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.
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.
An expansion of our previous discussion...
Why can't you have this level of passion towards getting rid of coruption in government, like getting rid of the IRS or other parts government that are directly invasive and are a danger to us and our freedoms instead of focusing on lesser matters like homosexuality.
The fundamental issue is judicial tyranny. Without that this marrige amendment would not even be an issue.
If the fundamental issue is judicial tyranny than you are attacking a symtom, homosexuality, and not the problem, which is judicial tyranny.
You need to understand cultural marxism. One of the goals according to Antonio Gramsci is to undermine the Family unit.
First, please read 1963 communist goals:
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/03212002.shtml
"Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times "
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml
Origins of Political Correctness
http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html
III.Antonio Gramschi, 1891-1937
A.The New Order (L'Ordine Nuovo)
1.Italian Communist newspaper, founded 1919
2.Co-founder of Italian Communist Party, 1921
3.Pre-Prison Writings, ed. Richard Bellamy (Cambridge, 1994)
4.Selections from the Prison Notebooks (Intl. Publishers, 1971)
B.Lenin was wrong, and the Leninist revolution will fail
1.The workers will see the revolutionary government as a new boss
2.When the revolution fails, the west will re-import Capitalism
C.Gradual revolution: infiltrate, Co-opt, Subvert
1.Infiltrate the State: elective & appointed office; judgeships
2.Infiltrate the military: enlist & subvert from within
3.Infiltrate justice: undermine and discredit state constitutions
4.Infiltrate education: professors & administrators
5.Infiltrate & discredit religion: scoundrels as clergymen
6.Register, then license, then confiscate all privately held weapons
D.Form or infiltrate international organizations to promote goals such as
"global understanding," "economic development," "transfer of resources"
E.Both Capitalism and Judaeo-Christian culture must be destroyed before a
Communist revolution can succeed
1.Religious sentiment cannot be destroyed through legislation, as
Lenin believed, but must be redirected from the divine to the state
a.Terror will only drive Religion underground
b.Religion will then reemerge when Leninism fails
c.So Religion must be destroyed in the minds of men
2.Infiltrate religious academies and become priests and clergymen
a.Subtly promote heresy within religious organizations
b.Infiltrators must act so as to discredit the church
(1)Cause financial and sexual scandals
(2)See that this is given a high profile in the news
(3)Like-minded infiltrators in the media will cooperate
3.Once religion is discredited from within, continuously promote the
idea that only the state can solve the problems that have been
traditionally brought before the church
F.When propagating revolutionary ideas, cloak them in polite terms
1.National Consensus
2.Popular Mandate
3.National Pacification
4.Pluralism
5.Global Community
6.Economic Justice
7.Economic Democracy
8.Liberation Theology
9.Direct Action
G.Marxists "must enter into every civil, cultural, and political activity
in every nation, leavening them as yeast leavens bread."
H. Subvert the existing hegemonic culture and replace it with
a "counter-hegemony" that is based on the revolutionary
culture of the oppressed masses
IV. Herbert Marcuse, 1898-1979
A. Bourgeois Capitalist civilization must be overthrown by
discrediting existing beliefs and replacing them with
revolutionary or proto-revolutionary beliefs.
B. Founding Father of Political Correctness
1. "Free Expression" is actually repressive, because it permits
the bourgeois capitalists and other counter-revolutionary
or anti-revolutionary individuals and groups to express their
beliefs and values - values that must be overthrown.
2. Advocates "the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly"
for conservative or Christian individuals and groups
a. Denounce them as hate groups, atavistic, fascist,
or intolerant.
b. Denounce conservative or Christian speech as hate speech
d. Do not allow colleges or universities to become "forums"
for politically incorrect speech
3. Advocates "Liberating Tolerance"
a. "intolerance against movements from the Right,
and toleration of movements from the Left."
b. "new and rigid restrictions on teaching and practices in
the educational institution" to indoctrinate students in
"progressive" values
c. Speech Codes on campuses
d. Reject the values of Western Civilization as "regressive"
e. Reject the "Western Canon" of literature as "regressive"
f. Promote Marxism as "progressive"
g. Denounce and discredit those who resist this "progressive"
agenda as "reactionary" or "fascist" or "racist" or
"the extreme right" etc.
IV. Herbert Marcuse, 1898-1979
A. Bourgeois Capitalist civilization must be overthrown by
discrediting existing beliefs and replacing them with
revolutionary or proto-revolutionary beliefs.
