Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Kevin McCullough :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why liberals are crushing dissent
by Kevin McCullough
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


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 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 Governor Schwarzenegger's signature or veto. The bills were unanimously embraced by the Democrats and universally denounced by the Republicans.

But do they say?

These four bills would require that in every classroom from kindergarten through high school that 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.

The liberals in the state assembly knew that the average Californian would never support these radical measures, but they also knew that they will not be up for re-election this year and they are counting on Californians having very short term memories.

But one of the bills goes a step further. Its actual purpose is to cripple any state resources such as fire department 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 racked 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've 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.

Assembly 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 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's first hardback title "The MuscleHead Revolution" is now available - everywhere! Kevin McCullough is heard daily in New York City, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware on WMCA 570 at 2pm. He also provides PodCASTS and blogs daily at Amazon.com.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Xtreme' Radio and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

Be the first to read Kevin McCullough's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

I gotta say
That such tactics really get to me. I am usually a calm and rational person, but the fact that liberals are so quick to silence opponents is so hypocritical when they do so in the name of tolerance.

Its really hard for me to believe. I guess I am on a different level than these folks, but I do think that to so many on the left (and some on the right, too) its about winning, not about what is truly best for everyone.

Silencing debate is NOT the best for anyone, except those in power. And that is what starts tyranny.

Why liberals are crushing dissent
We have to take a cue from history here.
After WWII, some of the German politicians were questioned on how the Nazis managed to blunt what should have been the Church's normal outraged response to the blatant acts of murder commited by the fascist government.
There reply was it was easy. All they had to do was to come up with instances of priests misbehaving with other men or young boys and feed those reports into their media, effectively silencing the Church's outrage.
The road to slaughter wasn't entirely bump free for the Nazis however. The Nazis had a minor public relations debacle on their hands when the Bavarian peasants objected to being ordered to remove the crucifixes from their local classroom
walls. Wholesale slaughter didn't arrive at full maturity suddenly overnight, it arrived in increments. When was the last time a crucifix was displayed on a public classroom wall here?
One doesn't have to look any further than the history of the recent, late, Soviet Union to get other examples of what happens when you remove God from the public square. Whether your historical gaze travels to Stalin's Gulags in Siberia, the 1930's famine in the Ukraine, the slaughter of the Czar's family, the betrayal of the rebels in the Warsaw ghetto, the crushing of the Hungarian revolution, the Berlin Wall, unlimited, state sanctoned murder of human beings is the rule rather than the exception in Godless societies.
Humankind, in general, has a bad habit of fighting the last war, rather than searching for the causes of the next one.
People spend most of their time with their head turned to the right, searching for the reincarnation of evil coming from that direction, mustachioed, jack- booted, uniformed, marching in goose stepping unison with a stiff upraised arm salute.
However, the next threat, like Al Pacino's character in the "Devil's Advocate" warns " Never let them see you coming!" may not be coming from the right, but from the left instead.

I see
another reversal of the Ninth Circuit on this one as an unconstitutional restraint of free speech and equal protection under law.

Interesting to note that school teachers:
1. Send their own kids to private school.
2. Can afford to send their kids to private school.

Wow! Stop the presses!
Liberals are trying to stop dissent and the exercising of First amendment rights!

I am shocked! ... Shocked, I say!

Also, I am SO proud...
... to live in the formerly-great state of Kalifornia.

There's another Kalifornia Curve on the horizon, too. Tomorrow, I'm posting the essay discussing this new wrinkle on my blog, entitled "Coming Soon, to a State Near You!". Check it out, otherwise I've wasted this opportunity for a shameless plug.

And your surprised?
How many of those law makers send their kids to public schools? Maybe there should be a law that requires all legislatures' kids to attend the public schools. The left is always wanting to stiffle debate with their "anti-hate" speech codes. Anyone that disagrees with their position, no matter how extreme the left is, can not say anything without being labeled a racist, bigot, homophobe, etc....


Hard to believe.
Could this really be happening? How could this be happening?


I purposely try not to reference the Bible in my comments. I am a Christian. Not mentioning scripture or the Bible in my posts is not backing away from my religion. I believe that the secular idiots who post on Townhall will automatically dismiss any comments that express Christian faith. I try not to give them that opportunity.


I can no longer refrain from referring to the Bible and Christianity. This proposed legislation by a Democratic politician in that cesspool known as California has changed everything.


This is without question Satan at work. He has always been with us, and he never sleeps. Satan has brought this nation to the brink. America may not survive this assault, that comes from Muslim jihadist murderers, and the traitors on the political left inside this country.


I, and others on Townhall, have asked how we can join together to do something to turn the tide. This insane facist Nunez may have provided an opportunity for a concerted effort by those of us on Townhall who understand what is happening to this country.


I know that Monday morning I will be calling (916) 445-2841. I plan to express my disgust to Governor Swartzeneger that an abomination like SB 1437 could actually be considered by elected officials in California, let alone be moved forward by the Democratic legislators in his state.


I am also going to find out what District Nunez represents and write to the Opinion Pages of newspapers in his district. It will require some effort, but I think those nuts in California should hear from people in the real world.


Even though it took a majority to elect Nunez, I think that some people in his District might not appreciate S B 1437. It is an embarrassment to every sane person. I am assuming that every liberal in California, even in his district, is not insane.


If enough people call and write letters, it may help show California voters that things have finally gone too far in their state. Enough calls and letters can also stiffen Governor Schwartzenneger's spine enough for him to veto this evil and insane Bill.

And you are surprised?
I can't spell? Ha ha ha. I know the difference between your and you're but don't show it in the above post. :) Back to your regular post of outrage at the left. I wonder how LeftAngle, mman and Phylo will try to twist this one?

Gay marriage is only about perverting.
Observation has lead me to a hypothesis of the compulsive part of perversion.

Compulsion is a high; it rushes endorphins around in the brain and makes the experience a bit out of control, on the edge, beyond morality. Too bad our sexual peccadilloes did not stay confined to the bedroom where there was no need for their justification. Unfortunately, when sexual perversion escaped from the boudoir to flaunt itself publicly, a meaning well society, more then tolerated; it normalized and encouraged. This took away the perverted illicit thrill, and the compulsion part was forced to find other venues of release.

We are a mimicking species, it is not hard to push perversion onto the children, marriage, schools, religion, or traditions, to satisfy a narcissistic compulsion. A mental condition many suffer from; I just wish they would grow up and learn to do their suffering in private.

This is Getting Very Dangerous
The author is correct that ignoring God doesn't make Him disappear. Open rebellion against Him is suffered only for a time, and then the reckoning.

Soli Deo gloria.

Perhaps God should clear the board
If all the Liberal ideas are ever put into practice, then within a very short time humanity will come to an end and it will be because God has decided to clear the board and start over. Maybe this isn't too bad an idea.

Skip has a point
I am a Christian, and I sometimes leave out any Bible quotes from things I write, because many
readers would assume that "All he knows how to
do is parrot the Bible, not think for himself."
Even the Apostle Paul, in Athens, showed that
he could reason from non-Scriptural sources. He
got only a few converts there, but he probably
would have gotten NONE at all if he had insisted
on expecting his hearers to be already conforming
to his Biblical viewpoint in advance.

Addressing homosexuality, I hardly ever mention
Bible verses against it. Instead, I explain the
fact that homosexuality is inherently more
unstable than heterosexuality. Consider: if
Allen and Billy are gay lovers, and then they
meet Colin and both feel attracted to him, this
means that Allen can feel anger toward Billy
BOTH as a cheating lover AND as a rival for a
new lover. This kind of contradictory emotional
mess cannot exist among heterosexuals. All of
the emotional negatives of straight sex can exist
among gays, but on top of that gays have ADDED
emotional complications which straights don't.

To Beniyyar I would say: when God clears the
board, it will be at the return of Jesus. Evil
and falsehood must be allowed to prevail for a
time before Jesus comes; but I don't think that
God means for us to be fatalistic about it.
Perhaps our God-guided efforts may result in
the Antichrist successfully deceiving only 90
percent of mankind instead of 95 percent.

Joseph Ravitts

http://empowered-anti-nonsense.blogspot.com

Why liberals are crushing dissent
Because they are absolutely crazy.

Certifiable.

But, I have to ask: Did any of you living in Mexifornia KNOW what was in these bills before the vote?

"SB 1437 is to outlaw traditional perspectives on marriage and family in the state school system." is the ONLY ONE listed by name.

He says, "Nunez and his fellow democrats in the California State Assembly voted in unison to pass four bills" BUT DOESN'T NAME THE OTHERS.

How much good will it do to call up about the 'four bills' WITHOUT KNOWING THEIR NUMBERS, OR WHAT EACH SAYS?

Uh, I'm calling about those bills...



The Daily Kos: Beacon of Intolerance
Here's my recent experience with the intolerance of the Left.

I have been visiting the "Daily Kos" every once in a while the past few weeks to"get to know the way the Left thinks"" and I could not believe how many erroneous comments about Bush, the War in Iraq, War on Terror, etc. went completely unchallenged by anyone there. It was as if no Bush-supporters or Republicans existed on Kos to point out all the myths and fallacies. Or at least just debate the issues.

Now I know why. Intolerance and censorship prevents any discussion or debate on any of the topics posted there. The Daily Kos is the sound of one "Left" hand clapping.

Yesterday, I decided to post a few comments on two threads. All my comments were immediately "hidden" but not deleted. I guess that's the Kos version of "redeployment" not withdrawl. Finally, after my 4th post in which I potest the hiding of my comments....I was banned from the site altogether.

I never used inappropriate language or made any personal attacks on anyone. Every opinion I gave was backed up by reason and evidence. Yet, I was banned.

On one thread, I had the audacity to disagree with the characterization of Mark Steyn as one of the "Wrongest people in the world" and I went into some detail as to why I disagreed. My post was "hidden" without comment

On another thread, titled "Calling Moderates and Centrists: The Bush Administration Is A Failure" I had the audacity to disagree once again. Again, my post was hidden.

In another detailed post I used the term "Defeaticrat" and "Islamo-Fascism" to support my position. I also explained that I use the term "Defeaticrat" to describe those democrats who support policies in the Middle east that if implemented would be viewed by the world as a "Defeat" for the United States. That is my opinion. I also said that I would be glad to stop using the term if someone could explain to me how "A timetable for withdrawl" and the "Immediate redeployment of troops" could ever be characterized as a victory.

I also used the term "Islamo-Fascism" to describe, as the President does, in a succinct manner the enemy facing us. I explained in some detail why this term is applicable to the current situation in the Middle East.

Rather then responding on point to any of my posts. They were immediately hidden. And I was called a "troll" , told my behavior was "reprehensible" and that I must stop using "idiot terms terms like islamofascism" even though this term is used by the President of the United States and many pundits and analysts to descibe the enemy we are facing. Apparently, it doesn't matter how much the word is used in real-life discourse...on Kos it is a banned word.

I have blogged on other sites and for the most part most of them allow for the free exchange of ideas and put great value on "free speech". It is distrurbing The Daily Kos is such an intolerant place...made even more so since most of the bloggers there angrily accuse the Bush Administration for engaging in the same intolerance and censorship that they readily engage in every day.

They hypocrisy would be unbelievable if I didn't experience it for myself.

The Daily Kos: Beacon of Intolerance
Dear Kevin:

Great article today.

Here's my recent experience with the intolerance of the Left.

I have been visiting the "Daily Kos" every once in a while the past few weeks to"get to know the way the Left thinks"" and I could not believe how many erroneous comments about Bush, the War in Iraq, War on Terror, etc. went completely unchallenged by anyone there. It was as if no Bush-supporters or Republicans existed on Kos to point out all the myths and fallacies. Or at least just debate the issues.

Now I know why. Intolerance and censorship prevents any discussion or debate on any of the topics posted there. The Daily Kos is the sound of one "Left" hand clapping.

Yesterday, I decided to post a few comments on two threads. All my comments were immediately "hidden" but not deleted. I guess that's the Kos version of "redeployment" not withdrawl. Finally, after my 4th post in which I protested the hiding of my comments....I was banned from the site altogether.

