Glenn Beck – The Last Of A Five Day Series – The New Republic , Americas Future (day 5)

A Call to Action

Friday, August 28, 2009
By Glenn Beck

What a week.

The president said he was going to fundamentally transform America. Since January 20, he’s been racing full steam ahead toward doing just that. This week, can you feel a pivot point? Doesn’t it feel like, as a nation, we are waking up?

We’ve showed you some amazing, frightening facts and the White House hasn’t challenged any of it.

Unfortunately, I guess that means they agree with the information we’ve presented on people like green jobs “czar” Van Jones. He’s an avowed communist and radical activist who co-founded the communist group STORM — a group that describes themselves and their activities as:

“We upheld the Marxist critique of capitalist exploitation. We agree with Lenin’s analysis of the state and the party. And we found inspiration and guidance in the insurgent revolutionary strategies developed by third world revolutionaries like Mao Tse-Tung and Amilcar Cabral.”

//

The White House hasn’t bothered to even spin the information we presented on FCC diversity “czar” Mark Lloyd. This guy actually lamented the fact that non-state-run radio stations prevented the “incredible” revolution in Venezuela:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK LLOYD, FCC DIVERSITY CHIEF: In Venezuela, with Chavez, really an incredible revolution — a democratic revolution — to begin to put in place saying that we’re going to have impact on the people of Venezuela the property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled — work frankly with folks here in the U.S. government worked to oust him and came back and had another revolution. And Chavez then started to take the media very seriously in this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

That pesky private sector! It’s just littered with that non-propaganda talk.

Lloyd has talked about balancing out the airwaves — and that’s not just conservatives, that’s everyone who doesn’t agree with the state. Again, the White House is not disputing any of this. That should frighten you. Especially in light of the story on Drudge today about the bill that would give Obama emergency control of the Internet. Wait, that sounds familiar… oh yeah, that’s “czar” Cass Sunstein’s idea.

How about the New York chair of the Apollo Alliance — the people who designed the stimulus package? His name is Jeff Jones. Before deciding who to give your tax money to, Jones co-founded the Weather Underground with Bill Ayers. The Weather Underground is a domestic terrorist group that came out of the communist revolutionary group Students for Democratic Society of the 1960s.

Does that bother the White House? Apparently not because they haven’t denied any of this, nor have they fired anyone or even denounced these radical backgrounds. And the radical Jones is currently helping New York spend more of the stimulus.

Yet, the White House does seem pretty concerned about you.

The Department of Homeland Security warned of the rise in “right-wing militia” groups — their report said if you are concerned about “legislation on tighter firearms” you could be in a “white supremacist militia movement.”

They are name-calling you.

Saul Alinsky’s big strategy was to take the enemy out of their comfort zone. Van Jones and all of these “czars” know this; they are radicals. To quote Van Jones: “We need to be about the whup-a**. Somebody’s f****ng up somewhere. They have names and job descriptions. You have to be creative about how you engage the enemy, because if you do it on his terms, the outcome is already known.”

You are fighting on their level. We’re taking it. We’re being called greedy hate-mongers who only care about profits whatever else and we cower.

Tonight, I am going to lay out a plan.

Step 1: Fear not and take them on.

We’ve been fighting on their terms — afraid to say anything. It’s time to forget that! Let’s make them uncomfortable with the facts:

— You think I want to starve inner-city children? Really? Let’s look at the policies where radical progressives have had control. The cities with the top 10 poverty rates in America have been run by Republicans only 8 percent of the time since 1965 and eight out of the 11 have been run by Democrats 100 percent of the time.

— Am I the one that hurts education? Washington, D.C., has long been controlled by progressives. They spend $15,000 per student (the national average is $10,000), yet they are still ranked among the worst in the country: Only 60 percent of the kids graduate and only 9 percent will complete college within five years of graduating.

— Am I reckless for supporting gun rights? In England they banned guns in 1998. For the next seven years, the number of deaths and injuries from gun crimes increased 340 percent — because, guess what, criminals aren’t going to wait on a background check on their way to shoot someone.

— I’m “unpatriotic” and “cold-hearted” and even part of “the mob” for opposing government-run health care? When was the last time, in America, you saw patients in hospitals so thirsty they had to drink water from the nearby plants or 4,000 new moms being forced to give birth in hallways because of a shortage of rooms or see someone have their supposedly removed spleen suddenly rupture? Because all of those things did happen in the U.K., where they do have government health care.

