The Loss of Freedoms

[rushmc 18]

Many out there consider GWB the greatest threat to our freedoms since Hitler. While there are many things done by his admin that I do not agree with I do not believe that he is a threat to our freedoms.

Government in general will always be a threat unles contoled by the people but GWB is not the evil bastard many have characterized him as (IMO)

The following, again, in my opinion, is just one example of a greater threat to this country and our freedoms.




Why liberals are crushing dissent
Kevin McCullough
------------------------------------------------------------
August 25, 2006 -- Liberals are actively undermining First Amendment rights to free speech by trying to crush opposing views.

Growing ever bolder in their naked grab for power they are leaving scorched earth behind those who disagree with them. This is why Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller no longer find themselves included in the modern Democratic Party. What is left over for the Democrats are wildly anti-American, anti-God and anti-biblical leftists who are now bragging about their use of brute force to crush the voices of those who disagree with them.

Perhaps that's why this week in one of the boldest moves yet by a sitting liberal, Democrat California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez proclaimed, "The real purpose of SB 1437 is to outlaw traditional perspectives on marriage and family in the state school system."

He continued, "The way you correct a wrong (perspective) is by outlawing. 'Cause if you don't outlaw it, then people's biases tend to take over and dominate the perspective and the point of view."

Nunez's solution to the people he disagrees with is to outlaw their ability to disagree with him.

And Nunez's viewpoint is one that pervades liberals in his party and in the nation. That is why Nunez and his fellow Democrats in the California State Assembly voted in unison to pass four bills that are all designed to punish people who disagree with them. To incarcerate someone for daring to criticize a different point of view – over a purely behavioral issue.

The bills in question have passed both houses and await Gov. Schwarzenegger's signature or veto. The bills were unanimously embraced by the Democrats and universally denounced by the Republicans.

What do they say?

These four bills would require that in every classroom from kindergarten through high school perverse sexual activity be praised and highlighted in a positive light. They would require textbooks, many of which would then also be produced for other states beyond the borders of California, make positive references to the ideas of men putting on women's under things. They would restrict school districts from being able to bar females from displaying dildos on the outerwear of their prom dress. And in functional sexuality courses from K-12, they would require positive explanation of the merits and instruction of anal intercourse.

These four bills are also dangerous in what they outlaw. No single teacher – not even in science classes – would be allowed to talk about the negative health impact of homosexual behavior. No school counselor would be allowed to confirm to a molested student that they felt wrong about continuing in a homosexual relationship that they were primarily drawn into because of earlier molestation to begin with. No mention of moral aspects of sexual behavior would be permitted unless immoral activity were praised and in fact referred to as moral.

In other words, the pushing of the sexual envelope would be unleashed with a nitro-fueled explosion the likes of which has never been seen in America's history.

One of the bills goes a step further. Its actual purpose is to cripple any state resources such as fire or police protection for any religious institution – i.e., a Bible-based church – that would in any way demonstrate negative "doctrine" or "propaganda." So if an arsonist (who also just happened to be a radical activist) decided to burn down a church that was in their view teaching the faithful interpretation of Scripture as it relates to sexual practice, then the local fire company could be barred from assisting in the recovery and protection of said facility.

So why are liberals going to such extremes to shut down and shut out any opposing view?

Because they are a stubborn and sinful people – people that are bent on reshaping a utopia that God did not design and one that will never exist.

Just because the entire world claims there is no God doesn't make Him disappear. Just because a majority of voters might even say that two men hooking up is the moral equivalence of marriage doesn't mean it is marriage.

Liberals are wracked with guilt because the conscience that God put inside of them has told them again and again that such things are wrong. But instead of choosing to change their view, they have instead chosen to crush anyone and everyone who would give support to the message that their heart already knows.

Without Judeo-Christian morals, there would be no society in place today that would have allowed freedom of speech. And as the moral framework of the Judeo-Christian society that America has always been is systematically being targeted for erasure, the little power mongers and dictators are already aligning to rule with absolute say.