I never used inappropriate language or made any personal attacks on anyone. Every opinion I gave was backed up by reason and evidence. Yet, I was banned.

On one thread, I had the audacity to disagree with the characterization of Mark Steyn as one of the "Wrongest people in the world" and I went into some detail as to why I disagreed. My post was "hidden" without comment

On another thread, titled "Calling Moderates and Centrists: The Bush Administration Is A Failure" I had the audacity to disagree once again. Again, my post was hidden.

In another detailed post I used the term "Defeaticrat" and "Islamo-Fascism" to support my position. I also explained that I use the term "Defeaticrat" to describe those democrats who support policies in the Middle east that if implemented would be viewed by the world as a "Defeat" for the United States. That is my opinion. I also said that I would be glad to stop using the term if someone could explain to me how "A timetable for withdrawl" and the "Immediate redeployment of troops" could ever be characterized as a victory.

I also used the term "Islamo-Fascism" to describe, as the President does, in a succinct manner the enemy facing us. I explained in some detail why this term is applicable to the current situation in the Middle East.

Rather then responding on point to any of my posts. They were immediately hidden. And I was called a "troll" , told my behavior was "reprehensible" and that I must stop using "idiot terms terms like islamofascism" even though this term is used by the President of the United States and many pundits and analysts to descibe the enemy we are facing. Apparently, it doesn't matter how much the word is used in real-life discourse...on Kos it is a banned word.

I have blogged on other sites and for the most part most of them allow for the free exchange of ideas and put great value on "free speech". It is distrurbing The Daily Kos is such an intolerant place...made even more so since most of the bloggers there angrily accuse the Bush Administration for engaging in the same intolerance and censorship that they readily engage in every day.

The hypocrisy would be unbelievable if I didn't experience it for myself.

Sincerely,

Chris Ward

Wacky West and Liberal Lefts -
Wacky West coasters and Leftist Liberals on the east coast do not have the common sense of the center states. The center of the United States, folks in Missouri, for example, hear the wacky weirdness of west coasters and do a 'whatever' yawn. The east coast leftist liberals whose godless mantra reminds us in the 'fly-over' common sense center states of a two-year-old's tantrum. However, when the wacky west and leftist liberal move into our commons-sense country neighborhoods bringing with them their confused states of mind and behaviors we have to take the straw from our mouth, scrape the cow chips from our boots, adjust the brim of our sweat-lined hat to shield our wrinkle-lined eyes and take aim. Terminating termites can't wait until they have infested the home, ya gotta git 'em where they live - on the wacky west and leftist liberal east coasts. 'Lock and load, pardner' cause they iz comin for us next!

THANKS FOR THE ALL THE COMMENTS!!!
This column has at a very early hour just a couple of hours after release become the MOST FORWARDED column that TownHall has carried for me. Obviously it is hitting a hot button. Some in this comment thread have already spoken of a need to be part of a "REVOLUTION" that fights back for all that is true, just, and good. I'm here to tell you that we are engaged in just such a cause on my radio show, blog, syndicated column, monthly newsletter, and now hardback book. Please feel free to stop by - often, sign up for the newsletter, read the book, and listen online to the show every Monday through Friday. AND BY THE WAY - we're fighting this "in your face Revolution" not in Red State America USA - but in the heart of New York City - every single day. So come on by - you're always welcome!

The very best,
Kevin McCullough

http://muscleheadrevolution.com
http://kevinmccullough.townhall.com

What will really be instructive
will be the arguments used to defend this proposition.

They will have two main characteristics: first, they will portray the bills as saying something entirely different than what Mr. McCullough has suggested, and, Second,

they will be designed to make those who criticize them appear to be the one who has the problem.

The left way or the highway
The irony that liberalism came through the door of free speech that it is now closing is lost on the left. Christopher Lasch once wrote that if you disagree with a conservative, he will think you are wrong and try to show you his reasoning. If you disagree with a liberal, he will say you are sick and need to be cured. This explains the North Vietnamese “reeducation” camps, Soviet mental institutions, and diversity training seminars.

Secularists have almost won their religious war against Christians. They feel that they no longer have to hide behind the pretense of being fair. This war has spanned generations and has been accomplished mostly through subversion.

When Satan subverted Eve he did not start with a lie. He posed a phony question that was designed to draw Eve into judging God. When she disconnected herself from God, she became more vulnerable to taking in a lie. This is a fair model for how we came to the point in this country where we have almost lost the war against the religion of secularism.

Christians have been drawn away from Jesus. They do not mention their Savior because it causes some to feel bad (a sin against diversity). They do not trust Jesus because they have been convinced that evolution is science. They trust more in their 401K plan to provide for them than the God who made the sun come up this morning.

In the end Christians are left abandoning their Jesus because they have been convinced that he is not trustworthy, true, effective, interested, or even real. As a result the religion of secularism (the worship of man in general and self in particular) is in ascendancy. It is a very flexible religion (not being constrained by truth).

If Christians had maintained the same standard (that free speech does not apply to things that are wrong) liberalism would never have gained a foothold. Now that liberalism has won, look for the first thing to be removed to be free speech.

Christians have for too long been silent about truth. Truth cannot be divorced from Jesus. Jesus is truth. If our silence (albeit well intentioned civility) has been used to allow evil to triumph, we must bear the shame of having been duped. Now is the time to bring the truth of Jesus to a world sliding into darkness.

The Family Tree or The Pan-sexual Tree
The democrats are hell bent on educating our children, through the public schools the very un-human and un-natural indoctrination into the homosexual agenda, I wonder if parents compare the Pan-sexual tree to the Family Tree, Life or death situation??? Is this an activity our children should be educated into??? What are the implications, results, history, and or products??? Parent need to educate themselves, to what is being forced on the hearts, minds, bodies and souls of our children. Wisdom denied, child-hood all but forgotten and a flat refusal to exsist. Hearts harden, muliplated, and lives destroyed. Sounds like a sound plan???? Our tax dollars, our children, our Lives???? How do you vote????

California
All this reminds me of why I'm glad I don't live in California. It seems like a very weird and frankly unfriendly place. I'm sticking to the MidWest. At least here I can disagree with somebody, on the Left or the Right (and I often have differences with both), without getting thrown in jail.

Bipsy Quee - your prediction is true...
I've received e-mail from several liberals already responding to the column this morning here's a sample:

(...copied verbatim - all spelling, grammar, etc - is that of the original author)

every week, without fail, you write a more and more absurd column. liberals are crushing dissent? they are dissenting against the administration you D*CK. they are the ones with the opinion against the presidents. it would be nice for you to have one fact in your article. you don't even back up your first sentence with any facts.
your second paragraph is bunk as well. i am a christian, service member since 1989, with a minor degree in theology. also, a democrat.
zell, joe and dick found themselves kicked to the curb from the democratic party because they did not represent their constituents views. i doubt that 150,000 people in Connecticut are anti-American because they voted joe out.
you must be vying for a cabinet position in the white house. god know your dumb enough.

A Few Books
I can't help but think of three books when I read this . The first is CS Lewis' Screwtape Letters. In short, deals with the subtleties of how the devil works. The second and third are This Present Darkenss and Piercing the Darkness by Frank Peretti, both also dealing with the subtleites of falling.

All three directly describe spititual warfare, and basically one can surmise that all the devil needs is an inch. He just needs a way in and then there is little to stop his warped thinking from spreading. The only thing is prayer and dedication to God.

I, too, usually do not rely on religious themes in my posts, (though I certainly do not hide it), this topic reeks of spiritual warfare.

I would suggest anyone to read, if not the Peretti books, but CS Lewis' Screwtape. Amazing book.

Social fascism still alive & well..
The communist movement (started in the early 1900s) has increased their head-count in socialist party (Democrats) to the point that they've taken it over and all "soft socialists" are being driven out. While some people weren't troubled by the Waco incident (as they were a cult), it is an example of what will happen to any group who protests the ways of the communists in power.

(tinkerbelch: Torture was used by the Nazis to silence priests/ministers who spoke out against the ways of the Nazis. Church leaders became fearful of speaking out, lest they suffer a slow painful death of torture at the hands of the Nazis.)

The left is sloppy and inconsistant...
They left out Bestiality..
They left out Necrophilia..
They left out Cannabalism..
They left out mandatory euthanasia for anyone not able to hold up an 'I hate Amerika' sign.
Somebody needs to tell them to get their act together.
If Tyrany creeps in on little cat feet, the left has put jackboots on their cat.
Thank God for the Blogosphere. They have belled the cat, and that is a good thing.

It's kind of...
interesting that in the Hollyleft movie industry the conservative parties are always the ones shown as being oppressive and outlawing dissenting viewpoints. Take for example the fairly new one, "V for Vendetta". In reality as is factually pointed out in this article it is and has been the liberal/socialists who do whatever they can to prevent any opposing voices to be heard.
It is also good to note as Mr. McCullough points out that ignoring one's conscience is a choice.
All in the name of power.
And why haven't we seen any of this on the news? Hmmmmmm??

Do not take blood fromn the Red Cross.
Kevin:

I could not agree with your article more.

I truly believe we are headed to a Civil War someday about "Freedom".

The Gays (and other groups whose goal is to destroy Democracy)also want to insert HIV into our Nations Blood Supply. To top it off the Red Cross is promoting it.

Below is an article from the Washington Post to which I can draw no other conclusion. Gays(?) will not stop advocating this "Russian Roulette injection of HIV until it happens if it is not already happening. Gays keep pumping out new strains of HIV where medicines are now failing left and right.


"FDA to Review Ban on Gay Men Donating Blood"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701805.html



FDA to Review Ban on Gay Men Donating Blood
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2006; Page A06
The Food and Drug Administration is considering revising its policy that bars as
a blood donor any man who has had sex with another man since 1977, officials
said yesterday.
The change in policy is being recommended by the American Red Cross, the
American Association of Blood Banks and America's Blood Centers, which collect
virtually all the blood used for transfusions nationwide.

The three groups requested the change at a March 8 workshop the FDA convened to
review the latest scientific information about the safety of the blood supply,
arguing that current tests and screening methods have improved enough to protect
transfusion recipients without the lifetime ban.
Instead, the group recommended that men be barred from donating for only a year
after having had sex with another man, treating them the same as other groups at
increased risk for spreading sexually transmitted virus through donated blood.
"We strongly support the use of rational, scientifically based deferral
policies, and we want them to be applied fairly and consistently," said Ryland
Dodge, a Red Cross spokesman.
The FDA implemented the lifetime ban in the mid-1980s when concerns about the
spread of the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS, were running high
and many questions remained about the ease with which people could spread the
virus and the reliability of screening methods. Since then, the accuracy of
testing has improved substantially, as have questionnaires that all donors
answer to identify those posing the greatest risk, Dodge said.
"All these things come together to make us much more confident that our layers
of safety have improved to the point where they should review the policy," Dodge
said.
FDA spokesman Stephen King said the agency would convene a meeting of its Blood
Products Advisory Committee to formally reconsider revising the policy, probably
later this year.
Agency officials are "definitely interested in hearing all the science, and if
there's hard evidence in place that changing the policy would not endanger the
blood supply they're definitely open to it," King said.
The current policy has drawn strong criticism from gay rights groups.
"The blood deferral policy that exists is not based on science. It's based on
inertia and in many cases stereotypes," said Jon Givner of the Lambda Legal
Defense and Education Fund. "The FDA should revisit the issue and adopt a
deferral policy that is based on actual risk rather than sexual orientation."

Sincerely

Paul Rinderle
Fairfax Va

The way it is
I have covered this ground in a post at my blog, but I'll say it here again. The lberal left is by its very nature authoritarian, they can brook no dissent because their ideas cannot stand the light of day. When your basic philosophy is nihilistic and authoritarian, you can't really defend your ideas, so you attempt to crush all tohers, leaving yours as the only choice. That is why liberals can't win elections in most places, because the people see them for the tyrants they truly aspire to be.

BTW, if anyone is interested click my name and check out the essay titled "Liberalism Lost".