The argument isn’t about the facts anymore. When the shouters — on either side — are wrong, instead of admitting it, they just call you a hatemonger. They try and shame you into silence.

We need to screw our courage to the sticking place and, without fear, force them to face the tough questions — no matter what name you’re called or what threat you face because the truth shall set you free.

Sure, groups will come after you. If you disagree with man-made global warming the radicals will attack you and call you a flat-Earth believing, Holocaust-denying, selfish jerk who would rather drive an SUV than save the planet from certain destruction.

But the IPCC report that they so love to quote says the best way to fight global warming isn’t by getting a Prius, it’s by not eating meat. How many of your Earth-loving green friends are vegans? From here on out, when they start lecturing you about the planet, ask: Do you eat meat? Do you have leather shoes? If they say anything else other than “absolutely not,” tell them to sit down and shut up. And when they stop doing more supposed damage with their steak, then you can talk to me about my SUV.

And maybe we’ll also talk about the green jobs “czar,” who sees green jobs like this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VAN JONES, GREEN JOBS ‘CZAR’: We want a green economy that is strong enough to lift people out of poverty. We’re not leaving anybody behind. We don’t want an eco-elite economy.

We’re talking about people that don’t have a home. How do they get to be part of this green economy?

What good is a green economy if at the end of the day, it’s just eco-apartheid anyway?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Which is it: We need green jobs because the Earth has a temperature (like Al Gore said) or we need green jobs for social justice?

By the way, that’s Marxist code language. Social justice equals “take from him and give to him.”

America, don’t you see it? This isn’t about Republicans vs. Democrats. This is about Republicans and Democrats and Independents against radicals, revolutionaries and anti-capitalist nut jobs.

Almost all Americans love the Constitution and we may disagree with this policy or that, but the fundamental transformation — the change that 80 percent of America was looking for — was a driving out of the money changers — those in bed with special interests, global corporations, Wall Street fat cats and political party hacks.

In the coming weeks on this program I’m going to ask you to continue to watch with a piece of paper because I’m going to continue to expose these connections and plans that are out of step with almost everybody in this country — unless you live in the basement of Nancy Pelosi’s house in the most radically progressive neighborhood in the country while eating arugula and roast beef sandwiches!

But we’re also going to arm you with facts. It’s time to be unafraid and stop fearing name-calling, because sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

And just so you know, for those of you who are working for this revolution at the White House and SEIU and ACORN and Americorps, you should go back and listen to The Beatles’ “White Album.” Listen to a song, co-written by your progressive friend, John Lennon — who got it.

Even during the peak of 1960s radicalism, the Beatles understood:

“You say you want a revolution.
Well, you know,
We all want to change the world.
You say you’ll change the Constitution,
Well, you know,
We all want to change your head.
You tell me it’s the institution,
Well, you know,
You better free your mind instead.
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao,
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow.
Don’t you know know it’s gonna be all right.”

— Watch “Glenn Beck” weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on FOX News Channel

In or Out 2010

Friday, August 28, 2009
By Glenn Beck

The first part of Friday’s show dealt with the loudmouths — the shouters — the folks who refuse to argue the facts and instead resort to intimidation and bumper-sticker slogan-esque arguments like: “He wants to starve cute cuddly kids without armpits! He hates poor people so much, he’d rather eat them then help them!”

No, I really don’t. And I don’t think they do either.

But the politicians they support keep enacting policies that don’t help the armpit-less kids. They instead, continue to hurt people and make them more dependent on government.

The second part of the problem is politicians. They toss-out red meat for the shouters to feast on and the result is: “He’s a shill for the GOP! He just hates Barack Obama!” And my favorite recurring Twitter comment: “Where were you during the Bush administration? He increased government too!”

I think it’s futile to answer this charge again, because those who levy it don’t listen or watch my shows anyway, so this will be the last time I respond to it:

I did say the same things about George W Bush.

I did complain about his out of control spending and debt.

I did complain about his failures on the border.

//

I did complain about his “abandoning free market principles to save the free market system.”

I did complain, constantly, as Bush presided over the largest increase in government since Lyndon B. Johnson.

Because I, apparently unlike many (on both sides), have actual principles and I choose to hold on to the truth before the party,

The “where were you?” argument says nothing about what’s going on today. That’s like an argument you’d hear at recess between a couple of third-graders; it distracts from any real conversation. If you are now suddenly pointing out George W. Bush’s big government policies (the same ones that you seem to love now), the third-grader in me would say, “Oh yeah? Where was your support for Bush while he was, just like Barack Obama, increasing the size of government and fascism?”

