And here he is with the Governator.
Posted on 08/26/2006 12:27:38 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Liberals are actively undermining First Amendment rights to free speech by trying to crush opposing views.
Growing ever bolder in their naked grab for power they are leaving scorched earth behind those who disagree with them. This is why Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller no longer find themselves included in the modern Democratic Party. What is left over for the Democrats are wildly anti-American, anti-God and anti-biblical leftists who are now bragging about their use of brute force to crush the voices of those who disagree with them.
Perhaps that's why this week in one of the boldest moves yet by a sitting liberal, Democrat California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez proclaimed, "The real purpose of SB 1437 is to outlaw traditional perspectives on marriage and family in the state school system."
He continued, "The way you correct a wrong (perspective) is by outlawing. 'Cause if you don't outlaw it, then people's biases tend to take over and dominate the perspective and the point of view."
Nunez's solution to the people he disagrees with is to outlaw their ability to disagree with him.
And Nunez's viewpoint is one that pervades liberals in his party and in the nation. That is why Nunez and his fellow Democrats in the California State Assembly voted in unison to pass four bills that are all designed to punish people who disagree with them. To incarcerate someone for daring to criticize a different point of view – over a purely behavioral issue.
The bills in question have passed both houses and await Gov. Schwarzenegger's signature or veto. The bills were unanimously embraced by the Democrats and universally denounced by the Republicans.
What do they say?
These four bills would require that in every classroom from kindergarten through high school perverse sexual activity be praised and highlighted in a positive light. They would require textbooks, many of which would then also be produced for other states beyond the borders of California, make positive references to the ideas of men putting on women's under things. They would restrict school districts from being able to bar females from displaying dildos on the outerwear of their prom dress. And in functional sexuality courses from K-12, they would require positive explanation of the merits and instruction of anal intercourse.
These four bills are also dangerous in what they outlaw. No single teacher – not even in science classes – would be allowed to talk about the negative health impact of homosexual behavior. No school counselor would be allowed to confirm to a molested student that they felt wrong about continuing in a homosexual relationship that they were primarily drawn into because of earlier molestation to begin with. No mention of moral aspects of sexual behavior would be permitted unless immoral activity were praised and in fact referred to as moral.
In other words, the pushing of the sexual envelope would be unleashed with a nitro-fueled explosion the likes of which has never been seen in America's history.
One of the bills goes a step further. Its actual purpose is to cripple any state resources such as fire or police protection for any religious institution – i.e., a Bible-based church – that would in any way demonstrate negative "doctrine" or "propaganda." So if an arsonist (who also just happened to be a radical activist) decided to burn down a church that was in their view teaching the faithful interpretation of Scripture as it relates to sexual practice, then the local fire company could be barred from assisting in the recovery and protection of said facility.
So why are liberals going to such extremes to shut down and shut out any opposing view?
Because they are a stubborn and sinful people – people that are bent on reshaping a utopia that God did not design and one that will never exist.
Just because the entire world claims there is no God doesn't make Him disappear. Just because a majority of voters might even say that two men hooking up is the moral equivalence of marriage doesn't mean it is marriage.
Liberals are wracked with guilt because the conscience that God put inside of them has told them again and again that such things are wrong. But instead of choosing to change their view, they have instead chosen to crush anyone and everyone who would give support to the message that their heart already knows.
Without Judeo-Christian morals, there would be no society in place today that would have allowed freedom of speech. And as the moral framework of the Judeo-Christian society that America has always been is systematically being targeted for erasure, the little power mongers and dictators are already aligning to rule with absolute say.
Speaker Nunez's view to "outlaw traditional perspectives" is shocking in its blunt regurgitation. It is also, sadly, not new to the hard left in America. And without the power of debate, ideas and dissent it is being given a larger and larger place at the table.
So the godless have announced their intentions and now it is up to us to speak – while we still have voice. Call Gov. Schwarzenegger today at 916-445-2841 and ask him to protect free speech and perspectives of many sorts.
Moral guilt serves its purpose and the best way to rid one's self of it is to change behavior. To attempt to appease it by stifling those you disagree with will only cause it to grow.
What happens when the opposition is gone and the guilt still pervades?
Common sense has been telling us this for years – will we listen?
Kevin McCullough is heard daily in New York City, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware and New Jersey on WMCA 570/970 from 2-5 p.m., and he blogs at muscleheadrevolution.com.
Stalinoids..
BEcause they are fascists losers who couldn't win with the ballot box and are too cowardly to use the ammo box so they use the judge's box.
I need a shower after reading the proposals in these law bills. Let's hope Arnold is man enough in real life to veto these bills.
It's not only liberals who crush dissent. Notice that too many conservatives, especially traditional Catholics, also aim to enforce their own narrow-minded edicts on the rest of us.
Such as.... what? That abortion is murder? That same-sex marriage isn't marriage? That reckless sex should be avoided?