An entryway for the Antichrist
In Canada there are a lot of people who will welcome in the Islamofascists because frankly they fear the gays far more than they do the terrorists. In my opinion, this kind of blatant opposition to traditional values is a way of opening the door for the Muslim Antichrist, who will promise to restore 'traditional values' and put men back in charge and women back in the kitchen and the bedroom where God intended them to be.

There are plenty of people who will tell themselves that they can allow the Islamic Fascists to dispose of the gays, and "then we will dispose of them." Only of course they will not and cannot.

These are the end days, boys and girls. My soul is prepared. How's yours?

This guy is a lunatic
I wonder if this guy has ever known an actual liberal. It's like they keep this guy in a dungeon somewhere and they only give him a labtop, the Left Behind series, and a bunch of scary stories about these people called "liberals".

I just hope he doesn't escape. If he does I think we're going to be hearing about a shooting spree at DNC headquarters.

This dude is seriously frightening.

Phylo out.







AudiR10-exactly!
Preparing the way for the Antichrist...check out answering-islam.org. Provides an interesting, well-thought out and documented interpretation of and integration with the Messianic last days and Islamic last days.

Laura Root

Mr. McCullough,
the example you give is one of the obvious and simplistic ones, merely that of a follower and a dupe, but the pattern is always the same. When it gets to the level of a Senator or newspaper editor however, it takes a trained and discerning mind to be able see how refined the devil can get in his perversion of the truth and to be able to expose and counter it with the truth.

Madrasahs of the Left
These pending bills in California are yet another example of how the Left are using government schools to degrade society. Liberals are converting public schools into madrasahs, where young minds are indoctrinated into the most warped ideologies imaginable. Just as the madrasahs in Muslim countries teach their kids that Jews and Christians are the "sons of apes and pigs", and that every good Muslim has a religious duty to murder them, the American Left is pushing their own sick extremism in the public schools.

Democrats support this agenda partly because the public school monopoly -- the NEA -- is one of the three pillars of financing for the DNC (along with trial lawyers and unions -- two other destructive forces in our society).

Democrats also support this agenda because they need a critical mass of dumbed-down voters to stay in power. A thinking voter is overwhelmingly a conservative voter, and that is why Democrats are against any competition with their failed public school monopoly.

Is not surprised
It isn't just about sex and religion. Every other aspect of our culture and politics is under attack. This isn't even the first battle in the fight to silence those who disagree.

I beg you all to remember this when you are faced with voting for a demonRAT because you are mad at the republicans.

silicondoc writes,
"How do these freaks gain power...."

It is simple, Doc, they are elected. Some great thinker once said, "You can tell the character of a civilization by looking at its prisons." Well, I add to that, YOu can tell the intelligence of a nation by looking at its elected officials.

Flagwaver
You are right. The left will get a law passed. When it becomes obvious the law is unworkable, they will not repeal that law. They merely pass another law saying it is against the law to ignore the first law.

Reply to Antisocialist
I try to attend morning mass on Fr Maximilian Kolbe's feast day in August whenever I get the chance. As I said, increments.
I also try to maintain a scientific attitude toward what I perceive to be happening.
Hypothetically, if you have a petri dish filled with " e. coli" bacteria growing away happily until you introduce another organism, cultured from the effluent flowing out of a city's sewage pipe emptying into the Aegean sea, and after a few days you observe a clear area devoid of "e. coli" growth around the new organism you have to suspect that something is occurring in that dish not merely by chance.
Eli Lilly did and brought a succesful new antibiotic to market after WWII.
If what Ahmadinejad speaks so forcefully and frequently about comes to pass, the annihilation of the Jews in Israel, it would be the second World War in less than 100 years that very result would be one of the stated goals of one of the antagonists in each of those conflicts. What's the probability of those two separate events occurring merely by chance?

Phylo: beware the MuscleHeads...
Phylo,

As much as you may personally disdain those who disagree with you - pretending not to doesn't make it so.

The column DOCUMENTS and DEMONSTRATES not one example of the stifling of dissent - but more than 40 (the number of Democrats that all supported the bill.) By comparison not on GOP member of the assembly voted in favor of it. Try to make it out as something other than a partisan power grab attempting to shut down the speech of your enemies - but in the end you will only be shown to be a liar - because the facts in this case demonstrate the theory stated in the opening sentence of the column.

See - to MuscleHeads - WORDS MEAN THINGS. It might not to you - and that's ok - your perogative.

~KMC

Phylo
There you go again. You attacked the messenger without stating you support or disagree with the Democrats bills that passed. Which is it?

Phylo, you must be ...
from another planet, obviously Pluto, the "dwarf planet", judging from the intellectual stature of your arguments. You imply that KMC's article does not represent liberal thought, with your only arguments being that he is an "idiot," is "scary," and must be "in a dungeon."

Do you deny that the bills he is describing are real? Or do you actually support them? Even a cursory observation of public schools and popular culture will reveal an all-out effort by the Left to shove the radical gay agenda down America's throat (no pun intended).

Further, the Left's continuing efforts to quash dissent are well-documented. If you don't believe me, go to any college campus and try publishing a conservative paper, or even expressing conservative viewpoints in class. Or witness the constant attempts to remove conservative commentators, particularly Rush, from the airwaves. How about going into a bookstore and looking for conservative books...I guarantee you they won't be prominently displayed, if present at all, and you will be called a Nazi by the snivelling clerk if your ask for them. It is already a criminal offense for Christian ministers to preach against homosexuality in Canada. Ask Dr. Laura Schlessinger about how the Left responds to criticisms of the gay agenda. And my experience with liberal blogs, especially democrat.com, is the same as Soylentbrain's--immediate censure and banned from the site, despite a complete lack of vulgarity or personal attacks. Yet notice how you, Leftangle and the other trolls are free to post here, and for the most part people respond to your "arguments" in a civil fashion. Yes, the Left is all for freedom of speech, unless they disagree with it...then it's time to put on the jackboots and go to work.

To Buck and Silicondoc
Buck, you are partially right. Democrats are elected, but only by hiding their true agenda. If they ran on their actual platform of massive tax increases, driving Christianity from the public square, enacting the radical gay agenda, repealing the 2nd Amendment and emasculating the military, they would never win another election. Why hasn't the Kos crowd destroyed Hillary? Because they know that her feints to the right, unlike Liberman's stand on national defense, are fictitious.

Only Dissenting Post - Ad Hominem Attack
Thanks, Phylo. You did not dissapoint.

Phylo--
Why can you call him a lunatic and that he should be in a dungeon, but if we call you a lunatic and a should be in a dungeon, we are bigots?

You like definitions: can you define bigot?

KMC, Thanks for keeping
up the "Good fight." Our country is truly infected with the cancer of Liberalism as many of us have stated. It is indeed an internal war. All true Americans are concerned about the "potential" threat of terrorists attacks and rightly. But the homegrown Liberal terrorists are not a perceived threat. They are very real! And they attack our culture 24/7.

It's ironic when the Liberals attack Ann Coulter and her book Godless. Claiming all she writes are lies, nothing based on fact. Then in the next minute by their own words and deeds, prove she is exactly right.

Liberals are great for twisting words and meanings in an attempt to defend their sick agenda. Saying conservatives are blinded by hate and refuse to understand their arguments.

Speaking for myself, I'm not blind. I see very clearly what the Liberals are doing. And I Hate you all! I hate you for what you are doing to my country and culture! And most of all, I hate you for what you are doing to our children! I hate everything you stand for! And if your a Liberal reading this, I hate YOU! and your very existence! And don't bother with the crap about you being Americans! You may have been born here and planted your ugly feet on our soil. You are a thing! A cancer! With no concept of what an American is!

WHY LIBERALS ARE CRUSHING DISSENT
Equally scarier than these proposed bill is the fact that these guys were actually voted into office in the first place. Can you imiage having one of them for a next door neighbor? I know one thing for sure, if I did my ass would be sitting in jail for a long long time.

This exactly why Heads Need To Roll
Visit http://www.headsneedtoroll.org and post your views and opinions.

Open Minded
Being open minded toward evidence, facts, and truth is laudable.

The difficulty is sifting out all that is false and invalid reasoning. It can and must be done.

To exercise one's mind to follow the evidence only where leads is the goal.

GEM



Liberals crushing dissent
I liked the column and, knowing what I already know about California politics, I can readily believe what it says -- except that I would still appreciate knowing the numbers of the actual bills so I could check them out for myself. Could Mr. McCullough post that information, please?

I agree with Flagwaver
Flagwaver writes: Sunday, August, 27, 2006 10:38 AM
The way it is
I have covered this ground in a post at my blog, but I'll say it here again. The lberal left is by its very nature authoritarian, they can brook no dissent because their ideas cannot stand the light of day. When your basic philosophy is nihilistic and authoritarian, you can't really defend your ideas, so you attempt to crush all tohers, leaving yours as the only choice. That is why liberals can't win elections in most places, because the people see them for the tyrants they truly aspire to be.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wherever liberals have undue influence--public education, universities, MSM--you find the tyranny of groupthink. Think speechcodes at universities, the monoversity that they call diversity--all colors and genders and nationalities of people who think exactly alike or who are too cowardly to disagree--the constant Bush bashing in the MSM supported by lies if need be--think Dan Rather. And the reason is exactly as stated--liberal positions being based on feelings and not thought cannot be defended so they have to be protected. At the universitiies they are still trying to figure out how they were so wrong about communism and socialism, so they can't admit they are wrong here. And looking at Kos or HuufPo just showcases foulmouthed children in their rooms on their computers, calling vile names instaed of reason. And the Democratic leaders are influenced by these children.


Things must have changed
I went to grade school just before and during WWII. There was no discussion or classes at all on sex or sexuality. The same was true in high school. Now this might have been a bit overboard in ignoring the subject but I got a very good education. If homosexuality is discussed at all it should not be on a value judgement basis and since it is the behavior of a small minority it doesn't deserve much time devoted to it, anymore than maybe poligamy. If the point is to protect harrassment or bullying of students who are or are deemed to be homosexual then that can be done in a class or part of a class could be devoted to tolerance but not just of homoosexuals but of all minorities. But the major portion of classroom time should be devoted to what was known as the 3 R's because I know from teaching at the unmiversity level that students are getting into college at least when i was there without writing skills or knowledge in basic math and that is what schools should be teaching and from the students I had they are failing at it.

1984
Flagwaver has it right. From George Orwell's anti-totalitarian book, 1984:

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaniously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again...

It's crazy how accurately this describes the leftist strategy being implemented today. You can break this passage down and show numerous examples of democrats employing these exact tactics.

P.S. You should all keep in mind that school textbook companies do not create different books for each state - the policies of a few large states such as California are implemented into the books that schools use nationwide.

ProfGene
I completely agree. Thank you for a reasonable opinion on this.

Sloopy, awesome
quote. It is scary how apropos it is to today's lefties.

"...to repudiate morality while laying claim to it..."

It started with tolerance (who could be against that?) and "let's agree to disagree" (again, who could be against that?). Then when everyone was comfortable with that, tolerance was used to silence the "intolerant" and mandatory diversity training classes started. Looks like they're trying to take the next step.

Also, Sloopy,
"You should all keep in mind that school textbook companies do not create different books for each state - the policies of a few large states such as California are implemented into the books that schools use nationwide."

I think that's changed a bit since "No Child Left Behind," as each state has set its own standards and the testing of them. The textbook companies try to tailor their texts to those tests. I'm sure the larger states take priority,as they make more money for the companies.

I don't know if they differentiate for social issues, though. And, since most states look to California educationally, it might not matter anyway. For more on California's effect on other states, check out BrianR's blog:

http://viewfromtheisland.townhall.com/

Phylo,
I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't really have an opinion on these bills. Perhaps, you are for them to you their worth is self-evident, and, thus, they require no support from you. I'm guessing that's why you bypassed them and went straight for McCullough, in a way proving his point that liberals are intolerant.


It’s funny
The author writes: Liberals are actively undermining first amendment rights to free speech by trying to crush opposing views.

That paragon of leftist thought, George Will, writes a column on 04/17/06 entitled: Attacking the First Amendment, GOP Disgraces Conservatism.

