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 never claimed to be a martyr. But to answer your question.
(Group 1)Some people define gender by a person's chromosomes, XY or XX.
(Group 2) Other people define gender as the way a person's outward physical genital.
(Group 3) While there are those who define gender as what goes on in a person's mind.
People with 'androgen insensitivity syndrome' (AIS) cut rights right down the middle of this debate.
Group 1 would consider those with AIS to be male because their chromosomes as XY
Group 2 would consider those with AIS to be female because their outward physical genital is female.
While Group 3 considers what is going on in the AIS person's mind.
Now here to problem, with a "Husband and Wife" marriage amendment, where does that leave those with AIS. Groups 1 considers them to be male, group 2 considers them female. With such a dilemma, who can a AIS person marry.
Group 1 says and the ASI person is male, so the AIS person cannot marry a man
Group 2 considers the ASI person to be female so the ASI person cannot marry a woman.
So is the ASI with that current thought with "Husband and Wife" marriage amendment that ASI person cannot marry anyone from either gender for sole reason being because of the way they were born, which they had no control over.
And you as reading this far, you are starting to get the idea how with could be used to in courts to reinterpret any "Husband and Wife" marriage amendment, UNLESS this is settled before it becomes a amendment.
Now do you understand?
Some ignorant people might believe so but not the medical community.
(Group 2) Other people define gender as the way a person's outward physical genital.
Again, Some ignorant people might believe so but not the medical community.
(Group 3) While there are those who define gender as what goes on in a person's mind.
It is a medical realization. NOT a state of being.
People with 'androgen insensitivity syndrome' (AIS) cut rights right down the middle of this debate.
No it doesn’t…gender assignment is made at birth after diagnosis…you need to read more.
The current law in 49 states is that only marriage between a man and a woman is legal. The ASI person is able to get married under current law, hence the marriage amendment would not change that right.
Different states have different rulings on this and other matters, there in lies the problem.
The diagnosis is made by group 2, now go back and reread post 221 of this thread.
I agree with you. You hit the nail on the head about Kwanzaa. By the way that I read the guy that made that up was a commie and an athiest.
I am with you red neck if we do not just like with abortion the social engeneers will brain wash people into thinking well the law says gay marraige is Ok so it must be. As you said they will legislate there minority view and then the gullible Masses will make it a majority view just like what was done on the abortion issue. There is definitely a homosexual mafia and they do a hatchet job on anyone who opposes them.
"By the way that I read the guy that made that up was a commie and an athiest."
RU SERIES???
A society without a fixed set of moral standards to go by will degenerate to the point of chaos where the law if the jungle becomes the order of the day. All forms of behavior becomes acceptable.
To lie ,cheat steal, rape rob and murder becomes acceptable in order to achieve a personal goal.
When it gets bad enough then people will give up personal freedoms just to restore some form of order.
This is where you get your Hitlers and Stalins from. Then they are the ones who set the standards of acceptable behavior.
We can either accept and then try to incorporate into our laws, the standards of a merciful and loving Creator who loves all equally and wants what is best for His children, or those of men who's first priority is their own self interests and survival .
Just found this -interesting old thread. LOL
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.