The Homosexual Mafia attacks the "Door to the Right"

TaxRelief ^ | October 19, 2004 | TaxRelief

[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.

[TaxRelief]

If you want to fix 'judicial tyranny' then support a Constitution Amendment to deal with that.

It's a good point, but actually the constitution already has a mechanism for dealing with "judicial incompetency".

The Homosexual Mafia will not be content until it rules. Their marriage challenge is NOT about "equal rights"; It is about gaining access to children.

The homosexual movement, by its abnormal nature, is dependent on the recruitment of young people.

Ask yourself this: why do homosexual participants, as a group, statistically have virtually no "members" without disabilities such as spina bifida, lifelong obesity and facial or physical deformities? Obviously, because they are not "recruitment material".

Homosexuals are more attractive physically, because participation in these activities is a choice, and are not innate. All consenting adults have equal access to marriage with someone of the opposite sex.

[TaxRelief]

Correction:

Ask yourself this: why do homosexual participants, as a group, statistically have virtually no "members" with disabilities such as spina bifida, lifelong obesity and facial or physical deformities?

Obviously, because they are not "recruitment material".

[ninenot]

Bookmark

[TradicalRC]

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

True enough. Those agencies ARE a threat to liberty and therefore a threat to society. However, Acceptance of homosexuality is a threat to our Judeo-Christian ethos and is also a threat to society. Any culture that has embraced homosexuality has then gone on to shrivel up and disappear. Rightly so. A freer country that accepts homosexuality as normal would not be worth defending or even living in.

[William Terrell]

. . .and next time they may take on one of the better known heroes of freedom such as Ann Coulter or Neal Boortz.

Boortz? Boortz is all for homosexuality. Preaches that it is genetically determined, and uses really specious evidence for it being genetically determined.

The homosexuals are not going after Neil Boortz.

That said, the notion that we should not defend any American from corrupt attacks and false witness because of their political affiliation is not only disastrous for our tradition form of government and its moral foundation in our system of (common) law, it is the solid basis for tyranny and the rule of man instead of the rule of law.

In my opinion, anyone here that takes that position is no different than the forces that initial and pursue such attacks.

[TradicalRC]

I'm glad that the article actually pointed out that O'Reilly is NOT a conservative, however there are far too many that are mature enough to know what true conservatism is and yet cling to the version that B0'R spouts and believe that THAT is what conservatism ought to be.
I don't buy that door to conservatism stuff anyway. Having a clear well thought right understanding of reality is conservative and will attract any clear-headed person.
All others will crawl into the hole of their ideological world.

[ninenot]

Alright, list the reasons

1) DOMA does not have corresponding Federal legislation making DOMA "off limits" to judicial review (although Congress has that power, they cannot get it past the Senate.)

2) All Supreme Court justices whose names are NOT: Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas.

Regrettably, these are the only two reasons one needs.

[TaxRelief]

...there are far too many that are mature enough to know what true conservatism is and yet cling to the version that B0'R spouts, and believe that THAT is what conservatism ought to be.

That's where those folks will stay: in limbo land, undefended and unconvinced.

However, the fact that some folks do not progress, does not preclude the reality that millions of people do make it across the "Great Divide" as they learn to open their eyes.

[ninenot]

If you understand that O'Reilly is anti-nomian, that helps a good deal. He prefers to be a "consumer watchdog" kinda guy.

He's also a VERY big-GUmmint sort. Last night was a typical example: after it was made crystal clear to him that the Gummint-run Flu shots deal is an abject failure (this is be the second year in a row with problems) O'Reilly advocates that "the Gummint take over."

SHEEEESHHHH!

[pray4liberty]

Why do gay people want to "get married" in the first place? Don't they realize the IRS penalizes married people? Consider most gay relationsips last even less time than Hollywood's. The divorce lawyers will make a fortune. No doubt they are for gay "marriage."

[Paul C. Jesup]

Ask yourself this: why do homosexual participants, as a group, statistically have virtually no "members" with disabilities such as spina bifida, lifelong obesity and facial or physical deformities?

Except for handicap and intersex groups, I know of no political groups , including Republican and Democrat parties, barring a few rare occasions, that parade around any types of the people you listed above.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Ignoring the last half of my post does improve your arguement.

[Paul C. Jesup]

There is an old "The Outer Limits" episode I would like you to see dealing with 'the eye of the beholder'.

[Paul C. Jesup]

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.

As I stated previous, I am pointing out holes in the agruement that can be used by the courts to interpret. Of course if that is what you want, go on ignoring those holes.

[Aquinasfan]

There is an old "The Outer Limits" episode I would like you to see dealing with 'the eye of the beholder'.

Loved the old "Outer Limits." I was fortunate enough to see the "cookbook" episode when I was at an impressionable age. It blew my little mind 8-)

[Paul C. Jesup]

Ignoring the last half of my post does NOT improve your arguement.

[Paul C. Jesup]

True enough. Those agencies ARE a threat to liberty and therefore a threat to society. However, Acceptance of homosexuality is a threat to our Judeo-Christian ethos and is also a threat to society. Any culture that has embraced homosexuality has then gone on to shrivel up and disappear. Rightly so. A freer country that accepts homosexuality as normal would not be worth defending or even living in.

Actually, I find ignoring the Ten Commandments to be a FAR GREATER threat to Judeo-Christian ethics and society than homosexuality.

There is a preacher I know who works in the prison system to help inmates and some of the murders, thiefs and rapists think their crimes were far less sinful than homosexuality.

He was of the same opinion as me that people needed to get their priorities straighened out.

[afraidfortherepublic]

I have never understood why some people are so passionate about making marriage illegal for homosexuals to the point of passing a constitutional amendment on the matter.

It's the money.

Any two people in America are free to form any kind of legal partnership that they want and bestow any amount of worldly goods on the other -- and ,as far as I know, powers of attorney, etc. However, the only way that homosexuals can latch on to retirement benefits and social security benefits and health plan benefits is to get homosexual marriage legalized so that they can make a claim on their partner's employer.

Carry that to the extreme and employers and the government will soon find themselves priced out of their various insurance plans. There will be a seismic shift in the way benefit plans are administered across the nation. Stay at home moms and children will be the losers here.

[Paul C. Jesup]

It's the money.

Any two people in America are free to form any kind of legal partnership that they want and bestow any amount of worldly goods on the other -- and ,as far as I know, powers of attorney, etc. However, the only way that homosexuals can latch on to retirement benefits and social security benefits and health plan benefits is to get homosexual marriage legalized so that they can make a claim on their partner's employer.

Carry that to the extreme and employers and the government will soon find themselves priced out of their various insurance plans. There will be a seismic shift in the way benefit plans are administered across the nation. Stay at home moms and children will be the losers here.

So in a nutshell you're saying screw one group for the benefit of another group?

Doesn't that make the homosexuals the victims in this case?

Note I am asking questions and not making statements.