Mr. Will writes: “ If in November Republicans lose control of the House of Representatives, April 5 should be remembered as the day they demonstrated that they earned defeat. Traducing the Constitution and disgracing conservatism, they used their power for their only remaining purpose — to cling to power.”

Although the subject matter Mr. Will's addresses is different than Mr. Mcullough's, the basic idea of squelching free speech in order to consolidate political power is the same.

The proclivity of both parties to put their own factions interests above the interests of Middle America is a repugnant reality. Wake up people: Democrats AND Republicans have sold us out.

Read the article here: http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will041706.asp

KO 1st AMEND IS SOP FOR LIBS
This facist crowd routinely KOs the First Amend. on college campuses everywhere and every way. Its been going on for decades. From the overwhelmingly moonbat professors who spew and rant socialist proganda to the conservative newspapers that are confiscated and trashed, 1st Amend. rights are owned and operated by the campus left as much as Hitler owned and operated the Nazi Youth movement.

Response to KMC
Calling liberals stubborn and sinful doesn't make it so either, pal. The fact is, liberalism is the source of free speach. It is religion that tries to stifle debate. By the way, it wasn't Judeo-Christian values that lead to freedom of speach, it was the values of the enlightenment. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that freedom of speach is such a recent phenomenon, when Judeo-Christian values have been around for more than two thousand years?

And what do I need to beware of? Is that some kind of threat or something?

Phylo out.


The problem with public schools today
are this: The schools are not teaching and the children are not learning. That is 2 problems.

Problem 1: The schools are not teaching because they have become loaded down with total crap outside the 3-R's. They are not teaching because the teachers are not qualified to teach a dog to sit. They are not teaching because it is politically incorrect to teach.

Problem 2: The children are not learning because they don't have to. The children are not learning because there is no discipline in the schools. The children are not learning because the parents think the school is a cheap daycare center.

Return corporal punishment to the classroom. Take the Constitution out of the hallways and locker searches and return it to the blackboard. Either or. Either shut up, sit down, listen and learn or shut up and sit down so others can learn. OR if none of those represent an alternative to the student, expulsion.

Give the teachers incentives to teach. Teach or get fired. Test the competency of individual teachers. Give teachers their classroom back. If they do not want an unruly or disruptive student. Put him in another class. If no teacher wants him, give him a copy of the Help Wanted section of the paper. Underline all the jobs for which he can qualify. Both of them since backhoes and trenchers have taken ditchdigging from the menial labor class, teach him how to flip burgers or push a lawn mower.

John Galt
In the 1964 election almost to a man my 300+ co-workers voted for Johnson. Also to a man they told me that if Goldwater got in office he would get us in a war (what were we in at the time?) but if Johnson got in, he would give us (civil servants) a raise. I voted for Goldwater. Me and one or two other folks in the USA. Johnson got in. He gave us a raise. He inaugrated a tax cut. But my 'raise' put me in the next higher tax bracket and I ended up making less than before the 'raise' and 'tax cut'.
It is sad but the mainstream Americans vote for the politician who promises them more money and shorter work week. Or more welfare and no workweek.

Brillaint & Scary
Thank you for bringing to light what others may have not known, KMC.

Phylo, your arguments continue to avoid answering direct questions by people on this blog. Why?

Also, you continue to make irrelevant points that are clearly based out of fear and misinformation. The sad thing is, those who are scared and misinformed have a strong propensity to continuously harden their hearts towards truth. Perhaps your spelling of "speach" serves as an example of your interpretation of the truth?

/steven

Response to all
True, I didn't respond to the nature of the bill that was the subject of the article. If I have time I'll go read it and report back. My guess is that this guy is quoting selectively and being a little creative in his interpretations of the language. If the bill is anywhere near as bad as he says it is, it sounds like a terrible idea.

Still, I think it's fair to target the author in this case because he is throwing out ad hominum attacks at liberals––trying to make them all out to be some kind of evil monsters.

Take a look at this gem for example:

Kevin "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."


I see Kev, liberals are just inherently sinful, unlike the good conservatives like Tom Delay, Ralph Reed, Jack Abromoff, Kevin McCullogh, etc.

C'mon, even you people have to admit that liberalism brought us the value of free speach. That value didn't come out of religion. It came out of the age of enlightenment. Our founding fathers fused their Christian heritage with the values of the enlightenment, and our Constitution is the fruitful result of that fusion.

Folks, liberalism isn't the problem. Nor is conservatism, in my view. The problem is lousy thinking and bad ideas. And I think you have to admit that both sides of the political spectrum have been culpable in that.

I must say, going by the tone of some of your posts, you people are frightening me a bit. I'm seriously worried that people like you are going to start popping off liberals. You don't hear people on the left talking about a civil war. Get a grip before somone gets hurt. An eagle needs two wings to fly.


Phylo out.




Asking Phylo
or any other lib to limit discussion to the facts of the topic at hand rather than name-calling is akin to attempting to convince the family dog not to do his business in the house based on the effects of unsanitary living conditions on the health of the family.

It's not going to happen.

In fact, you'll notice he is attempting to use a tried and true lib tactic here. He does not want to discuss the topic at hand, as it does not reflect well on his world view. But he is also not content to just go find something else to do with himself. He wants to stop us from discussing the topic.

Phylo typically begins with attacking the messenger. We know now that Kevin McCullough is a 'lunatic' probably kept in a 'dungeon' who may soon 'escape' to go on a 'shooting spree'.

Why should we bother, then, to discuss anything such a person has brought to the table?

Thank you, Phylo, for enlightening us. If it weren't for you, we'd never understand the futility of our discussion. The actions of our politicians certainly don't merit discussion or debate, especially when we could be spending our time more profitably by villifying those who disagree with us.

Phylo,
That's a better post, though I'm still interested to hear what you think about the bills.

"C'mon, even you people have to admit that liberalism brought us the value of free speach."

The problem with this is that the liberalism of yesteryear is not the same as the liberalism of today. Perhaps McCullough should have used "leftists." The other problem is that saying that liberals "created free speech," even if true, doesn't shield them from trying to take it away. It would just make it hypocritical.

Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Speech did not come of out of the enlightenment, nor was it liberalism that gave it to us. The Brits had freedom of speech before the Magna Carta during the Medieval period and probably during the dark ages, judging from the social interactions and the things people went about saying in the Canterburry Tales. Tolerant societies as concerns speech have existed off and on for as long as we've been around. That's because freedom of expression is a natural right.

Societies do not always respect their freedoms though, whether they are written down or not - particularly during power struggles. Our freedom to speak is abridged all the time - there is an infinite number of things that it is not lawful for me to speak. Since McCain-Feingold, even political speech is not free.

Phylo
The left is the wing that encouraged soldiers to kill their officers, just before, oddity of oddities - some actually did. So don't cry to me about right-wing incitement to violence. We haven't told anyone to kill anyone, so no one can do so in our name, unlike with you people.

Phylo Out!

The Wing of Death
After 50 million aborted babies, I think we all know which wing of the eagle is the blood-soaked one. Don't even try to pin violence on us, you left-wing hypocrite. Or are you pro-life?

Phylo Out!

Phylo
I think that that last is a bit of a straw man argument.

If conservatives want to discuss the reasonging behind liberals propensity for attacking free speech in recent years (as we have a right and a duty to do) the results will never fail to look pretty ugly. I can't think of a single possible reason that will leave one with a flattering picture of the person trying to stifle free speech. So why are you attacking that instead of the issue?

And it also doesn't fly to try to change the subject. You say "liberalism brought us the value of free speach." We are trying to PRESERVE free speech not argue over how we got it. (By the way - traditional liberalism was certainly in favor of free speech, but, when we refer to todays Democrats as liberals, we most certainly are NOT referring to traditional liberals.)




Cynewolf
you said it better than I did! :)

Still want vouchers?
"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."

As though this bill DOESN’T permit HIS biases to "take over and dominate the perspective and the point of view”!


“No mention of moral aspects of sexual behavior would be permitted unless immoral activity were praised and in fact referred to as moral.”

So little Johnnie sexually harassing little Mary on the school grounds would not be permitted unless it’s OK for Johnnie to sexually harass little Billie.

Do my fellow conservatives still want vouchers?


A note...
The Brits most certainly did not have freedom of speech, since advocating political positions unfavorable to The Crown could be, and often were punishable by imprisonment in the Tower, and occasionally death. In 1599, members of Parliment who advocated that the ageing Queen Elizabeth name her succesor to the throne were imprisoned and executed for treason. (The reason being, of course, that were she to name someone, she could then be assasinated to hasten the transfer) In matters of religion, free speech was a concept barely imagined, and censorship was routinely imposed on authors and playwrites. You may want to read "1599: A Year In The Life Of Shakespeare". It is fairly recent, so is only available in hardback.

Phylo
You still did not address the fact that it IS INDEED liberals who are making it illegal to disagree.

Who cares about what happened in the past, as it is now absolutely known in this country that freedom of speech is a good thing. But here you have libs who are going after the opposition without debate.

Can you deny this? Can you excuse it?

Come on, guy, I hope your smarter than to think we are making this whole thing up.

Clarification
A number of you have criticized me for not addressing SB1437 directly.

That's, in part, because I don't know much about it. And, as I said earlier, if it's anywhere close to what McCullough's article says it is, I might be opposed to it too.

My whole problem with this article is the way he is trying to make liberals out to be the source of all evil in the world. I think that this point of view is simplistic, naive, shallow, immature and bigoted.

That, is what I'm reacting to.

Phylo out.



Phylo,
"That, is what I'm reacting to" in a "simplistic, naive, shallow, immature and bigoted" way.

The problem is that you started with a personal attack and then tried to say why you attacked him. You, being one who doesn't like name calling, should know better than that. Make your case and be done with it. Having said that, who do you think is going to vote in favor of these bills? Conservatives?

Free Speech
The same punishment applies in case of treason, which can be performed through statements unfavorable to the government if made to assist an enemy of the government. So I guess we don't have freedom of speech either.

Also, we can be punished for making any unfavorable statement about anyone so long as it is untrue.

Finally, we censor commonly spoken words on broadcast media and punish producers of some types of films and photographs, and we do not allow certain live productions to take place, so I guess we don't have freedom of speech.

Phylo,
I don't see any evidence in your posts to help me to understand why liberals or liberalism are the source of free speech. The only times that I see liberals defending free speech is when it pertains to liberal issues (abortion, evolution, homosexuality, etc.). Have liberals ever defended the right for Intelligent Design to be taught along with Darwinism? Have liberals ever defended abstinence programs (which, by the way, have shown success in Africa)? The answer is no, liberals do not defend free speech as an absolute principle; they only do so when it fits their agenda. Sorry, I almost forgot that you don’t believe in absolutes.

LNC

Quote
Would Mr. McCullough or any one else here kindly provide a unbiased credible source for the following attribution in this article:

“…democrat 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."


The definition of treason
in England was not determined by rule of law. It was determined by the judgement of the ruling Sovreign and was not subject to review by any judicial authority or legislative oversight. While Elizabeth (and other Monarchs) took necessary and ruthless steps to secure power, it is impossible to compare laws regarding treason and the controls of pornagraphic materials to the controls placed on English society in The renaissance and Reformation. In modern times, England has continued to suspend civil liberties such as speech and assembly under "The Special Powers Act" that was enacted during "The troubles" in Northern Ireland. I do not favor any act, from the Left or the Right, that abridges the free exchange of speech and the right to assemble, worship, and protest as the citizens see fit.

source tha quote
Did Nunez really say "The real purpose of SB 1437 is to outlaw traditional perspectives on marriage and family in the state school system," or is this a misrepresentation of what he said by ardent Christian bloggers?

Where is the sourcing for this quote? Failure to provide credible documentation undermines this veracity of the author’s post.

'Lo and Behold!
So, I was googling around in an attempt to answer Bullwinkles question: "Would Mr. McCullough or any one else here kindly provide a unbiased credible source for the following attribution in this article:
“…democrat 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."

Btw us, it is not hard to find - they were his opening remarks in the debate on the floor of the California Assembly regarding this bill.

BUT,
I found that I am not the only one to see this as Orwellian and this is not the only time this man has attempted to restrict speech.

