapons.
        If you disagree and want to cite a 220 year old piece of paper, I can cite the numerous state laws that uphold background checks and restrictions on the mentally ill purchasing firearms. And eventually when this makes it to the supreme court, what then? Will you continue doggedly adhering to your anarchistic interpretation of the constitution, or will you just fade away into irrelevance like any troll does?

      • Charles Vincent

        “If you disagree and want to cite a 220 year old piece of paper,”
        So its your assertion that the Constitution is invalid because its old?
        You are surely aware that the constitution is the Supreme law of the land right?

      • Sandy Greer

        >no judicial standing to deprive them of any of the enumerated or implied rights in the constitution.

        Implied rights. That’s the trouble, for me. What is ‘implied’ to one is not necessarily implied to another.

      • Charles Vincent

        Implied rights are talked about in the the tenth amendment;
        “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
        prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
        or to the people”

        Furthermore life, liberty, and happiness are umbrella rights which cover other less known/talked about rights.

        Example murder is unlawful but we cannot act on that until someone has committed murder, until that happens we can do nothing, The 5th amendment supports this.

        Title 5, US code Sections 556(d), 557, and 706:
        Courts lose jurisdiction if they do not follow due process law.

        16am Jur. 2d. Sec. 97:
        “…then the constitution Should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the citizen, is especially true with respect to those provisions which were designed to safe guard the liberty ans security of the citizen in regard to peon and property” Barry V United States-273 US 128

        Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary. That beneficiary is the citizen and you and I are citizens.

      • Sandy Greer

        >or to the people”

        Problem is We the People are not homogenous.
        Rather – heterogeneous.

        ‘Implied’ – rights, or anything else – is unique to each; entirely subjective; open to interpretation. 😉

      • Charles Vincent

        “Problem is We the People are not homogenous.
        Rather – heterogeneous.”
        This isn’t the problem with freedom its a problem with central management of large populations. Rights aren’t open to interpretation that’s why we have the mess we have because people try to apply an interpretation from their view and then force that on everyone else. When instead they should apply their interpretation only to themselves. As Bastiat said I do not object to them having their interpretation or that they subject themselves to their system, I object to them forcing their systems and interpretations on me via government law(force).

      • Sandy Greer

        Saving Bastiat for another day… 😉

        >Rights aren’t open to interpretation

        ^^^But ‘implied’ rights (a qualifier, as per your post quoted in my initial post) are – and where we get ourselves in trouble.

        ‘Implied’ makes an assumption – Leaves room for error.

      • Charles Vincent

        Not in the case of non enumerated rights or in the case of natural rights which are listed. When you read Locke this should be less vague 🙂
        Implied also means

        1.) to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated: His words implied a lack of faith.
        2.(of words) to signify or mean. 3. to involve as a necessary circumstance:

        It also means to include or to infer so when I say implied I mean to include

        http://dictionary DOT reference DOT com/browse/imply?s=t&path=/

      • Sandy Greer

        >When you read Locke this should be less vague 🙂

        OK; good enough. I’ve still got my doubts about those ‘non enumerated (implied) rights’. But I’ve never known you knowingly assert what you couldn’t back up.

        So I’m absolutely willing to extend benefit of doubt to you.

      • Charles Vincent

        You can also look up lists of natural rights most lists contain ~30 natural rights some you see in the bill of rights and some you don’t.

        /Tips hat

      • Charles Vincent

        There is a term in law called Laches:
        is an “unreasonable delay pursuing a right or claim… in a way that prejudices the [opposing] party”.[1] When asserted in litigation, it is an equitable defense, that is, a defense to a claim for an equitable remedy.[4] The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has “slept on its rights,” and that, as a result of this delay, circumstances have changed such that it is no longer just to grant the plaintiff’s original claim. Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in a claim being barred by laches. Laches is associated with one of the maxims of equity:
        Vigilantibus non dormientibus æquitas subvenit. Equity aids the vigilant, not the sleeping ones (that is, those who sleep on their rights).
        I have equity in my rights and I’ll not let you nor anyone else diminish my rights. If you wish to relinquish your rights fine but you have no right to relieve me of mine.

      • Hanhnibal

        Apparently there are a lot of children and other innocent people who are collateral damage so that everyone and anyone can pretend we’re living in the wild, wild west.

