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.
It's a waste of your time to address that guy.
I don't quite get this, in the context of O'Reilly's being pro-abortion (which someone disputed above, but I don't know, because as you know, we don't have cable).
In my opinion, a man who can be pro-abortion, when he's seen his own babies, is barely human.
Considering the polygamy issue has been brought up by the Mormons, who are heterosexuals, that is a strawman arguement.
I don't even know what 'polyandry' is, or even if it is a word. How you can compare savage beasts too two consenting, intelligent adults is beyond me. And I don't even know what you got the idea of marriage to 'inanimate objects' from.
I don't think that he personally believes in abortion as a choice that he would ever make for his own family, but he may believe that reasonable people might disagree on such points as when life begins, etc. Frankly, I think that he is mushy on this, although somewhat on the right side of mushy.
Meant to include you earlier. Powerful stuff from TR...
Pish-tosh! (And I know you're describing another person's beliefs, not your own, so that's not aimed at you personally :-)
"Reasonable people" of that type might decide their convenience or economic interest or whatever justifies the death of an unborn child ... but there's no scientific question that a unique human person exists from the moment of conception. And people who pretend otherwise are being disingenuous.
What rights are Homosexuals denied?
I asked first for positive reasons to the marriage amendment. All I have gotten so far is strawman arguements and silence.
Amy Nicholls, from Mansfield, Louisiana: "Mr. O'Reilly, I am extremely disappointed that you referred to the fetus as 'a potential human being.' They are in fact already human."
O'Reilly: "Ms. Nicholls, I respect your BELIEF, but that is not how the SUPREME COURT does it, and I have to deal with the law here. The abortion discussion will never be advanced until people find common ground. I used the term 'potential human being' BECAUSE THAT IS INDISPUTABLE. I hope you understand what I'm trying to do here."
He's always been alone as far as I'm concerned...another a-lone talking head with a big fat wet finger in the wind.
FMCDH(BITS)
James is 9 months old today. The difference between James today and James at birth is the result of time and food. The difference between James at birth and James at conception is the result of time and food. End of argument, for *reasonable* people.
People whose reason is clouded by free-sex ideology are a different story.
Ya gotta start somewhere, dont'cha?
I have updated my FMCDH (From My Cold Dead Hands) sign-off with the addition of (BITS).....Blood In The Streets, which I foresee coming soon, due to the enormous increase of the Marxist progressive movement being shoved down the throat of this failing REPUBLIC through the Judicial tyranny of fiat law, the passing of unconstitutional laws by the Legislative and Executive branches of our government and the enormous tax burden placed upon the average American to support unconstitutional programs put forth by Marxist ideology.
FMCDH(BITS)
FMCDH(BITS)
The government doesn't belong in the legislation of human relationships. The only justification for government involvement in marriage was for the protection of children. Making marriage a special, coveted institution benefits society as a whole.
Marriage ensures, in 99.9% of the cases, that two parents, who are blood relatives, are mutually committed to the care and nuturing of their progeny.
Agreed, however there are still well meaning people who see disingenuousness as a tool that can be used positively to diffuse conflict in order to allow constructive engagement and ultimately allow reason to filter through. Like you, I don't buy it, but I'm convinced that the Bill O'Reillys of the world may!
The IRS is not run by an army of social militants intent on destroying the fabric of society.
I agree that government intrusion is a serious problem, but most of these intrusions are a direct result of rules legislated by SCOTUS.
Welcome to the Judicial Oligarchy of America!
So, given that, as you say, there is a written agenda to which all the arms of Marxism subscribe, why do you suppose the Homosexual Mafia was the easiest group to activate?
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your statement. But I will tell you this, the IRS has been the MOST TYRANNICAL tool the socialists have used in this nation to destroy this society and our freedoms.
The federal income tax code is written to be a catch-22 to where it is impossible to follow all the regulations and where if one regualtion does not work, the socialists can use the opposing regulation to destroy and imprison their enemies, E.I. us.
People who have a position that approximates their agenda that disguises their position that distances their beliefs confuse me. Now I have a headache, and I'll have to go watch a John Wayne movie to clear my mind.
It's not the first time I've considered that other people are better suited to realpolitik, while I should limit my efforts to reproduction ...
I haven't come up with an answer for that. Do you have any ideas?
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.