Check out this address:
http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/02/28/sections/commentary/california_focus/article_422020.php


"In a little-noticed move during December's Assembly organizational session, Speaker Fabian Nunez and fellow Democrats adopted sweeping changes to Assembly rules. These new rules ought to give Republicans and anyone concerned about free speech and open debate a deep sense of foreboding."

.."The cause for alarm is Section 123 of Mason's Manual, entitled, "Disorderly Words."

"If a Democrat objects to the use by a Republican of a term such as "illegal alien," "homosexual marriage," "communist tyranny," whatever - as they frequently have - any member may invoke Assembly rules and Mason's Section 123. The Assembly will then vote on whether or not use of the term is permissible."

"So any Democrat can object to the use of any particular language by a Republican, and a simple majority of Assembly Democrats (with all so-called "moderate Democrats" or those in vulnerable districts conveniently abstaining) can demand that the Republican apologize and recant his words - or be censured."

This is Speaker Nunez's definition of "bipartisanship" and "full and fair debate."


sloopy
Yes, I’ve seen several christian websites containing the quote, but with a caveat: They did not use quotation marks for the phrase “the real purpose of SB 1437 is to outlaw traditional perspectives on marriage and family in the state school system.”

I believe that was an opinionated characterization of what he said. The sources I saw only quoted the phrase "The way that you correct a wrong 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."

McCulluogh actually uses quotations for the first phrase mentioned.

It makes a world of difference.

Also, Can you provide a link to your source? I would like to find a transcript of the debate if possible.


Movwater
That is known as a non-sequitur

I am looking for verifiable proof that Nunez actually said the words, "The real purpose of SB 1437 is to outlaw traditional perspectives on marriage and family in the state school system," in the debate.

McCullough has quoted those remarks to show that is precisely what Nunez said. However, other Christian blogs and sources I’ve read did not quote that phrase.

If that phrase is not exactly what Nunez said, then McCullough has committed a journalistic mistake of the first order.

A video clip or transcript of the debate would suffice to allay my doubts. A credible news source would also be acceptable.

Let me get this straight...


SB 1437:

"SEC. 3. Section 60044 of the Education Code is amended to read:
60044. No instructional materials shall be adopted by any governing board for use in the schools that, in its determination, contains:
(a) Any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of their ... sexual orientation, ... as those terms are defined in Section 422.56 of the Penal Code, or occupation.
(b) Any sectarian or denominational doctrine or propaganda contrary to law."

Um, what is the problem here? Public schools can't use textbooks that call kids bad names bacause they are GLBT?? Is this what everyone is so upset about??? I thought that Mr McCollough was playing some sort of hyperbole angle, and this only confirms it to me.

Sloopy
mentions some fairly draconian speech codes that are said to be in effect for the California Legislature. Is this is the case, has anyone actually been censured? That would be a case for all conservatives (and liberals of conscience) to act upon.

Black churches
It is hard to believe that the black community can be so liberal, when I know how most of my black friends feel about God, They revere him.

Kerry and his ilk went to these churches and spewed they're hateful speeches and the Reverands ate it up.

How can they back these anti-Christians I wish someone would explain it to me.

Black churches
It is hard to believe that the black community can be so liberal, when I know how most of my black friends feel about God, They revere him.

Kerry and his ilk went to these churches and spewed they're hateful speeches and the Reverands ate it up.

How can they back these anti-Christians I wish someone would explain it to me.

Black churches
It is hard to believe that the black community can be so liberal, when I know how most of my black friends feel about God, They revere him.

Kerry and his ilk went to these churches and spewed they're hateful speeches and the Reverands ate it up.

How can they back these anti-Christians I wish someone would explain it to me.

Black churches
It is hard to believe that the black community can be so liberal, when I know how most of my black friends feel about God, They revere him.

Kerry and his ilk went to these churches and spewed they're hateful speeches and the Reverands ate it up.

How can they back these anti-Christians I wish someone would explain it to me.

Sorry
The site kept saying the page did not exist I really did not want to post this 3 times.

Sorry
The site kept saying the page did not exist I really did not want to post this 3 times.

Movwater
Outstanding!

Can you see the difference between what your link quotes Nunez as saying, compared to what McCullough writes?

Your source states: Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez as the floor manager on the bill opened the debate saying that “having a bias free curriculum is the right thing to do. The way you correct a wrong is you outlaw it.” He spoke of the bullying that occurs every day in schools aboutsexual orientation and the need to “send a message that California is above the law.”

Compare that to what McCullough wrote: "Democrat 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."

Now the link you provided was a progressive site, so they obviously have their bias too. Nevertheless your post proves someone is lying (misrepresenting is nicer I guess) about what Nunez said at the debate.

My guess is Mr. McCullough has misquoted Nunez to make his point more dramatic....or actually just to make a point at all.

Bullwinkle/The "Quote"
I don't see it makes that much a difference.

Here, again, is the quote: "The way that you correct a wrong 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."

Why else would he say such a thing if it were not the purpose of the bill?

And let me take a moment to go through the quote.

1) "The way you correct a wrong is by outlawing" What is he addressing? What is wrong? On some issues, yes, I would agree. You correct a wrong in traffic issues by reducing the speed limit. You cannot correct a wrong in thinking by outlawing the thought. This is known as manipulation. One could even sayit is legislatingby morality, something those on the left hate.

2) "'Cause if you don't outlaw it, then people's biases tend to take over and..." Now he is identifying it is a thought, people's biases. And they are taking over something, what? Why? Does he have a bias? Is he trying to get all bias out of something?

3) "...dominate the perspective and the point of view." So he does not want this bias to dominate. Does he want another bias to dominate? Why? What's the point of view? What should it be?

We know the context. We know it is marriage and family. We know that marriage and family are mostly conservative talking points. So, what is the purpose of his quote?

Who cares if he added the "The real purpose of this bill is..." bit. It is inferred. It is inherent in the context.

Thanks for the research, Movwater
I can make a better-informed judgement as to what the fuss is about. It looks to me like "Much Ado About Nothing". If people want their children to read textbooks that say I'm evil, then they can do it at a private school off their own dime. I do think that this discusion should be kept out of grade school, and probably middle school as well. Children don't need to be indoctrinated IN EITHER DIRECTION, and that means both sides! They do need to be taught to keep their hands-and nasty comments-to themselves and show respect for one another. If that is just too hard for some Christians to swallow, you get no sympathy from me. I was bullied and assaulted several times in school by kids who liked to pick on the obvious standout. When I finally defended myself (and hurt a kid doing it-he had braces and had a lot of lascerations in his mouth when I finished with him) they tried to have me thrown out of school, while doing nothing to the pack of kids who continued to harass me. If you want your kid to beat up GLBT kids and read books that affirm your beliefs, do it elsewhere.

Man Made Religion...

We all want freedom. The natural man pursues freedom apart from the revelation of the living God. He pursues it either by man made religion or in the humanistic ideal of autonomous man making his own destiny independent of any deity. In either case man becomes his own authority.

The Bible warns us of man made religion and false Messiahs. You can recognize them every time by the method of salvation. How is a man made right with God? As soon as good works or human merit enter in to earn favor with God, then you can be sure it’s a man made religion. This is true from Islam to the Christian heresies.

The liberal man has his own religion. It is a different flavor of the gospel of Satan. Man has no need of the Almighty because he has no need of redemption. All he needs is the right education, the right opportunities and the right leadership to tell him what is good. Like Islam these fundamentals believe in forced conversion or death to the infidels, given the power.

Thank you for this article. Thank you for bringing these things to light. Thank you for joining the civil war over authority in this country. We fear the new authority of autonomous man in this culture more than Islamic fundamentalism. The autonomous man dresses himself up like an American. He understands the origin of freedom about as much as he understands the origin of man.

Pursuing freedom apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ always leads men away from purpose and meaning. Their end is failure and despair, because it is impossible to work your way to heaven or to make heaven on earth. The Bible is as clear as language can be; salvation is all of grace, and the kingdom of God is not of this world.


Justaguy
You are just addressing what McCullough SAYS Nunez said. Movwater provided a link to what most likey is what Nunez ACTUALLY said.

Your deconstruction of McCulloughs (mis)representation is meaningless if that is not what Nunez actually said.

Compare the statement from the link Movwater provided:

Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez as the floor manager on the bill opened the debate saying that “having a bias free curriculum is the right thing to do. The way you correct a wrong is you outlaw it.” He spoke of the bullying that occurs every day in schools about sexual orientation and the need to “send a message that California is above the law.”

So if McCullough is misrepresenting and misquoting Nunez, that is okay as long as you agree with his premise? Hmmmm. Situational ethics, anyone? I'm saying McCullough is deceiving us with his post, and that makes all the difference.

I am not in favor of
Gay history month, Black history month, Latino history month or any other combination you may care to metion. I am most definately in favor of AMERICAN HISTORY YEAR, for all students in middle shool, along with early Western Civilization, Classical Literature, English History, Europe from 800AD onwards and Chinese history. I think that covers the basics for public school.

Movwater
I happened to be one of the kids who was bullied and tormented in the California school system. I actually had to transfer to another high school and make a start where I was unknown. Don't tell me that GLBT kids aren't assaulted and harrased in California. I was there. I have the scars and the hatred. I'm sure that a few people have wondered why I can be so edgy on this subject and why I have such a dim view of people who so easily call GLBT people "deviants" and "perverts". I had enough of them in school, with being kicked and assaulted, told to perform an oral sexual act on a schoolbus, and generally tormented. I won't tolerate as an adult, and I won't stand by and watch others let it happen. Now you know why I am armed, and if I am attacked again, I won't stop shooting until my magazine is empty.

Kalifornia
To those of you who live in the big C on the left coast, you have my sympathies. Under attack by the libs, the illegals and the envirowackos. You guys are living in the land of fruits, nuts and flakes.
If this(these)bills pass, it's only a matter of time before they start trying to migrate east, or skip straight to the east and try to migrate to the middle from both ends. If it/they pass it won't take long before the NEA and other left-wing groups try to shove it down the throats(non-sexually of course) of "Normal everyday folks".

To paraphrase; as long as good people do nothing, take no action, evil will flourish.

"Liberalism is a mental disease"
"Progressives are liberals in drag"

Thanks for the article KMC, well written, well documented and damn scary for all of us.

Taproot

Taproot
Well documented? There is no documentation at all. Worse yet, the article is based on what appears to be a fabrication. Movwater provided more documentation than McCullough.

I have completely lost faith in conservatism, and the vitriolic repugnant partisans that have co-opted the philosophy and turned it into vapid game of 3 word ante for every discussion. This is a disgrace.
George Will and William F. Buckley Jr., you gentlemen are my last hope!

Bullwinkle
I have been a Repuplican my entire life and I don't recognize my party anymore. I'm left wondering what happened. *sigh*

Those Calif. Dems
(a) have too much time on their hands,
(b) think they can sanitize reality through legislation, and
(c) have never learned that sometimes the purpose of legislature is to PREVENT the passage of BAD and unnecessary law.

Phylo--4:20 P.M.
Phylo,Phylo,...Phylo. a little knowlege is a dangerous thing. You refer to age of enlightenment as if it were an independent entity. It just existed on its own, no history leading to it. Please investigate the renaisance, English history and protestant Christianity for the roots of the enlightenment. You will find many intelligent and brave men contributed rep utation and blood to advance the concepts which led to our magnificent Constitution. Because the founders were well aware of the repressive acts of the R.C. Church and monarchs in the past, they made it clear that political speech, no matter how distateful, wiil be protected.

The thing with modern liberals who "want to make a differece" (H. Clinton, J. Biden E.M. Kennedy etc. etc.) is the inherrant belief that what they proclaim as new and "progressive" is superior to the traditions of the U.S. people and the reasoned wisdom of the founders. Amazing hubris! Kerry vs. Jefferson, Al Gore vs. James Madison, I won't go on, these modern pea-brains should not be followed by anyone. Zell Miller finally figured it out.

One point I did not see in these posts. U.S. citizens are doomed to be burned to death while the fire department stands by? Hostages can be abused and killed while the cops do nothing? Nunez, it appears, is insane or a real moonbat to propose this.