Stop looking through the partisan lens; both parties are screwing you over right now. They are using you. Ignore the R or the D next to their name and start supporting or opposing the politicians in a very different way: Look at what they believe.

Little thing I learned; a great man taught me: “Judge by the content of character.”

Here’s something I want you to send to every politician and demand an answer. And they are either in or out:

Dear Mr. Politician, yes or no:

1. I believe in a balanced budget and therefore will vote for a freeze in government spending until that goal is realized.

2. I believe government should not increase the financial burden on its citizenry during difficult economic times therefore I will oppose all tax increases until our economy has rebounded.

3. I believe more than four decades of U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a travesty therefore I will support an energy plan that calls for immediately increasing usage of all domestic resources including nuclear energy, natural gas, and coal as necessary.

4. I believe in the sovereignty and security of our country and therefore will support measures to close our borders except for designated immigration points so we will know who is entering and why and I will vehemently oppose any measure giving another country, the United Nations, or any other entity, power over U.S. citizens.

5. I believe the United States of America is the greatest country on earth and therefore will not apologize for policies or actions which have served to free more and feed more people around the world than any other nation on the planet.

If your politician doesn’t believe, support or reflect these beliefs in their actions (not the little words they say), then they aren’t supporting you. More importantly, they aren’t supporting, protecting or defending the Constitution and it’s time to vote the bums out.

Make it very clear: You are either in or you are out.

— Watch “Glenn Beck” weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on FOX News Channel

Glenn Beck – The Fourth Of A Five Day Series – The New Republic , Americas Future (day 4)

Glenn Beck: Barack Obama’s Civilian Army

August 28, 2009 – 6:51 ET

Thursday’s show, I believe, it’s the most controversial of all the shows this week — and maybe ever.

I will give you some facts, some history but also some of the future.

The reason Thursday’s show is the last before Friday’s solution, I wanted you to see who was advising the president and what they are doing, before I could ask you to look at this phrase from Barack Obama and think he meant it literally:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA: We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

I don’t know how anyone will respond to the facts I am going to present, because they really haven’t responded to any of our questions or challenged any of the facts in our last few shows other than “Hey, don’t call him a ‘czar!’”

But I can’t make this piece of the puzzle fit, unless this piece is about building some kind of thug-ocracy.

All week we’ve been asking tough questions — here’s one more, Mr. President: Why do we need a civilian national security force that is “just as strong, just as powerful” as the military?

Here’s why I ask this question: Who are we fighting? Who internally is threatening our security?

It’s clearly not because we feel there is a threat from illegal aliens crossing the border, because anyone who would say that has been deemed a racist. A civilian national security force on the border is called The Minuteman and the attitude from this administration — as well as the Bush administration — is that they were “vigilantes.” So it’s not for the border.

It can’t be a civilian national security force against Islamic extremists, because according to this administration we aren’t even at war against Islamic extremists anymore. Is this administration really going to ask the American people to profile and call-in tips on Muslim Americans who act suspiciously?

So, who’s left? Is it possible we are seeing the beginnings of another enemy?

Mr. President, is your civilian national security force to protect us from things the Missouri State Police, your own Homeland Security and the liberal Southern Law Poverty Center have come out and said were a threat: militia groups; tea party goers; folks with “Don’t Tread on Me” flags; me; Sarah Palin?

Think about this: Is it unreasonable to think this government would ask you to spy on your neighbors, in light of these recent stories:

— Flag.gov e-mail asking for tips on “fishy” behavior

— Cookies on your computer that track whenever you’ve been on a government Web site — this used to be illegal but that was changed

— The government is using outside companies to track and contact you. Are they gathering information on you? I know that on “cash for clunkers” they didn’t trust the dealers.

To me, all of this sounds like a sci-fi movie, but again I have to ask the reasonable question, in these unreasonable times: Who will the civilian national security force protect us from?

Maybe a better question to ask is, Mr. President: Do you know of a coming event?

Or maybe we should ask Joe Biden, who said:

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

THEN-VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE JOE BIDEN: Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America…. Remember I said it standing here, if you don’t remember anything else I said: Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

Is this civilian national security force just preparing for what Joe Biden predicted?

Who builds an army against an unidentified, unrecognized threat? Because we can’t answer that question — or any of the others just proposed — then it’s up to us to look for clues.

