Posted on 10/19/2004 5:17:28 PM PDT by TaxRelief
History has shown that the neutral position is the most dangerous position to take. Unfortunately for Bill O'Reilly, the host of Fox News' O'Reilly Factor and the target of sexual harassment lawsuit, his attempts at reasonableness are neither liberal enough for the hard left nor conservative enough for the solid right.
Conservatives bite the hand that feeds them when they fail to recognize that O'Reilly, in his position as an independent moderate, provides the perfect doorway through which a maturing, political aficionado can pass as he discovers the dangerous liberal slant of the mainstream media. (Certainly, a budding neo-con does not wake up one morning to the sudden discovery that he is ready for conservatism "al Sean Hannity.")
O'Reilly's political positions--his support of abortion, homosexual adoption, homosexual marriage, fiscal conservatism and limited government; and his opposition to animal rights activists, "feminazis" and environmental whackos-- parallel very closely the interim stage that many moderates pass through on their journey from the young, brainwashed me-generation to the more logical realm of adult conservatism.
O'Reilly practices Catholicism exactly the way John Kerry does; He professes a distaste for abortion, but implies that abortion, other than partial-birth abortion, should not be limited by law. (If this logic was carried out to its conclusion with any existing law, we'd be in total disarray--I don't believe in euthanizing disloyal spouses, but who am I to interfere with your household?) Because Bill O'Reilly has only babies in his home, he has not yet experienced the introspection that parents are forced to encounter sooner or later as they help their children grow in faith within the church.
The political stance of O'Reilly, and others moving away from the left, has not slipped past the attention of the Homosexual Mafia or past the strategists in the Democrat Party. By way of example, John Kerry's stated position about the deficit is that it can be blamed solely on "big Republican" spending. Kerry obviously believes that the wider he makes the stated definition of liberalism, the more people who might otherwise be attracted to conservatism, he will be able to keep in the camp. Unfortunately for all of the left, however, more and more adults are doing their homework and recognizing the inconsistencies between liberal promises and the reality after a liberal is elected.
An exploration of the social history of America and the MSM (mainstream media) reveals overwhelming evidence that the Homosexual Mafia, more than forty years ago, rested on a strategy to control public opinion by infiltrating the media and moving into powers of position within newspaper publishing houses, TV production studios and Public Radio. For the first twenty of these years, it was not openly obvious that they had positioned themselves so well.
Eventually conservatives in positions of power began to recognize that the right was well behind the social engineering curve, so they rose up and attempted to fight back with reason and competition. But they were too late. The social control of the "civil rights" crowd , the monopolies of small city publications and the power of "political correctness" in the schools were too strong, and forced them to turn to new venues, the "new media"--talk radio, cable news, conservative publications, the internet and finally bloggers --was born.
As a key member of this New Media, Bill O'Reilly is now a serious threat to the radical leftists' civil-rights agenda, and apparently is more than the Homosexual Mafia can control. Al Franken, in his position not only as a spokesman for the Homosexual Agenda, but also as a general in his political army, went on a blatant attack of O'Reilly with his book and, more subtly, by naming his competing radio show The O'Franken Factor. Given that these latest strategies have not worked--they didn't even dent O'Reilly's ratings--Franken, according to the manager of a restaurant patronized by the liberal media, is in cohorts with Andrea Mackris, O'Reilly's staff member known for her "sexual rants and drunken propositions." Mackris hopes to publish a tome that paints O'Reilly as anything but conservative, Franken-style, in an attempt to break any remaining ties between O'Reilly and his semi-conservative followers.
Perhaps O'Reilly's recent iteration of his softened stance on the integration of homosexuals into normal society occurred because he recognized the impending threat from the Homosexual Mafia.
Unfortunately, O'Reilly has not realized that he is making a serious mistake by supporting a left social agenda. Other than people in transition from one political position to another, there is no established middle ground in the media. There is no established group of followers and their are no supporters of the "middle ground." Indeed, by definition, the moderates are transitional and wishy-washy, and they are therefore not in a position to rise up and defend Bill O'Reilly.
So, Bill O'Reilly is all alone.