Speaker Nunez's view to "outlaw traditional perspectives" is shocking in its blunt regurgitation. It is also, sadly, not new to the hard left in America. And without the power of debate, ideas and dissent it is being given a larger and larger place at the table.

So the godless have announced their intentions and now it is up to us to speak – while we still have voice. Call Gov. Schwarzenegger today at 916-445-2841 and ask him to protect free speech and perspectives of many sorts.

Moral guilt serves its purpose and the best way to rid one's self of it is to change behavior. To attempt to appease it by stifling those you disagree with will only cause it to grow.

What happens when the opposition is gone and the guilt still pervades?

Common sense has been telling us this for years – will we listen?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,649]

Kevin McCullough

BwaaaHaHa.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Nice
No content just and attack.

Can we say uhh, liberal tactic?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BirdBabe1 0]

I don't know too much about Kevin, but here's his site
http://www.muscleheadrevolution.com

Regardless of who he is, what he says has some truth to it. People often hate the good that brought them to where they are. "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

[narcimund 0]

Too bad. A thread about homosexuality and sexual politics, but Michelle has prohibited me from participating.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[wmw999 2,149]

That's one of the funniest things I ever read.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

You have a disjointed sense of humor I guess......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

...make positive references to the ideas of men putting on women's under things.

See, I don't see the problem with this...

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Many out there consider GWB the greatest threat to our freedoms since Hitler.

Nah, you're invoking Hitler to make GWB's critics all seem Sheehan-esque.

Since Hitler? No. Since McCarthy? Yeah. (Joe, not Gene.). Since Nixon, in his worst "Enemies List", sic-the-IRS-on-'em paranoia and retribution? Yeah.

Nixon had a Dem-majority Congress. GWB has always had a GOP-majority Congress. Might Nixon have been as harmful as GWB had he had a GOP-controlled Congress? Maybe. Would a Dem-controlled Congress have held some of GWB's damage in check? Maybe. Oh, well, so much for historical fantasy.

[unformed 0]

rushmc,

There is no point in even trying. Most of today's adults have been brainwashed by 60's and 70's liberal radicals. There is no hope for them. All we can do is spread the Love and Righteousness - the word of God - and hope that as today's children grow up they will find in their heart what is true.

Sexuality has been glamorized by the media for thte past twenty years. It used to be that sex was meant to be between a husband and a wife, for the purpose of procreation. Then it was accepted between friends. Just look at the Bonfire. The immorality in our society is overwhleming.

It is only natural that as people began to practice promiscuity and have no concerns about the number of partners that eventually they will not have any concern about the sex of their partners. And therefore, now homosexuality is being not only accepted, but glamorized by the media. It is only time when bestiality too will accepted and maybe less than a century afterwards when it too is glamorized. My belief is that shortly after will be the Judgement.

Is it a coincidence that one of the worst diseases in our world, HIV, originated in a monkey and the way of transfer from monkeys to humans is unknown and it was then spread primary by homosexuality? Is it a simple coincidence or was it the Lord warning us?

This is the way our world is going but, unfortunately, due to free will, there is nothing we can do except save ourselves and spread the Word and hope that there are those who listen.

This ad space for sale.

[Skyrad 0]

'at twenty-three i realized, this ain't the life for me,
so, fuck all, i said, i'm gonna be free...
i want to live like an airborne ranger,
livin a life of sex and danger!'

http://www.sexanddanger.com

Careful you don't bite that tongue of yours

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Darius11 12]

I don’t know the guy who wroth the article but if he is describing the bills accurately then I don’t agree with them either.

Extremists suck on all sides from Crazy Muslims to Crazy Feminists all of them suck. They usually represent a minority but are louder then the majority.

I believe in choice but how do we do that when we have so many different cultures in this country?
I say we have to follow the majority as long as it does not prohibit the minority. Off course all people would have the same rights.

So if I am in America and the majority is Christians then guess what my kids are going to have Christmas off and I need to deal with it or go to a privet Muslims school.