Maybe we have to start with the company whose CEO is a close financial adviser to the president of the United States, who helped write the health care bill and cap-and-trade bill and who has billions of dollars at stake: Jeffrey Immelt.

Immelt has been appointed by president to the board of directors to the New York Federal Reserve. Does he have any information? Let’s look for what they may be saying the threat will be that we will need a civilian national security force against.

It would seem to me the network that sells “Yes We Did” dolls, mugs and t-shirts and is obviously extraordinarily close to the president in seven different ways — is it possible to watch their network and their news, to see if they have any inside information as to what this threat may be? Immelt’s network seems to be the leading network in predicting a lot of trouble, but they’re not alone:

(BEGIN VIDEO MONTAGE)

ED SCHULTZ RADIO SHOW: Folks, these people are psycho. That’s what they are. Sometimes I think they want Obama to get shot. I do. I really think that there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out.

FRANK RICH, NEW YORK TIMES COLUMNIST: I’m just old enough, I was a kid, I remember I woke up in 1963 to the horrible events in Dallas. Even as a kid, I happened to be growing up in Washington, D.C., it was palatable to me all this hate talk about Kennedy and this sort of crazy fear…. But there were a lot of threats. There was a lot of stuff going on that in tone resembles this.

SEN. BARBARA BOXER, D-CALIF.: All of this is a diversion by the people who want to, frankly, hurt President Obama. And by the way I saw some of the clips of people storming these townhall meetings. The last time I saw well-dressed people doing this, was when Al Gore asked me to go down to Florida when they were recounting the ballots, and I was confronted with the same type of people. They were there screaming and yelling, “Go back to California! Get out of here!” and all the rest of it.

CONTESSA BREWER, MSNBC: “A man at a pro-health care reform rally just outside, wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip…. The Associated Press reports about a dozen people in all at that event were visible carrying firearms…. There are questions about whether this has racial overtones. I mean, here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists.

(END VIDEO MONTAGE)

Is it reasonable to ask the question — based on these clips — do they think that a good portion of the American people are the enemy? They are such a danger we need a civilian national security force as well-funded and well-trained as the military?

That’s who they think the enemy is and, once again, the media has it completely wrong.

So who is the real enemy?

“Common Sense” has been No. 1 for the last 10 weeks. One of the last chapters is “The Enemy Within” — I wrote it months ago. It doesn’t take a genius to figure this out — let me give you this quote:

“It’s not just the political class who has mastered the art of deception. There are other potentially deadly masters who will seek to exploit your frustration and sense of desperation. Many will warn you of government tyranny; they’ll talk of secret societies, vast conspiracies, shadow governments, and the need for violent action. I urge you to stay away from these individuals and those ideas.”

We’ve showed you the radicals in this administration. Now I’ll show you the radicals outside the administration who are being used and will be used by the media and by this administration:

There was the Obama Joker poster creator; the right tried to take advantage of this and added the word “socialist” under it. But the creator of the poster is a Kucinich supporter who doesn’t like Obama because he’s not left enough.

Then there was that clip on MSNBC: The racist white person (according to MSNBC) who brought a rifle to the Obama town hall — wasn’t even white! He was black.

In Denver, Maurice Joseph Schwenkler and an at-large accomplish smashed in windows at the Democratic Party HQ in Denver. Both parties accused Schwenkler of supporting the other, but he’s a “trans-gendered anarchist” who belongs to the radical anarchist protest group Denver Bash Back.

While the radicals in the White House may not be connected to the radicals just mentioned, they are connected by the fact that they are radicals.

Remember, Obama adviser “czar” Jones created STORM who believes: “Revolutionaries need to be militant in street actions. As leaders in the fight for liberation, we should be role models of fearlessness before the state and the oppressor.”

These are the sort of tactics some of Obama’s “czars” know best.

So when we’ve got a president creating a “civilian force” as strong as the military and an admitted far-left radical in the White House doing this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VAN JONES, GREEN JOBS ‘CZAR’: Actually, my job is not so dissimilar than my job was before…. What I do, can I make it simple, I’m basically a community organizer with the federal family.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

How else am I supposed to read this? I’m happy to hear any other explanation than “don’t call him a czar.”

Glenn Beck – The Third Of A Five Day Series – The New Republic , Americas Future (day 3)

Glenn Beck: Speak Without Fear

August 27, 2009 – 0:04 ET

We’re halfway through the week and here are just a few of the things we’ve learned so far:

Congress, beyond not reading these bills, is not even writing these bills. They are being written by a vast network that is not conspiratorial — it is completely out and wide open — yet the media refuses to report on them.

