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.
Good article with an interesting perspective. Some pretty good discussion so far.
I am not lying. And I take you have never heard the phase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
Strawman alert.
Oh I understand what you are saying, but I am more for prioritizing in list form, major problems to minor problems. I find this is the easiest to start to solve problems as a whole.
for later perusal
1. To stop the activist judicial promotion of a deviant, unnatural, sexual practice, that threatens the stability and survival of the human race.
2. To promote and protect the institute which supports the fact that the union of a man and a woman is necessary for the continued survival of all life.
The proof I offer is the fact that you and I exist. If either of our parents had been born true homosexuals and it was the norm then you and I would not exist.
Therefore if you reply to this I will have to assume that you exist and consider your reply as further proof of my statement.
I take it you have not actually read through the rest of this thread.
" 'Androgen insensitivity syndrome' a person is born with XY chromosomes and testes, but has outward female genitial, though having not internal female reproductive organs. The person's cells are immune to testosterone, during puberty this cause a overproduction of testosterone which the body naturally converts to estrogen. Physically the person develops like an average girl in body measurements and usually has the mental view of being a girl."
I have to post a comment to Paul after THAT post,( and his not answering the simple question that was put to him on what "rights" are homosexuals being denied , and then posting THAT arguement):
Dear Paul C Jesup,
In response to your "post", I strongly encourage YOU to engage in an autonomous act of extreme physical intimacy that some might consider physiologically impossible.
...still would like to hear you answer that simple question posed to you. You sound like Terry McC, unable to answer Sean Hannity's question to him to name ONE piece of legislation that F'n sponsored in his 19 years in the senate.
It's exactly like your answer........(crickets "singing"...)
First, I answered KingNo155 question. He just didn't like the way I answered him.
Second, 'androgen insensitivity syndrome' is an actual PHYSICAL condition and not a physiological condition.
Third, I have recieved multiple replies to single posts in an attempt to wear me out. It is not going to work.
Fourth, I have pointed out various problems and holes that are currently in the arguement for the marriage amendment debate. These issues need to be addressed or they will come back to bite you in the but when the courts, which you loath, are left to interrupt them, which leaves you back to square one.
Fifth, whether you like it not, there are greater threats to our liberty than from the homosexual movement. For example, various government agencies like the IRS and EPA
Sixth, some people here are under the false impression that the marriage amendment will somehow fix the 'judicial tyranny' in this country. It won't. If you want to fix 'judicial tyranny' than support a Constitution Amendment to deal with that.
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.
Using your logic, if everyone pooled their resources and put forth an effort to eliminate the IRS, it would bear fruitage. Well, you are wrong.
Do you know why? Because standing in the way of any populist movement to kill the IRS would be an untold number of activist judges who have spent their entire careers deciding that the will of the people doesn't mean jack if it doesn't pass muster with the black-robed people in the high chairs.
Nobody likes to mess with the Constitution. That's why it's only been amended 27 times in the 228 year history of this republic. But when something as personal to the individuals who make this nation as the legal definition of the family unit is subject to change by judicial fiat, all measures must be considered.
You seem to be of the opinion that the power of the people that would be required to save the nuclear family from activist judges would sap future efforts closer to your heart. I disagree -- I think if marriage is "saved," people will like the way they feel after flexing their muscles, and move on to another target.
Besides, I would venture to guess that most of -- if not all -- of the people pissing and moaning about a proposed marriage definition amendment aren't aware that last Amendment was ratified in 1992 -- during the Clinton Administration! Are we to believe that a Congressional salary Amendment passed in the 18th Century and not enshrined until the end of the 20th was disruptive of the rest of the legislative and judicial processes?
Thank you for stating the obvious with such simplicity and flair.
Homosexuality does not contribute to the precreation of man. Birth rates are dropping radically in Western civilization due to divorce, sterilization, contraception, and homosexuality.
Gays cannot beget children. Period. They must "recruit" young people to keep the "lifestyle" alive.
Of course we cannot speak of homosexuality without moral and spiritual ramifications being raised. It is clearly against the Law of God. Period. End of story. God does not permit it, as it is a perversion of the natural order which He created. It is not part of His plan for us, and there fore it is sin.
Think of that - in the ultimate spiritual sense - as being a definition of sin: to stray from God's plan for us.
Homosexual activity is from the Devil - as is all sin - as it is INVERSION of God's plan.....God's creation.
I do not speak of love - chaste love between two person's of the same sex......who are old friends, or even between siblings of the same sex, this a good thing. But once sex enters into the picture, all is twisted, warped, and inverted and preverted. Nothing good can come from a soiled relationship. It is not of God.
To understand this completely requires the eyes of faith. Not merely the fear of flaunting accepted social convention. By the same token, hetrosexuality is merely fulfilling socially acceptable conventions.
When homosexualtiy is viewed as the flaunting of accepted social convention, then it is easy in these times to flaunt such convention, and to to engage in what is naughty.
But we do not speak here of mere social convention nor of what is acceptable & proper behaviour. We are speaking of the very Law of the Eternal God who created us. this is not an issue of social ettiquete. He created us for his greater glory - to love others in accordance with His laws. And in doing so, to show our love for Him, who is the author of all love.
Not to be an animal and copulate with everything which moves! That is selfishness, and takes us away from God.
God IS love......Christ's name IS mercy. Who would want to be seperated from Him?
Today, every adult has exactly the same marriage rights. If the federal marriage amendment passes, every adult will still have exactly the same marriage rights.
Well Paul, you sure skimmed over MY post.
"First, I answered KingNo155 question. He just didn't like the way I answered him."
Well I didn't like the way you answered him (AND others)either.
"Second, 'androgen insensitivity syndrome' is an actual PHYSICAL condition and not a physiological condition.
I NEVER said 'androgen insensitivity syndrome' was a "physiological" condition. My reply to YOU, was my "review" of ALL of your posts up until my post to you. Since you "skimmed" it last time, here it is AGAIN:
"I strongly urge YOU to engage in an autonomous act of extreme physical intimacy, that some might consider physiologically impossible."
TRANSLATION:In other words, what Dick Cheney said to Patrick Leahy. If Cheney had used my LONGER version, it would have went right over HIS head , just like it did yours.
"Third, I have recieved multiple replies to single posts in an attempt to wear me out. It is not going to work."
Well, since MY reply and "request" to you will NOT wear you out, you should have a VERY interesting remainder to your evening.
....and have a NICE day.....
The Federal Marriage Amendment does not relate to homosexuality. By defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, the amendment would prevent any man, regardless of his sexual orientation, from marrying another man, regardless of his sexual orientation. It would also prevent any woman, regardless of her sexual orientation, from marrying another woman, regardless of her sexual orientation.
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.....
If you have any ability to help them get out, whether financially, or simply through helping their parents understand how bad the public schools have become, and how tragic it is to allow the childhood of those you love to be squandered in that environment, that would be a worthy mission!
bump
Its called the potential to reproduce, as far as I know John and Tom do not have the same potential.
You can take up this battle with the dictionary.
norm ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nôrm) n.1. A standard, model, or pattern regarded as typical: the current middle-class norm of two children per family.
There's a reason why the study of logic was an essential component of a classical education.
Recommended reading.
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.