However I believe morals and propaganda from all sides should be left out of our schools. It is not a teacher’s job to tell my kid about anal sex or if homosexuality is right or wrong. As a parent I should be the first person my child comes to for any moral question and as a parent it is my right to teach my child my views.

Neither Libelers nor Conservatives should have the right to teach my kids about sensitive moral issues. Especially because most people are not way right or left but closer to the center.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[wmw999 2,149]

Here is a link to the actual text of the bill, and the changes that it makes in the education code.

It doesn't require any of those things. It just says that the educational materials cannot target homosexual behavior as negative. It would include sexual orientation in the list of human attributes that cannot be targets of discrimination. Other human attributes include race, gender, place of birth, religion, etc.

There's nothing in there about teaching anal sex to jr. high students. Just as prohibiting racial discrimination didn't mean that you HAD to marry someone of another race, it just meant you couldn't make a law against it any more, and you couldn't use the term "jungle bunnies" in class

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Royd 0]

Quote

Neither Libelers nor Conservatives should have the right to teach my kids about sensitive moral issues. Especially because most people are not way right or left but closer to the center.

The problem is that liberals are practically militant in driving their agenda.
One of the planks of their agenda is to destroy anything that is based on a moral law, and encourage the opposite. Those young minds are molded quite easily, unless there are parents at home with a good since of right and wrong.
The educational system is not run by middle of the road people.
Here in Fl. the liberal supreme court made the voucher system illegal, thus eliminating the ability of many parents from taking their own tax money and sending their children to the school of their choice.

[wmw999 2,149]

What freedom are you losing here? The freedom to call people "fucking fags" in school? The freedom to declare what is immoral based on your own values?

All this law does is say that you cannot point out that behavior as immoral. It does not say that you have to declare it as moral. You don't have to mention it at all.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[hairyjuan 0]

want to bet?



www.hermes-press.com

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[wmw999 2,149]

I'm so sorry you and chuteless missed each other

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Is it a coincidence that one of the worst diseases in our world, HIV, originated in a monkey and the way of transfer from monkeys to humans is unknown and it was then spread primary by homosexuality? Is it a simple coincidence or was it the Lord warning us?

or one might notice the tight genetic similarities between primates and not be surprised that diseases jump.

If these pathogens are warnings from the Lord, then what is the message of avian flu?

[Remster 24]

Quote

then what is the message of avian flu?

Thou shall not eat pink chicken.

Remster

[livendive 8]

Freedom and the Constitution are sooo pre-9/11

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Freedom and the Constitution are sooo pre-9/11

Blues,
Dave

Must be a sad (delusional) world you live in........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Freedom and the Constitution are sooo pre-9/11

Blues,
Dave

Must be a sad (delusional) world you live in........

Fixed it.
Face it, the terrorists have won.

[Michele 1]

disclaimer: I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS IF SOMEONE IS GAY OR NOT; I HAVE NO DOG IN THIS FIGHT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. I AM NOT HOMOPHOBIC, OR ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY WHATSOEVER.

That being said...playing devil's advocate here...

Quote

All this law does is say that you cannot point out that behavior as immoral. It does not say that you have to declare it as moral. You don't have to mention it at all.

Why not? Why can't I voice my opinion about something? Why can't I say what I believe to be immoral? Why can't I state my belief about something?

There are already laws on the books about inciteful languaging. Shouldn't that be enough? I'm not allowed to say things which might incite a riot, for example...and to me, hate speech, in whatever form it takes (be it "nigger" or "fag" or "kike") is abhorent...and is curtailed already by those laws. So why single out homosexuality for "special" laws?

And is this the lip of the slippery slope? Will there come a time where I can't say something because it just might offend someone, even though I truly believe it to be so?

That's the issue I have here...the singling out of a particular segment of society for special laws. That's the crux of the issue, imho.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[narcimund 0]

I can see why it's convenient for you to take strong positions then prohibit anyone with different positions from responding.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[mnealtx 0]

It's Amendment 27.5... currently written in invisible ink:

"The right of the People to not be offended shall not be abridged."

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706