Michael Savage: "Liberalism is a mental disease."

This post was rejected because of the word repu tation contains p-u-t-a,Yikes!)

I don't think this is real
I think Mr. Musclehead must be selectively interpreting some obscure piece of proposed legislation. I live in California, and have not heard of a proposed bill that would put teachers in jail for not telling kids about the joys of cross-dressing, or anything like that. This seems like total right-wing paranoid fantasy land. But I will do some research and find out for sure.

Movwater
It was ignored by the school system. Yes, I reported it. So did my mother, from time to time. Nothing was done. One teacher told me it must be my fault. I certainly wasn't "out" or "open" about being transgendered, because who had even heard of it in the 1970's? I hadn't. I was generally expected to fight my own battles, but I have never aquired a taste for fighting. Go figure. I'm a girl. I do believe in defending myself as an adult. If you want to be dismissive of my experiences because they don't match your views of what should have happened, then have at it. As I said, I was there.

I found out
that SB 1437 was introduced to prevent teachers from voicing their anti-gay opinions in class, and to prevent the adoption of curriculum materials with an anti-gay bias. There were also provisions in the bill that would have required a certain amount of positive references to gay/les/bi/trans lifestyles. That second part does seem a bit over the top, but try to imagine that you don't think homosexuality is some evil sin. Then it becomes a benign thing that has been unfairly stigmatized. To unstigmatize it, it's reasonable to suggest that maybe people can be guided to see it more positively, as has been the case with Black culture (no need to respond with a racist diatribe--I've heard them all).
The bill has been altered to omit changes to curriculum, but the parts that are designed to stop an anti-gay bias from being projected in school have been preserved. Now the bill is awaiting approval or rejection from Schwarzenegger, who will look at it when the mood strikes him.
In case anyone cares, I think guaranteeing a non-hostile environment for gay students is a step in the right direction. Teachers being required to praise gayness is a different story. I totally buy into gay rights, so it's not that. It's just that I don't like discussing sex. It makes me uncomfortable, particularly when I am teaching, and I imagine I am not alone in that. Sex is a fun activity to participate in, but not to discuss. It's private. So this isn't about liberalism vs. conservatism. This is about reactionary bigots like Musclehead on the one hand, and meddlesome, bureaucratic voyeurs on the other. I don't fall into either one of those categories. I'm a liberal, so I guess this isn't my debate.

Movwater
Not with the schoolbus...with someone on the schoolbus. There were other incidents that I don't really want to get into. I never said that California was a fundamentalist hotbed. I do say that the thimgs I hear from some people on this forum sound real similar to things I heard in school. As to why I stood out...you would have to find them and ask for yourself. I apparently didn't talk, walk or do things the way a boy should. I didn't learn to "camoflage" myself really well untill I went into the military. My last name didn't really help matters, since the first thing I often heard when I got off the bus was " HEY! D***EY!! COME HERE AND S*CK MY D**K!!", followed by copious laughter. I learned not to say too much to my parents(it was humiliating) and certainly not to say much to the school (being a "snitch" or a "narc" was even worse then being a "f*g" and got you a gang beating after school) I didn't have any large friends to watch my back as you seem to have. I kept my mouth shut when it became apparent that speaking out was worse then useless. I don't keep my mouth shut now, and I won't stand by as other kids receive the treatment I got, or even worse. We are on oposite sides of this argument and always will be, I suspect. I am motivated by my experience and my anger, and it is still as fresh today as 25 years ago.

Celtic-dragon
School was like that for me, too! I wasn't gay but I was quiet and nerdy and culturally inept because I had never seen TV. Kids were so mean to me. I used to get shoved and punched and called names in the hallway during passing time every day in middle school. When one girl pulled a knife on me in 7th grade, my mom reported the incident to the vice-principal, who promptly suggested that the whole thing was *my* fault for being "weak." Interestingly, I used to get called "lesbian" all the time although I was not even what you might call a tomboy. I think it was just a generic insult they used for anybody who wasn't like them. They also circulated a rumor that my dog and I were lovers. It's so stupid but like you, I am still angry about it 20 years later.

Malou,
When's the last time you saw current "curriculum materials with an anti-gay bias"? Especially in California. What's the likelyhood that California would adopt them?

Celt, Malou, others,
School bullying is indeed a problem; why should we just target bullying against glbt kids? Wouldn't it be better to keep all kids safe? Here's the thing. I'm guessing any bullying that you dealt with occured during unsupervised times, or nearly so(school bus, recess, etc.). Obviously you had problems getting adults to take you seriously or they took you seriously and blamed you for the incident. I think that has largely changed, particularly since Columbine. Nevertheless, if you tell an adult, and no adult witnessed the bullying, you end up with a he said/she said moment, with the bully's buddies backing him up. How can we thwart this?

malou
Thank you for sharing that. I'm sorry that anyone would be put through those experiences, and I know exactly how you feel. It does sound silly after so much time, but I keep finding that nothing has really changed for many people. I, and my spouse especially, keep running into harrasment or the occasional threat, and we can't help but fear for the safety of our family. I will not permit my child to face things alone the way I had to. It was a nightmare, and your situation sounds like it may have been worse. God bless you, hun and take care.

Of possible
side-note interest:

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9720

A column by Mark Goldblatt concerning free speech on a university campus.

Mayou
is leaving a lot out. This bill as originally written would probably require:

The elimination of references to 'husband and wife' and 'mom and dad' if they in any way reflected social norms.

How many books would then be have to be removed?

And why should my child not think that these things ARE social norms?

It also affects all school-sponsored activities.

You can't have a prom king and queen because that shows bias based on gender and orientation.

You can't have dress codes.

You have to accomadate transexuals on boy or girl specific sports teams...which, if you ask me, means you can't have those teams anymore, so it'd probably eliminate most sports. (Most of the restrictions, such as no boys on the girls soccer team have a basis in safety)

Celtic-Dragon - I don't think my 6 year old (OR 10 yr old or 16 yr old) needs to be taught about sexuality according to someone else's values in order not to abuse GLTB. No one has the right to abuse anyone in school and it should have been handled differently in your case. It should have been stopped. Period. It is not acceptable. For ANY reason.

But it is equally unacceptable for the government or anyone else to impose their sexual and moral values on my child. They have absolutely no right to do so, and it is not necessary to do so in order to stop the bullying that you were subject to.




Cynewulfe
That was exactly the point I made earlier in this thread. I do hope that things are taken a little more seriously now, as you said. I am not at all interested in generating propaganda for OR against anything, and I think talking about this subject in grade school is wildly inappropriate (and creepy). There has been considerable resistance to adding language to protect GLBT students from violence here in North Carolina. Ethnic minorities are specifically protected. I would be satisfied to make headway there. I don't think we need anyone telling students that someone (who may have been gay) in history was a pioneer blah blah whatever to boost esteem. The kids will be happy enough to get to the class without being roughed up in the restroom.

Cynewulfe
I LOVED your new blog entry and left my *ahem* enthusiastic comment, lol! I also left the translation to that Scots Gaelic song I copied a couple of days ago. Ceud Mille Failte! (10,000 greetings!)

sloopy
I appreciate your point of view. I would not favor "norming" books to exclude references to moms and dads or anything like that. How stupid can that be, fer Pete's ake?! I don't want to "shove" my views, or how my family lives "down your throat" anymore then I want your views "shoved" down mine. Maybe we can reach a middle ground? As I have said, I am more concerned about safety, although I also feel that books which disparage or pathologize GLBT people have no business in the school system. That's my view...

Celt, saw your reply.
As always, thanks for the visit and the compliments. I'm hoping to have the next one out in a couple days.

Actually, Celt,
I have a new entry on my blog, but it's an intermission.

Celtic-Dragon
I don't think we are really in disagreement here. The only thing I might take issue with is this:
You said "although I also feel that books which disparage or pathologize GLBT people have no business in the school system."

If you are talking about textbooks, I absolutely agree.

If you talking about banning from libraries works of fiction or historical books that may contain such disparaging remarks or views, I can't agree with that. Btw, I am also against banning such books that would disparage or conflict with a Christian world view, or banning Huckleberry Finn for its racist world view.

Whatcha think? :)



Why liberals are crushing dissent
I am so sick and tired of listening to conservatives complain about the continuing excesses of Democrats and Leftists. We’ve been doing this for decades. What have we accomplished with this complaining? Has anything really changed? If anything, this country tilts further to the Left every year, with no particular end in sight. There isn’t anyone living today that is as conservative as, say, the Democrat Harry Truman.

Moreover, we conservatives bear much of the responsibility for this travesty. We are responsible because we refuse to understand the true nature of the Leftist enemy and so approach them as if they are merely well-intentioned, though misguided, beings who can be convinced by reason, evidence and argument of the falsity of their beliefs. We are like over-indulgent parents trying to correct the behavior of wayward children with verbal admonition.

The plain and simple truth is that Leftists and Liberals seek the complete and utter destruction of the West, in general, and America, in particular. To them, the existence of the West and America is too much an affront to everything they believe in, too much a refutation of their most sacred beliefs. For reality to match the Left’s vision, much of reality must be destroyed.

Make no mistake about this. The Left seeks to kill us all and we conservatives are helping them do it.

Don’t believe me? Look at this absurd “War on Terror.” Can someone please explain to me why we are sending mostly Republican, mostly Red-State soldiers to fight and die in some Middle-Eastern hellhole so that Democrat, Blue-state civilians can safely suck down their lattes? Can someone explain to me why kids from places like Lubbock, Texas have to die so that kids from places like New York, NY and Los Angeles, CA can live to dutifully vote for Hillary Clinton?

Are terrorists threatening the water towers in Lubbock, Texas? Are terrorists putting Wal-marts in Charlotte, NC under fire? Is there an epidemic of suicide bombings across the nation’s Dairy Queens, NASCAR races, and Winn-Dixie supermarkets? No. The only terrorists Red-State Americans are threatened by are from New York law firms seeking to sue local governments over nativity scene displays.

Yet, we send our sons and daughters to die and for what? For a bunch of Democrats incinerated in some blue-state office complex by foreigners the Democrats support anyway? And what is exactly is the reward? 99% of all the Democrat senators voted for the amnesty bill that would flood Red-State America with hostile foreigners, displacing Republican-Americans with foreign peons ready for Democrat exploitation.

Conservatives need to understand that Leftists are an enemy that must be defeated with extreme prejudice. They are not fellow citizens. They are a fifth-column within that must we cut out of the body-politic like cancer or else they will destroy us all.

Luckily, Islam represents the perfect vehicle with which to destroy the Democrats. Just like Democrats import Hispanics to destroy Red-State America, so can Muslims be used to destroy blue-state America. Imagine a Muslim nuke going off in New York or L.A or both. Imagine all the electoral and popular votes the Democrats would lose. Imagine the national frenzy that could be whipped up against the remaining liberals. With the Sdm and Gomorrah of America engulfed in nuclear fire, and with that example used to show the folly of liberal policies, any remaining opposition to the Right can be crushed. The liberal dream would finally be over.

Think about this next time someone calls for an escalation of the War-on-terror-to-make-the-world-safe-for-Hillary.






All Talk No Action
It has been interesting to read all the comments and dialogue on this and other similar blogs. Considering the gravity and urgency of the situation, why is there only talk and some (albeit only limited) reaction on the conservative side???

Isn't there any one in this nation who has an offensive plan of action to attack the left's frontal assault on every American tradition??? Is there no Winston Churchill for our time???

Tom Breyer
"We are like over-indulgent parents trying to correct the behavior of wayward children with verbal admonition."

I agree. We need to stop talking to liberals and just give them good ole fashioned spanking.

If Mr. McC cannot
produce evidence that the initial quote is in fact what was stated, he has committed a grave error in his reporting and one which will be seized upon, appropriately, by his critics to dismiss his main thesis and ignore his otherwise trenchant analysis of this bill.

If conservatives must learn anything in their battles against the Left, it is that they must operate on a standard much higher than the Left enjoys.

His main point is, however, correct in insisting that the purpose of this bill is more thought control by the Left in seeking to use the power of law to classify, forbid, and punish ideas with which it does not agree and/or to encourage the dissemination of ideas it considers appropriate.