It is up to the supporters of the New Media to rise to the occasion. Allowing the Homosexual Mafia and the MSM to win this battle will give the leftists the courage to continue their attacks, and next time they may take on one of the better known heroes of freedom such as Ann Coulter or Neal Boortz.
Conservatives and libertarians must get off their high horses and recognize that which those who wish to dictate the social agenda of America recognize:
If Bill O'Reilly is taken down, a "Door to the Right" will, for at least a while, be closed in the faces of those who are ready to begin a journey towards truth and the conservative, comfort zone of the New Media.
I have nieces and nephews. In 1st grade they focused on Kwanzaa during the "holiday" season.....
In 5th grade I fear the liberal elites will have them "study" the Koran and pray facing Mecca 5 times a day on a prayer rug. Gee, I wonder if the ACLU would object to that.....
Statistically, if 1/100 of one percent (.001%) of society has sexual birth defects, this poses very little threat to the fabric of a healthy society.
Using a genetic anomaly as a justification for sentencing a huge number of innocent kids to life without either a mommy or a daddy is illogical and mathematically unsound.
"It's disgusting, too."
That is an ordinary, INSTINCTIVE reaction. The Left would love to send you to a "sensitivity camp" for re-education.
Nope, Roman Emperor Constantine commissioned the original Bible as a state document and in a way he federalized christianity in Ancient Rome.
we only have to believe that He says it is an abomination. We don't need to look for convenient reasons to disbelieve the text. Either the Bible is the inspired Word of God or it isn't.
If you are talking about Deuteronomy, that was not the voice of God, but a group of fanatics that were crazier than the Taliban. Besides banning homosexuality, their rules included: not wearing clothes made of two different fabrics, putting a fence on your roof, stoning to death a child who disagrees with his parents.
The gramscians didn't predict the demise of the West, they predicted the opposite, UNLESS certain actions were taken. They took them. Thankfully, there is still time to expose them and take corrective countermeasures.
Interesting, I will credit for that reply. So what about those normal men and women who cannot reproduce, should they be denied marriage?
Nothing like insulting Jews and Judaism while you're at it.
Nope, Roman Emperor Constantine commissioned the original Bible as a state document and in a way he federalized christianity in Ancient Rome.
LOL, where did you study history, Jack Chick U?
Constantine repealed the laws against Christianity and eventually made Christianity the State Religion, but he did NOT "commission[ed] the original Bible"! The Old Testament existed long before his reign and the New predated him by many years.
Actually that is the statistics (one in 10,000) for transsexuals. When more minor forms of genitial birth defects are compiled together the rate can be as high as 1 out of 250 to 500 people.
Using a genetic anomaly as a justification for sentencing a huge number of innocent kids to life without either a mommy or a daddy is illogical and mathematically unsound.
There is a logic gap in the above statement. How exactly does ones person's genetic anomaly prevent other children from having a mommy or a daddy?
Also, if you actually studied history, beyond the bible, you would see that rejection of homosexuality by christians in ancient Rome was because homosexuality was part of the pagan Roman culture and that the rejection of homosexuality by the christians of that time was part of their rejection of the pagan Roman culture as a whole.
Nope, it predates the New Testament. The OLD TESTAMENT makes clear that sex between men is forbidden.
Don't twist words, you'll only give yourself a headache.
Allowing the anomaly to define the norm is idiocy.
"So what about those normal men and women who cannot reproduce, should they be denied marriage?"
You are arguing that the unusual ought to define the norm. Why?
When you make something a state religion, you federalize and take control of it.
but he did NOT "commission[ed] the original Bible"! The Old Testament existed long before his reign and the New predated him by many years.
The Bible is what you get when parts of the Old Testament were put with the New Testament.
" But how do you define 'a husband' and 'a wife', given that some people are born with a varity of genitial birth defects."
Allowing the statistical oddity to define the norm is neither rational nor needful, it is idiocy.
"But how do you define 'a husband' and 'a wife',..."
A man and a women who meet the other legal qualifications (not already married, not related beyond a certain degree, of sound mind, etc.)!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.