Organizations that are filled with socialists, communists, revolutionaries. Organizations that pull their members from legitimate businesses, politicians and from groups that most Americans have never heard of, like Movement for a Democratic Society — a group started by members of the Communist Party USA, other radicals and Socialists of America.

I have demonstrated these radicals are not only instrumental in shaping legislation that’s being jammed through, but are also — by invitation — personally advising the president of the United States.

And again the media remains silent.

These are facts — not opinions. I want to point out the silence; no one has challenged these facts — they just attack me personally.

Day 3 and the White House remains silent. Yet they have e-mailed my show during the broadcast, only to refute that these people are not “czars,” they are “special advisers.” One would think if all of this weren’t true, they would worry about the labels “communist” or “revolutionary,” not “special adviser.”

I’ve also showed you the framework that — to quote Barack Obama — is “fundamentally transforming America.” But this is much bigger than Barack Obama. Powerful special interest groups began to lay this framework over the last few years.

Remember the Green Jobs Act during the Bush administration? Many on Capitol Hill voted for it because they claimed it was unfunded with meaningless language, tucked into a 900-page bill. Heck, it only asked for $125 million (requested by the special interest group, the Apollo Alliance).

Now, that meaningless, unfunded, green act doesn’t have $125 million, but rather $500 million that was — to use green jobs “czar” Van Jones’ word — “smuggled” into the stimulus bill.

That money is now being funneled by Van Jones (a self-proclaimed revolutionary communist) to organizations and programs of his design and choosing. Oh, and he sits on the board of the Apollo Alliance.

What new “harmless compromises” do we have to look forward to in the health care bills with these radical wolves that are about to devour our republic?

I’ve told you the three mottos that I have personally adopted: Question with boldness; hold to the truth, and speak without fear.

This information is not being reported on just because the media can’t be piece together quickly enough what is happening or they somehow agree with this revolutionary agenda — but fear also plays a big role. People have too much to lose.

As a recovering alcoholic, I’ve already lost everything once; I’m better and stronger for it. I didn’t need a bailout; I needed to rediscover my principles. I’ve told my audience for years after I sobered up that I was a dirt-bag — I try my hardest not to be now, but I still make mistakes. They can take my job or my wealth — that’s OK because I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor. But I was only truly miserable when I was lying to myself or others. And because some of those principles that I’ve rediscovered and applied to my life are the founding principles of this country.

I know that even if the current powers that be succeed in making me poor again, I will only be stronger for it. And American ingenuity will find another way to get this message out on a platform 1,000 times more powerful.

Because of my faith, I know how this story ends: America prepare to witness mighty, powerful miracles in your lifetime.

I am going to offer up evidence that part of the strategy of the fundamental transformation of America is to silence dissent.

Let me show you one of the most diabolical hidden parts of the plan, that quite honestly when I finished my research on it last week, I wrote to a friend that for the first time, I am truly frightened.

It involves the new diversity “czar” at the FCC.

I have told you for a long time: Pay no attention to the Fairness Doctrine that would shut down voices like mine on the radio or voices like mine and Bill O’Reilly on TV. It’s too obvious. They will do it through what’s called “localism” and “diversity.” The final piece of the argument will be against these giant corporate broadcast groups that have too much power (one of which will never be G.E.)

This has been my warning and my theory. A week and a half ago, I began to look into our FCC diversity “czar” Mark Lloyd. In his 2006 book, “Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America,” Lloyd wrote:

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press…. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration…. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”

Freedom of speech… is a distraction?

Localism boards are being created. Our diversity “czar” has just proposed that radio companies pay 100 percent of their operating budget, yearly. A 100 percent tax which would then be transferred to the state-run radio of NPR. If you can’t pay that, you’d lose your license and it would be sold to minority group.

(In a completely unrelated fact, the FCC just approved the sale of another radio station — this one on Long Island — to ACORN.)

Speak without fear.

On global warming, people didn’t speak because they didn’t want to be seen as a Holocaust denier or a flat-Earther. So they passed “harmless legislation.” Now we have half a billion dollars in the hands of a communist revolutionary, who describes his job as:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VAN JONES, GREEN JOBS CZAR: What I do, to kinda make it simple, I’m basically a community organizer inside the federal government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

And now because no one in their right mind is against diversity, people will be afraid of being called a racist or a bigot or a hatemonger.