Under the terms of this bill how, one wonders, can the idea that homosexuality and its many variants are psyho-sexual dysfunctions to be treated with compassion, ever be rationally explored in the environment where that matters most?

Sloopy
Yes, I was only refering to textbooks. My apologies for the lack of clarity. Thank you for discussing this rationally-so many others won't.

This is what happens
when hatred overcomes good sense, not to mention basic human decency...

"Conservatives need to understand that Leftists are an enemy that must be defeated with extreme prejudice. They are not fellow citizens. They are a fifth-column within that must we cut out of the body-politic like cancer or else they will destroy us all.

Luckily, Islam represents the perfect vehicle with which to destroy the Democrats. Just like Democrats import Hispanics to destroy Red-State America, so can Muslims be used to destroy blue-state America. Imagine a Muslim nuke going off in New York or L.A or both. Imagine all the electoral and popular votes the Democrats would lose. Imagine the national frenzy that could be whipped up against the remaining liberals. With the Sdm and Gomorrah of America engulfed in nuclear fire, and with that example used to show the folly of liberal policies, any remaining opposition to the Right can be crushed. The liberal dream would finally be over"

Perhaps the writer would prefer his own police state, wherein he could dispose of all the liberals with any means his imagination might devise. He certainly relishes the idea of incinerating millions of his fellow citizens with nuclear fire...but anyone who he dislikes can be called a "liberal" and *presto!*, they don't count as citizens! I have written on this subject several times, now. If we cannot get over our own internal politics and learn to get along, then our true enemies may engulf us yet. Islamo-fascism is a threat on par with National Socialism, yet we have characters like the one above who seem to advocate some sort of civil war. I am reminded of Benjamin Franklin who stated (as best as I can recall) "Now we must hang together, gentlemen. For if we do not, we shall assuredly hang separately."

Bullwinkle
The quote does seem to have some questions on how verbatim it is.

Seems to me, and perhaps this is a matter of opinion, that the context is fairly accurate.

And I missed the version you provided from movwater. My apologies for that. I was going from another post. I am looking into what was said and will provide more later.


At least Nunez...
(the fascist dude) isn't hiding his true intentions.
God willing, my children will never set foot in a public school. I would sell everything I have to homeschool or do Christian school.

Honesty
I'm not that familiar with this writer but if he doctored the quotes for hyperbolic effect then I recommend he be banned from this site. Not because of his viewpoint that liberals try to control dissent. I agree with that. But we don't have to exaggerate to prove that--they do it for us everyday. And exaggeration weakens our position and makes us more like them. I want no part of that.

The California law is stupid. Sexuality is not a relevant discussion of the progress of history. I'm 59 and when I was in school, no one thought of whether historic figures were gay or straight, or anyhting else. We just learned what they accomplished-something they don't do as well today. And today it doesn't matter what their sexuality was/is either. That's my sticking point in the whole deal. Why advertise your sexuality? What does it have to do with what you are doing? Should I start introducing myself as a straight American. Would that mean something? Bullying has always gone on in the schoolyard. As a kid I was smarter than most in my school. That was not an advantage on the playground. You learn to deal. I was small, another big minus. But all in all I learned to adjust and not be afraid. Kids always have and always will pick on kids who are different unless they have good parenting. If their is violence it is a crime. But yelling "4 eyes" is stupid and legal.

Filo Dough
says pretty much nothing other than "this guy is nuts." No discussion of the issue, no discussion of the laws. Just an attack on the writer. Come on Phylo, at least say why you think he is crazy. Are these laws what he says? Do you agree with them? Are they being pushed by Dems?

Why to they silence opposing views?
"So why are liberals going to such extremes to shut down and shut out any opposing view?"

While liberals do tend to be ammoral and godless heathens, the reason why they feel the need to ban opposing ideas is quite simple:

Their own ideas are so backwards that the only way any rational person would ever take them seriously is if no other ideas were allowed to be heard.

On practically EVERY issue, the liberal position is not only irrational, but totally BACKWARDS from anything remotely resembling reason.

So in order to hide the fact that their ideas are not based on the real world as it is now, but instead they are based on some utopian fantasy world they WISH were real, they must make it illegal to point out how ludicrous their ideas are.

Sex and School
For heaven's sake. Can we just teach the kids the stuff they need to know and leave the rest of the cr*p out? I agree with Celtic Dragon and feel for her. It is horrible to be the abused outsider. This from the president of the chess club, member of the debate team, and nerd who carried a briefcase to class. I was beaten up too many times and became some what of a loner in self defense. It was not fun.

Teachers need to maintain discipline in the class and in the halls. That said, they cannot maintain discipline outside of school and that was where I had most of my problems. I think that is part of the human condition and cannot be stopped by other than moral instruction. But again, that is not the role of the school.

I think that a teacher who taught a history class and mentioned something bad about gays or good about gays should be fired. That is philosophy or morals, not history.

I also hate some of the folks in my own party who hate gays, Muslims, or other groups as groups. That is wrong. There are some gays I don't like. They are in groups like act-up and are "in your face" *ssh*les. I also hate loud and obnoxious rednecks, ghetto blaster ganstas, La Raza's and others who will not just be human rather than a personification of an agenda. There are many rednecks, gays, Muslims, hispanics, and blacks I do like, but like me, they are people, not positions.

As for our Celtic Dragon, I have to say, I love you for your mind. :-)

I have no problem with these laws as I see them written. I just have a problem with what I see as the way they will be enforced and ajudicated. I can see them being stretched away from their plain language by the liberal courts. That said, if I were the Governor, I probably would not veto them.

Reading my last post
I want to add. If the class is human sexuality or psychology, or a college level class on transmission of STDs, I would expect to have the negatives (and positives) of homosexuality, transgenderism, et al discussed.

There are positives and negatives about everything and if the class is about the clinical psychology or pathology of those things, the negatives MUST be allowed to be discussed. This law would not allow that.

Celtic, still missing the point
Celtic, are you claiming that is SHOULD BE illegal for a teacher to claim that necrophelia -- a sexual orientation -- is a bad thing?

The fact of the matter remains that the bill(s) is specifically written to guarantee a lie continues to be repeated -- that lie being that homosexuality is deviant behavior. Regardless of your moral views on homosexuality (Personally I don't find any moral value whatsoever in homosexuality -- that is I neither judge it as 'good' nor 'evil'. But then I hold the same view of heterosexuality. Neither has any moral value in and of itself.), that can't change the IRREFUTABLE FACT that homosexual behavior IS deviant behavior.

The fact of the matter is that most people tend to frown upon deviancy, and whether that is a good thing or a bad thing really doesn't matter in this debate. Being left-handed is 'deviant', and in a world created for right-handers it can be assumed they are 'frowned upon' (My mom, my dad, my sister, one of my uncles, one of my cousins, all left handed, so I think I know what I'm talking about when I claim the 'right-handed world'. In my family, it is really ME who is the deviant in this respect, I guess). Simply enforcing the lie that left-handedness is really the 'norm' doesn't make it true.

But the difference between homosexuality and left-handedness is that one is born left-handed, but the proponderance of evidence from psychologists suggests that is probably not the case for homosexuality. The rate of childhood abuse among homosexuals is so much higher than among heterosexuals that it could suggest that perhaps there is a link, thereby making homosexuality MORE than simply genetic deviancy as left-handedness can be considered. (Of course the elevated rate of childhood abuse in and of itself isn't definitive proof. Are homosexual children more prone to abuse due to some other factor, or does the abuse cause the homosexuality? It's the same sort of question that is asked of violent video games: do kids who are more prone to violence enjoy violent games more, or do the video games cause kids to be more violent?)

If it IS the case that homosexuality can be 'caused' by, say, childhood abuse, how, then, could it be considered NOT a mental illness? The APA's decision to label it "not a mental illness" seemed to stem from the flawed logic that homosexuality doesn't cause destructive behavior (which would be news to the majority of AIDS patients) and irrationality. But often times a person with multiple personalities is not irrational. They simply have more than one personality. Does that then mean they don't have a "mental illness"?

If we were to fall back to the notion that it IS a 'mental illness', then why, exactly, should one be forced to speak of it in a positive light? Mental illnesses are a BAD thing, which is why most rational people would think treatment, instead of promoting the illness's spread, be the better choice.

That really is what this is all about. On one side of the boat are people who not only see homosexuality as deviancy, but also perhaps signs of illness, and therefore should not be promoted in a positive sense for that reason. On the other, you have people who don't even want deviancy to be thought of as deviancy. Why should the rule of law not only support one side, but support them to a degree where they are forcing institutionalized lying, and banning the truth?

necrophilia???
Huh? Who said anything about necrophilia? This is a dodge, if I ever saw one. There is nothing in this law that deals with that subject.. AS I KEEP SAYING...there is no need, in my judgement, to "teach" about being Gay, Lesbian or Transgendered. The kids who are GLBT or have GLBT parents, as would be the case with my son, are already aware of it. I want to see specific protections in place to stop bullying and harrassment, as well as keeping the curriculum neutral. Neutral means no advocacy either way.

Jeff
Thank you so much for your kind words! I do appreciate them! :-)

More fact checks
Besides SB 1437, can the author or anyone else here even cite what the other three bills are when he claims: "These four bills are also dangerous in what they outlaw."

What are the State Bill numbers on those other three?

Wouldn't it be nice to see the actual language of the bills themselves for debate, rather than rely just on McCullough's characterizations of those bills????




Another step of indoctrination...
For those who think there is no agenda at work in the state of California - you might want to check out this piece in today's SF Chronicle...

http://kevinmccullough.townhall.com/UserControls/g/9302ddff-52bf-4c10-8768-0d48f413ea03

BILL NUMBERS
SB 1437, SB 1441, AB 1056, AB 606


Bullwinkle
I have tried to find a good source for the quote other than what is hear. I can't really find one; one side says he said this, the other says he said something different. I have yet to find a good third party source for the quote. Please direct me to a good third party source, if you have one.

But I think the claim has rightly been made that while the words may be somewhat different, the same conclusion can be met: Nunez and others want to squelch the debate.

KMC
Thank you for those SB numbers. I'll look into them further when I get home from work.

Now, about that quote of Nunez...."The real purpose of SB 1437 is to outlaw traditional perspectives on marriage and family in the state school system."

What is the source material of that quote? A debate transcript would be best proof.

The following website shows his quote as being different than what is shown on this post.

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2006/08/california_asse_2.html

The more information the better.

All Talk No Action
Jerubaal....thank you for at least acknowledging my comment and query. Since no one else responded, am I to infer that the rest of you are only interested in talking? Or is my post inappropriate for this blog?

I'm one of that "silent majority" who wants to get involved, but I don't want to just talk. If I need to go somewhere else to address my question, I would appreciate any direction you experienced bloggers can provide. Thanks

Kevin McCollough
is worried about a private gradeschool that deals with gender-varient children. Note the word "private". It isn't any concern of his, or anyone else for that matter, because tax payer dollars are not at work. Parents with GLBT kids can enroll with private funds, so what's the deuce? If you don't like the school, by all means, PLEASE DON'T SPEND YOUR HARD-EARNED MONEY TO ENROLL THERE!!! This is so silly it's actually preposterous. Are we going to keep getting paranoid delusional conspiracy stories from Mr. McCollough, or can we expect some actual conservative red meat about fiscal policy, defense and foreign relations? Y'Know, the stuff we Republicans USED to talk about under Reagan.

To Rap
I can understand your frustration. And the helpless feelings you have. At one time I felt the same way. Looking for answers to seemingly unanswerable questions. You will not find an immediate answer on this forum or any other. What you will find is an education in the problems we deal with. In that way you can make better decisions on what actions to take and get involved to affect change. Such as voting, writing your reps etc. These forums serve only to keep people in touch and exchange ideas.

Bullwinkle
The source you quote is from a progressive group. I am sure you know this, but understand that what you read there is going to spin it in their direction.

Will the Gov sign it?
He who says to the wicked, "You are righteous,"
Him the people will curse;
Nations will abhor him
Prov 24:24 (NKJV)

When will judgement come for CA?