Are those "edicts" too "narrow minded"? Or am I missing something? A least, I've never known a Catholic to prohibit one's freedom of speech.
while liberals would love to return to the 60's, traditionalists would prefer a return to the 1950's. A new approach to society and the established institutions must be adopted. We are now in the 21st century. Therefore, we should avoid the extremes of the left and of the right as well.
And then we could discuss the noise that's now called music.
From your 2 Posts, I get the impression that you are neither "Moderate" or "Right-Winger."
First of all--other than in jest--one does not usually hear us "Conservatives"--even very Conservatives--refer to ourselves or other like-minded as "Right-Wingers."
Likewise, I am very skeptical of anyone who proclaims themselves as a "Moderate."
To me, that is someone who can NOT take a stance, one way or the other on an issue--you know, a person who is "Wishy-Washy," and is so afraid to offend one or another, that they can't--or more often the case--simply won't come down forcefully on either side.
As much as I do not like Libs, Dims or Dummies, at least one can respect them--misguided though they may be--on their strong advocacy's and positions on the issues.
God save us all from "Moderates," especially, those who claim to be Conservatives, yet refer to themselves as "Right-Wingers."
What say you, fellow traveler?
Your response didn't answer my question.
Your premise is completely incorrect. The liberals don't want to return to the sixties but want/have expanded on the sixties. Sexual progression never ended for them and will not until every sexual activity is celebrated. While conservatives know that the nation cannot return to the days where unwed mothers were not celebrated or where abortion on demand up until the day of birth would have been unthinkable they are absolutley correct that sexual practices/mores that have stood the test of time need to still be looked at as options not as forms of oppression.
Liberals of today scoff at the idea of abstinence. It is not that they just ridicule the idea they don't even want abstinence as a part of sex ed curriculum. They don't allow any open debate about abortion let alone show a picture of an aborted fetus (ie. baby). They don't want any info taught about the dangers of homosexual sex (particuarly male) or the shortened life expectancy or the high level of domestic violence (again mainly among gay males).
I have not seen any major conservative that supports abstinence education to do so to the exclusion of health education for those kids that are or may become sexually active. Therefore I respectfully say that your moral equivalence is simply not supported by the facts.
If the Liberals are allowed to win, they will destroy this nation.
Perhaps they will succeed.
The Book of Revelation mentions and alludes to many nations.
Almost every single biblical scholar agrees that our nation is not mentioned (or even marginally referred to) with respect to the cataclysmic events of those days; not even once.
One of the bills goes a step further. Its actual purpose is to cripple any state resources such as fire or police protection for any religious institution – i.e., a Bible-based church – that would in any way demonstrate negative "doctrine" or "propaganda."
It is Absolutely amazing to me that anyone with any respect for our form of government could vote for a bill that so flagrantly violates the equal protection under the law provisions of our Constitution.
You mean the eevil era when you did not have to lock your car --or your house at night?
The era when profanity did not appear on TV?
...the era when sex was explained to children by their parents?
...when kids took guns to school because they were on the school marksmanship team?
...when drugs were what you got after seeing the doctor?
...when the divorce rate was a fraction of what it is now?
...when most kids had two parents?
...When you could send off for a rifle in the mail, no government involved except the post office?
...when there were no 'Gay Pride" parades?
...no 'dynamic entries'--the police had to knock?
...when your property could not be siezed by the local government to clear the way for high-dollar condominiums and a golf course?
When a new car cost under $2000 and it was built like a tank?
Hell, I'd go back in a heartbeat.
Give one example!
bump for later
I wasn't around in the 1950's, so I really couldn't long for a return to them. Also, I highly doubt that the level of morality displayed would match what was portrayed. It simply didn't get the air time nor was it endorsed in generally public policy.
Nope, my stance on conservatism became fully founded when my children arrived. Parental rights, particularly with emphasis on religion and education came first. Then fiscal conservatism, where I realized how much of our resources were being taken from us making it necessary to work far more to provide a decent standard of living for our children. All of the other stances were derived along the way.
Nothing to do with longing for old-time values. I want my children to have the same access to their constitutional rights as I did while I grew up. Truly, this should consistute asking for "nothing". The constitution gaurantees those rights. It is liberal idiocy that continues to promote laws and policies that dilute those gauranteed by the Constitution. At that point the battle for conservatism is fully joined.
So really, that's how I see it. You either embrace conservatism or you don't. No "moderation" because there is no "half way" point when it comes to preserving our constitutional rights.
I should greatly interested in hearing what aspect of conservatism you believe to be extreme. Perhaps it's the "right to life" aspect or something like that. You are free to formulate your own opinion on that matter. My take on it would be that it's a state level issue, not something to be dictated by Federal policy. Local level governments are far more effective at dealing with regional or local issues and that is how that matter should be handled.
Anyway, not a flame, amigo. Just clarification. : )
This is another important reason to go to a school voucher system. The left has taken control of the monolithic educational system and is using it as their indoctrination center.
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.