B. Founding Father of Political Correctness
1. "Free Expression" is actually repressive, because it permits
the bourgeois capitalists and other counter-revolutionary
or anti-revolutionary individuals and groups to express their
beliefs and values - values that must be overthrown.
2. Advocates "the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly"
for conservative or Christian individuals and groups
a. Denounce them as hate groups, atavistic, fascist,
or intolerant.
b. Denounce conservative or Christian speech as hate speech
d. Do not allow colleges or universities to become "forums"
for politically incorrect speech
3. Advocates "Liberating Tolerance"
a. "intolerance against movements from the Right,
and toleration of movements from the Left."
b. "new and rigid restrictions on teaching and practices in
the educational institution" to indoctrinate students in
"progressive" values
c. Speech Codes on campuses
d. Reject the values of Western Civilization as "regressive"
e. Reject the "Western Canon" of literature as "regressive"
f. Promote Marxism as "progressive"
g. Denounce and discredit those who resist this "progressive"
agenda as "reactionary" or "fascist" or "racist" or
"the extreme right" etc.
Flame? No no no (no); flames never solve anything, and often result in spin-off web sites (ewwww!).
Instead, I will tremulously hold out a little teeny tiny candle whose glimmery shimmery light doth inquire:
Shouldn't we deport the mafia at the borders, before they savage our culture and use bad language?
Please be kind . . .
O'Reilly is not a supporter of abortion, he's pro-life and anti death penalty
I'm not attacking anything. I don't think they should have an amendment to the constitution to punish judicial tyranny. But that's the reaction and, of course, it wont get through because a lot of conservatives see the error in changing the constitution to fight this problem.
I understand 'cultural marxism', and unlike you I know the socialists in the country consider the homosexual movement to be no more than a tool and that when the socialists no long need them, the socialists with do their own version of 'the night of the long knifes' against homosexuals in this country.
If we can make homosexuals in this country understand this, then we could cut the socialists power base at their knees. But you and others are too short sighted to realize this.
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.
It is a matter of principle. Same sex "marriage" is not about freedom. People can shack up with whomever they want to. What the gay activists and the liberals want more than anything is to have the government affirm and legitimize homosexual activity. That is what is so illegitimate about civil same sex "marriage". People in a free country have the right to have differing views on the morality of homosexual activity. The government should at most remain neutral, not promote homosexual activity and demonize those who believe otherwise.
You're missing the point, the problem, as previously pointed out is 'judicial tyranny', your efforts are misdirected.
TaxRelief's latest, and it's a good one!
As with the Iraq War, there are multiple reasons why there should be a Federal Marriage Amendment.
Alright, list the reasons. Several people say it is a good idea, but no one has yet to state any concrete reasons for it.
"I understand 'cultural marxism', and unlike you ...."
"Also, if you actually studied history, beyond the bible"
LOL, your reply is dripping with arrogance!!! I am pleased that I rarely encounter individuals with your attitude on FR.
I'm not religious and do not read the bible.
However, I fully support religious freedom, unless they are Islamofascits. I sense that you have a deep resentment for the bible and christianity in general, that's too bad.
I do understand the need to protect the family unit, and one of the ways to undermine it is Homosexual Marraige. Other ways include (from the Communist Goals of 1963):
24) Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25) Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography, and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.
26) Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as "normal, natural, and healthy."
40) Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
How is this done?
17) Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism, and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in text books.
20) Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21) Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures.
I've just stated one, i.e., the government should not promote homosexual activity, which many citizens believe and have a right to believe is immoral. And you just stated another -- unelected judges should not conduct this sort of radical social change without a clear and firm basis in the Constitution.
Third, it paves the way for civil polygamy, polyandry, marrying of beasts and inanimate objects, and otherwise destroys the institution of marriage, which does serve a public purpose since it provides for stable families for children.
Like I said, you're short sighted. You didn't even take the time to fully read my previous post to you. You missed the part where I stated how you could hurt the socialist agenda.
Oh really, here is the last part of your previous statement.
The government should at most remain neutral, not promote homosexual activity and demonize those who believe otherwise.
How can government remain 'neutral' with a marriage amendment that denies one group rights that another group enjoys. There is a level of hypocrisy that cannot be ignored.
Now could you please state some positive reasons from a marriage amendment.
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.