      • Charles Vincent

        There were less deaths by guns in the “wild west”. You also seem to be under the impression that life is safe and that freedom is danger free. That is incorrect.

        https://www DOT google DOT com/search?q=gun+deaths+in+the+us+wild+west+chart&client=firefox-a&hs=X3B&rls=org DOT mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&imgil=mCWnqWGcw1KcQM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn3.gstatic DOT com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcRwBobcfnPZ4GAO6I47t3BUmSaBUIWP-Y6A_rsZSG0XZGj3C20W%253B450%253B268%253Bo-I5vXD5QG2ryM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww DOT politisite DOT com%25252F2013%25252F03%25252F07%25252Fgun-control-chart-chart-united-states-homicide-rates-from-1885-2012%25252F&source=iu&usg=__synGb3X0RzoNqFWovYGaPebgMFI%3D&sa=X&ei=DH65U8m1Cc-6oQSWtYLYBw&ved=0CCMQ9QEwAQ&biw=1920&bih=969#facrc=_&imgrc=mCWnqWGcw1KcQM%253A%3Bs7BCEJH4yISp3M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fguardianlv DOT com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2014%252F01%252Fus-historical-homicide-chart-450×268 DOT gif%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fguardianlv DOT com%252F2014%252F01%252Fgun-control-for-dummies-and-democrats-watch-video%252F%3B450%3B268

      • Hanhnibal

        Life isn’t safe, but I’m not so scared that I can’t leave my house without being armed.

      • Charles Vincent

        And that’s your prerogative. But you don’t get to tell other law abiding citizens what they can or cannot do.

      • Hanhnibal

        That’s all fine, Charles, but people have the right to not feel threatened by being around others who are openly armed. I don’t go to gun shows, and hopefully, they’ll stay away from stores like Target.

      • Charles Vincent

        I think Sigmund Freud captured this issue well;
        “Fear Of Weapons Is A Sign Of Retarded Sexual And Emotional Maturity”
        I believe its called hoplophobia

        http://www DOT reference DOT com/browse/wiki/Hoplophobia
        I would also suggest you consider how someone with a CCW is any different than someone who chooses to open carry. Odds are you stand next to a person carrying a firearm and don’t even know it on a daily basis.

      • Hanhnibal

        I doubt it. I’m the boss in my office and no weapons are allowed here.

      • Charles Vincent

        “My name problem is not with CCW, anyhow, but with open carry – let’s say, rallies that were held at Target stores, for example.”
        So because you can see it, its a problem?
        And CCW carriers might have the same rally if they were getting shafted By gun grabbers.
        And if you are not afraid of weapons why is it such a big deal that carry them for self defense and to exercise their right?

      • Hanhnibal

        As opposed to the NRA, who kicks and screams any time the phrase “gun control” is even uttered?

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s what their members pay membership dues for, to protect their 2nd amendment rights among other things.

      • Hanhnibal

        How much of the NRA’s cash comes from the members, and how much from gun manufacturers?

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s really irrelevant they are no different than any other entity that has a PAC
        https://www DOT opensecrets DOT org/pacs/pacgave2 DOT php?cycle=2014&cmte=C00053553

      • Hanhnibal

        It’s not irrelevant if they’re just pushing an agenda to sell more guns.

      • Charles Vincent

        And other pacs aren’t selling something and pushing an agenda? Pushing an agenda is not illegal and neither is protecting a right.

    • Brian

      Mate, there’s a big difference between disarming people and preventing criminals and the mentally ill from getting guns. Likewise there’s a big difference between telling people to leave loaded rifles at home and telling them they cannot have them. This isn’t Somalia.
      Only hardcore anarchists believe in unrestricted access to weapons for all and there’s no feasible reason why a lunatic should be allowed a gun. Keep yours if you’re mentally sound. If not, my right to life and safety trumps your right to a gun.

  • Dusty Vander Plaats

    “As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it ‘all men are created equal, except negroes.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.’ When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln Letters

  • Eg Kbbs

    Seeing a video of a preacher from the depression era and even reading about earlier preachers in the mid 1800s, I am struck how the schtick was the same as today: that liberals (and academics too as academics = liberal atheists) have gotten to the corrupt politicians who have turned us into a godless society.

  • MLR

    I don’t blame conservatives as much as I blame liberals and middle of the road people. Their apathy is breathtaking, especially women who don’t take it seriously that their rights are slowly being eroded. But these people seem to be in “la la land.” It gets frustrating to try to get people to care but they don’t. They will care when it’s too late.

    • Brian

      I agree. The fact that Democrats aren’t demonizing the Republicans as loudly as possible is just plain weak. We need to have fact checkers ripping them apart at every possible opportunity, and media telling everyone at every possible opportunity that these guys are bankrupting the nation and hurting us average joes in the name of corporate bribery. We need to be loud and aggressive. They sure as hell are, and it works for them.

  • Brian

    Putin is a fascist and tea party members are revealing themselves as fascists more and more.