Justaguy
You wrote: "The source you quote is from a progressive group."

I know. I mentioned that caveat in a prior post. I am waiting for the author to step up to the plate and definitively answer the question...after all it is his responsibility to be able to back up what he claims, and source his material.


These bills are a bunch of baloney
Kids harrass each other for all sorts of reasons.
Schools should enforce courteous and respectful behavior for ALL students at ALL times.
We don't need to identify "special" groups in order to set acceptable behavior standards.
And yes, I know all about harrassment, been there done that, have the bruises to prove it.

All the protected group status does is further fracture our society into a warring bunch of special interest groups, instead of training children to be rational citizens.

The California textbooks and teachers management is merely an excuse. I have yet to meet the teacher (or textbook) spewing forth hate rhetoric towards their GLBT (or other) students. However, I DO see how these laws can be used to muzzle true enquiry and debate, which is the purpose of the higher levels of the educational system.

For example, does this mean that a history teacher mentioning the Prophet Mohammed married Aisha when she was six years old is a negative portrayal of Islam?

Or could a health/science teacher not mention an NIH study showing that gay men in one Canadian city die (on average) at age 47?

All one has to do is read about some of the laws passed in Europe to see where this is going.

Big Brother, welcome home.

Bullwinkle
Understood, just pointing out the fact.

From all of what I have seen surrounding this quote, it seems that it is being spun on both sides. There are sites from Christian sources who quote exactly what Mr. McCullough has.

I am choosing to give credit to the author at least for contextually getting it correct, though he should not get a pass if he is egregiously wrong. That would be bad, though I think he has it pretty close.

Besides, to go a step further, I would ask if you hold liberal writers to the same standard?

Justaguy
You wrote "I would ask if you hold liberal writers to the same standard?"

Answer: You better believe it. I took on Keith Olbermann on his blog for regurgitating much unsourced material involving the "voter irregularity" story in Florida and Ohio after the 2004 election.

Journalistic integrity on both sides is mandatory for meaningful debate.

Fair enough, and I agree
And open communication, likewise.

Without dialogue, it is fruitless to debate.

This is becoming harder to achieve with the advent of the "soundbite"

Bullwinkle,
Did you find out anything about the other bills?

I have to side with Bullwinkle here
I consider myself a conservative. I have no illusions about the ultime goals of the more radical gay activists. I believe that attempts to normalize homosexual relations through school indoctrination will end in social disaster.

For all that, I'm with Bullwinkle here. The more shocking and outrageous a report, the greater the need for it to be thoroughly documented. In my view, McCullough, by transforming:

"In his opening remarks, Democrat Fabian Nunez, the Assembly Speaker and the bill's floor jockey, openly said the real purpose of SB 1437 is to outlaw traditional perspectives on marriage and family in the state school system."

to

"Democrat 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.'"

has committed a sin against the truth -- and very possible an actionable libel. Can't you see that? He has transformed a partisan source's interpretation of the Speaker's remarks to a direct quote. The two are very different things.

I'm actually quite willing to believe that the interpretation is correct. *But it is an interpretation, not a quote, and does not carry the same weight.*

Isn't the verifiable quote --

"Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez as the floor manager on the bill opened the debate saying that 'having a bias free curriculum is the right thing to do. The way you correct a wrong is you outlaw it.' "

-- bad enough? He's saying that criticism of homosexuality is wrong, and that this wrong attitude should be corrected by force of law. He's looking to establish criticism of homosexuality as a thought crime in the schools. Why do we need to dress it up any further?

The claim that:

"But one of the bills goes a step further. Its actual purpose is to cripple any state resources such as fire department 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."

strikes me as patently ludicrous. I can't see this interpretation being taken seriously even by the liberal 9th Circuit Court. I certainly can't take it seriously. If you can find even a single respected professor of law who agrees that this is a plausible interpretation of the bill, then I'll take it more seriously.

Even my dachshunds have the sense to sniff a piece of red meat before bolting it down.


All Talk No Action-Again
Goshawk......thank you for your reply. Based on the overwhelming lack of response to either of my posts, I came to that conclusion as well.

However, I at least want to try. So, I just created a BLOG on this website: (reclampro.townhall.com) to try and identify people who want to do more than discuss the issues. I have spent a lot of time thinking about this issue and believe I have come up with a potential strategy that would be profound in both it's efficacy and ease of facilitation. I'm sure there are others out there like me who just need somebody to organize a movement and help everyone put all the pieces together.

Again, thank you for your courtesy and for taking the time to acknowledge my post.

Bullwinkle,
Thanks for the links.

Rap,
This thread is nearing it's end; you may want to repost the announcement of your blog first thing in the morning on a column that's likely to get a lot of hits (Mike Adams, Ann Coulter, Thomas Sowell, etc.).

Looked at the bills,
very quickly. While they don't seem to be outrageous, they do seem unnecessary. But that's California's business. I will say this, we won't know the bills' effect until each school district interprets and implements them. Also, it's important to look not just what a single bill will do, but also how they interact. But, again, I'll leave that to the Californians here.

All Talk No Action
Cynewulf......Thank you for the advice. This is a learning process for me. I will get busy making those posts. Let the RAP begin!!!

To Luis...
This is our 2nd year homeschooling our middle son. Our oldest son is at a Christian school. Next year we will probably have all 3 of our kids at the Christian school. I agree that it is worth the cost in time and money.

Interestingly
"But for those of you who read this, I just want to say that not all who think Cindy Sheehan is misguided are heartless folks.

Not all who support the war are mean spirited people.

And not everyone out there thinks Cindy is right. Jusging by the fact that I have now had two posts removed for voicing opposition, it seems that the folks at Daily Kos want ya'll to think that.

Its not the case.

I'll be curious to see if this stays."

I just posted this at Daily Kos. I am indeed curious to see how long it stays. I posted two times before, and even had a brief discussion with a few folks re the war, only to find them both to be deleted shortly there after.

If the left were really for free speech and open dialogue, why are they deleting my posts? And most of you should know I do indeed try to show respect to all. Did the same there.

GOV SCHWARZENEGGER SIGNS FIRST BILL
For those following the story.

Gov. Schwarzenegger has signed the first bill into law - which will effectively stifle all FAITH-BASED institutions without exception, on issues of sexual practice.

http://kevinmccullough.townhall.com/UserControls/g/cfea4482-b124-4a80-b532-49e0015e7e07

Wish I had better news to report!

Liberals posting here I have a ? for u.
Quick question: have you ever not been allowed to post anything here or have you had your posting privileges removed?

Do you know of anyone who has?

Thanks.

Bullion Babysitting
You're a gold-minder. No, not a gold-miner, a gold-minder; it's a new job. Basically, you're given a sack of gold to take care of. In 18 years, you can open the sack, and the contents are yours.

Well, you like gold, but it's heavy. I'd be a pain in the neck to carry it everywhere all the time. I mean, other gold-minders don't, and, hey, you've got another job. Well, you can usually count on friends and family to help. Sometimes it'll be fine at home by itself, and, y'know, people can be hired, of course. Every year, when it's time, you can hand it over to a courier, to carry off for government processing.

After 18 years, you open the sack. What's inside?

Response to Celtic-Dragon from TomBreyer
Celtic-dragon wrote…

“This is what happens when hatred overcomes good sense, not to mention human decency”

referring to my solution to the liberal problem. Yes, I do hate liberals and I’ll tell you something right now. If you do not learn to hate your enemy as much as he hates you, then you will always be his victim.

The Left in this country absolutely hates the Right. Do you want to know why they always counter your reasoned arguments with invective? That is because they out-and-out despise you and everything you have to say and everything that you believe. If it were up to them, then they would throw every Right-winger into gas chambers and not lose one moment of sleep about it.

Celtic-dragon wrote:

“Perhaps the writer would prefer his own police state, wherein he could dispose of all the liberals with any means his imagination might devise. He certainly relishes the idea of incinerating millions of his fellow citizens with nuclear fire...but anyone who he dislikes can be called a "liberal" and *presto!*, they don't count as citizens!”

Get a clue…we already live in a police state, where liberal views are permanently woven into the fabric of institutional life, while anything conservative is openly ridiculed and pushed into the closet. Oh, and I love the old canard that someone like me wants to kill those he simply “dislikes” by calling them “liberal.” Tell me, is liberalism a coherent and opposing ideology that we on the Right are trying to fight, or is it simply a label that we use to call something we don’t like? If the latter, then maybe Townhall.com should shut itself down.

Celtic-dragon wrote:

“If we cannot get over our own internal politics and learn to get along, then our true enemies may engulf us yet. Islamo-fascism is a threat on par with National Socialism, yet we have characters like the one above who seem to advocate some sort of civil war. I am reminded of Benjamin Franklin who stated (as best as I can recall) "Now we must hang together, gentlemen. For if we do not, we shall assuredly hang separately."

Have you actually paid attention to the news in, oh, the last 5 years? Our whole internal politics is over whether or not the enemy should engulf us. One-half of the electorate says “no” and the other half says “yes.” Guess which half is shouting “yes”? You guessed it…the liberals.

We spend more time fighting liberal attempts to make it easier for Islamists to kill us than we spend actually fighting Islamists. If liberals are not constructing glowing hagiographies on individual terrorist personalities, rewriting Islamic history, covering-up attacks by Muslims against Westerners, or generally telling us we’re psychotic for feeling threatened, then they are accusing our troops of atrocities, ending monitoring programs like NSA and SWIFT, and plastering national security secrets in newspapers for the entire world to see. These are the people with whom you suggest we “hang together?”

You claim that Islamo-fascism is a threat on par with National Socialism. But how? The
Nazis had a world-class army with state-of-the-art weaponry that could project power. The Islamists have no such training or technology. Yes, their suicide terrorism and fanatical devotion to killing us is certainly frightening, but such terrorism is only effective if Islamists are in-country. That is, if Islamists are here.

Now, let’s do a little thought experiment. If there were no Muslims living in America, then doesn’t it stand to reason that Muslim suicide terrorism would cease to be an issue for us? And if having no Muslims in America ensures our national security, then doesn’t it stand to reason to alter our domestic immigration and naturalization policies instead of creating an international crisis?

Oh, but wait…liberals would call this racist. Or sexist. Or homophobic. Or hating. Or whatever else they want to call it. So even within the common-sense measure of not letting in Muslims, we would need to battle liberals.

As you can see, liberals are the central problem. Get rid of liberals and the problem goes away.




Thank you for that repy, TomBreyer
Sometimes it can soooo refreshing to listen to unhinged, irrational hatred. Good luck on those plans to exterminate half of the country...

To Celtic Dragon from TomBreyer
My plans?

What makes you think I have any plans?

What makes you think I even need any plans?

With the current attacks on America's national security apparatus in full swing and the rampant invasion of America by foreigners, circumstances alone will be enough to exterminate a big chunk of the country.

When the Mexicans burn down Los Angeles because their demands are not met; or when the Muslims set off a nuke in New York City because they get a bought of "madness", then the rampant extermination of a big chunk of the liberal population will be complete. The balance can be dealt with under the right-wing national security state that will, no doubt, emerge, and that I will gladly be a part.

I need not do anything more than wait.

We do, however, have the power to prevent this bleak future: Get rid of immigration, remove the foreigners and end liberalism, starting with the rampant liberalism of the Republiacn Party (and yourself.)

Do nothing and I guarantee, America will not be immune to fascism. Circumstances will get bad enough where popular support for an oppressive leader will emerge. It happened before; it will happen again.

Be forewarned!!

After the fact; manliness.
Celtic-dragon
You’re full of boloney. You want us to feel your pain. What did you think was going to be the reaction when you approached another boy in school and tried to grope him? When you went around testing boys’ manliness. When you swished up and down the hallways calling attention to your self. The odds are you flaunted yourself because of a masochistic streak. And you now use self righteousness to rally your cause. Maybe the torment was good for you, because you’re finally starting to talk like a man.

left-wing intolerance and bigotry
There is not a more hateful, left-wing site infecting the internet than

craigslist

That bunch of cowards brag about the fact that conservate o