Posted on 04/07/2014 11:16:41 AM PDT by CutePuppy
Newt Gingrich laid it out perfectly on Sunday.
The forced ouster of Mozilla co-founder and CEO Brendan Eich this week was a sign of the "new fascism" of liberalism that's sweeping American life.
"People need to realize, if you're a young faculty member, in a lot of places if you're a young member of a news department and you have the wrong views – meaning conservative – you have no career," Gingrich said on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
"This is just the most open and blatant example of the new fascism, which says, 'if you don't agree with us 100 percent, we have the right to punish you.'"
The best evidence Gingrich was right came from the half-hearted responses. Former Al Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile ludicrously tried to suggest Eich stepped aside voluntarily, while guest host Jonathan Karl tried pulling the race card into the discussion by asking about interracial marriage.
Gingrich stayed on point.
"I think the question is do you want to live in an open and tolerant society, or do you want impose your views at the cost of people's jobs?" he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at bizpacreview.com ...
Their days are numbered—they have been measured and found wanting. The Nation is about to turn Right—sharply, and they are on the wrong side of history. This will not go down without violence, I fear.
Then try Chromium which is not Chrome
They probably do - just not newsworthy
Exactly why Lively is right to be educating Africans and Russians on this threat.
Don't fall into their trap. A person who is personally opposed to inter-racial marriage, or who even privately supports campaigns against it, should not be punished by destroying his career, particularly if he has religious reasons for his beliefs.
I don't happen to share those beliefs, but he should not be punished for holding them, unless of course he commits actual discriminatory acts.
It is, BTW, possible to be opposed to interracial marriage without being at all racist, in the genuine meaning of the term.
FTM, I don't believe a person holding genuine racist beliefs should be persecuted simply for his beliefs, as opposed to actions.
As a small government conservative, I prefer to limit government regardless of who is in power. That choice preserves the Bill of Rights, limits government waste, and removes the incentive for corrupt thugs to seek power through politics. Sadly, too few people are on my side in this battle for freedom.
Very true. As you say, these things are illegal - “for conservatives.”
The Democrats have routinely broken all sorts of campaign finance rules with impunity. Look at Obama’s illegal gathering of unidentified and foreign online contributions during his presidential runs - no conservative or even GOPer in general could have gotten away with this.
One of the problems caused by the current laws for local GOP groups is that they are paralyzed by fear of making some innocent mistake that will destroy the organization or land them in court. These people are all volunteers, and do the best they can - but the Dems hire attorneys and accountants to comb through the records of these organizations looking for some violation or ambiguity (for example, at a fundraiser, when one little old lady put all 8 tickets for her table on her credit card because it was easier for her to do it this way and collect from her friends later - thereby incurring a campaign finance violation).
It has a paralyzing effect on GOP groups. Also, every year, each one of us who registered to work with the organization would receive a “legal letter” from Democratic Party lawyers telling us we were being watched and implying that we could end up in jail at any moment.
What the gaystapo doesn’t realize is when the Marxists finally take over, the gays will be slaughtered in the name of purity for the party.
It has happened in every totalitarian regime. This one will be no different.
In one week, a nun is forced out after opposing homosexuality in teaching in a Catholic school, Mozilla co-founder and CEO Brendan Eich is forced out because he made a donation years ago to Prop 8 in 2008, and now SOTUS refuses to hear the case of te photo studio that was deemed guilty for not giving its services to a sodomite weeding, thus implicitly concurring with the guilty verdict.
And it will not stop there. For like those who sought to force their way into Lots’ home, (Gn. 19) there modern day counterparts seek to force their way into every strata of society, as it give the devil glory to pervert the holy union God made btwn male and female, which the Lord specified was what God joined together.
That picture’s got to be from OMSI in Portland...Left of left.
And queers are WHAT percent of the population - 5 to 10%?
there are 314,000,000 Americans now.
10% of them is 31.4 million.
CHOICE has killed 55 million or so.
Don't fall into their trap.
Indeed, it was a clumsy misdirection. Interracial marriage has existed for millennia because marriage has never been defined in terms of race.
Marriage has always been defined in terms of sex/gender - a sacred union between one man and one woman.
Though it was not specifically defined as such in the Bill of Rights, because it would be ridiculous and unnecessary to do so — to define what has already been defined and well understood. A Constitutional Amendment to codify it — after Speaker Gingrich has pushed and Congress overwhelmingly passed DOMA by veto-proof majorities in 1996 (same year Bob Dole lost badly in Presidential elections) — was discussed briefly but went nowhere fast.
There have usually been some [localized] constraints on marriage — such as age, mental capacity, health and genetic considerations etc. — but they didn't in any way [seek to] redefine or expand the meaning of marriage.
Redefining marriage by sex renders it meaningless and leads to potential of redefining it by number of ways, including by number of participants, such as bigamy (why is that "unconstitutional" now?) and polygamy or "communal marriage."
That would be a much better comparison than interracial marriage, and a good question to ask back the "tolerant" - why is the same-sex "marriage" just fine with them but not the other forms of "marriage," like "Big Love" or "communal"? Because race never had anything to do with marriage - only with some cultures.
Actually, that's not at all true. In fact, this historically is a somewhat odd variation limited almost entirely to western societies.
The idea of marriage being a sacred union grew out of Christian ideas of marriage as a sacrament. The Jews of Christ's time apparently had a much more utilitarian approach to it. Much like Islam today, with exception that they'd already dropped polygamy. In fact, Jesus chewed the Jews of his day out for callously divorcing the "wife of his youth" when she was no longer attractive or convenient to have around.
The Romans, at least in the upper classes, married and divorced serially, without sweating themselves about notions of sacred unions.
Most societies down thru time have been polygamous, or more accurately polygynous, with upper class or powerful men, especially nobles and kings, maintaining harems, more or less openly depending on the society.
Personally, I'm all in favor of marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman. But the idea is an aberration, not a norm.
It looks like a computer graphic
Just started using Comodo IceDragon. Only issue was transferring passwords and some favorites. Otherwise its slick. What about an alternative to the firefox mail server?
That's not really true either.
In India, people are generally constrained to marry within their caste (varna = color). Most historians believe caste rose out of conquerors of a different "race" trying to keep their race pure.
In most of these United States, interracial marriages were illegal and invalid for a very long time indeed.
Many other societies have had restrictions on intermarriage between groups that have some semblance to laws against interracial marriage.
I do note that the idea of "race" in the modern sense we take for granted is a unique idea. Only developed in the last few hundred years.
Possibly, but it is suspiciously similar to an exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) where a cable is suspended three stories up and attached to a steel ball that swings like a pendulum. The rotation of the earth causes it to move ever so slightly around a circle as it swings. The thing will eventually knock all the pins down in a 24 hour period. Just wondering 'cause it seems so random...
I just sent the feedback — there appeared to be well over 10,000 negatives then.
Did they move the pendulum downtown to the new location on the Willamette River?
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.