Speak without fear or more “harmless legislation” will be passed and you will not be able to speak and you will experience the kind of fear that no one in this country has experienced before. All it will take is an “emergency.”

God help us all.

Rush on Fox News Channel with Glenn Beck
August 26, 2009
Watch It For Free! Windows Media Player

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

BECK: Now joining me on the phone is radio talk show host Mr. Rush Limbaugh. Rush?

RUSH: Glenn Beck. How are you, sir?

BECK: Very good, sir. I want to play something for you. I don’t know if you just saw it, but I want to play it again. This is the new diversity officer for the FCC, a newly created position. This is what he said at a speech or talk he was giving about Chavez’s Venezuela and how the media work down there. Watch this.

MARK LLOYD: In Venezuela, with Chavez, you really had an incredible revolution — democratic revolution — to begin to put in place things that were going to have impact on the people of Venezuela. The property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled — worked, frankly, with folks here in the US government — worked to oust him. He came back and had another revolution, and Chavez then started to take the media very seriously in his country.

BECK: Rush, I find that breathtaking.

RUSH: I find the whole administration breathtaking, Glenn. You’re doing great job this whole week. I mean I saw Sarah Palin even “tweeted” about what you’re doing, urging people to watch. This whole administration is as radical and far left as any that the country has ever had, and what they’re trying to do here to communications is simply stifle dissenting voices. They’re trying to wipe out any opposition. If you look at Barack Obama and his track record as a politician, it is to clear the playing field. He doesn’t even like debating his opponents. He just wants to get rid of them. And this “diversity czar” comes from a fringe, radical, Saul Alinsky-type of background; and the things that he’s talking about doing — and I watched your show for the first half hour today — but the things he’s talking about doing to shut down radio are simply un-American. It’s not enough to say that it’s not constitutional.

It’s simply un-American, and make no bones about it, folks, Glenn is right — and I think he’s maybe underselling a little bit about as far as their intentions are concerned. The stimulus plan! Glenn, look at what they’re doing to the US economy. Anybody with a sense of economic literacy would know this is not how you create jobs. You do not rebuild the private sector. This is being done on purpose. All of these disasters are exactly what Obama wants. The more crises, the better. The more opportunity for government to say, “Let us come in and fix the problem.” His number one opposition is on radio and Fox News. His number one opposition is on radio. They can’t go Fairness Doctrine because it’s too obvious. So they’re trying to do this backdoor route with “diversity” and ownership, a 100% tax on operating in order to pay public radio because they’re supposedly fair. It’s insidious. But I don’t think it’s gonna work in the end because the American people are too informed, Glenn. They’re too aware of it. Their radio means too much to them. Their free speech — freedom in general — means way too much to them. And just as they’re fighting back on health care and a number of other things, so will they fight back on this.

BECK: Rush, tomorrow on this program I’m going to lay out the case of the army that they are building right underneath our nose, an army that he spoke about on the campaign trail. If you watch what could only be called the organizations — or the administration’s organ — anything involved with GE or NBC; you’ve got now Jeffrey Immelt on the board of the Federal Reserve, you have in the Oval Office consulting not only on health care but the financial situation, and they are an organ. If you watch MSNBC, I contend that you will see the future, because they are laying the ground for a horrible event that will be… What they’re laying the ground for, anything from the right some awful event — and I fear this government, this administration, has so much framework already prepared that they will seize power overnight before anybody even gives it a second thought.

RUSH: Well, I think because of what you’re doing with your television show, your radio show — what we’re all doing here — I don’t think they’re going to be able to seize it overnight without anybody knowing about it. You talk about the organized groups that they’ve got. Let’s look at the health care situation, what’s happening right now. The genuine passion, the real passion is in individual Americans’ hearts and minds. Individuals are showing up. They may be going to the Web to find out where these town halls are, but they’re showing up because individually they don’t want any part of this. The Obama army has to be bought and paid for. The Obama army has to be given marching orders.

BECK: Right.

RUSH: The Obama army is not showing up with any passion for Obama’s issue, which is health care. They’re showing up because they’ve been instructed to by bosses. Now, this army that you’re going to reveal tomorrow is probably going to be much the same way — and I’m going to tell you something, Glenn. Passion, love of country –

BECK: I know.

RUSH: — truth is going to outmaneuver and overpower fake passion, trumped-up people who are just given marching orders and sent out to act in a certain way. You know, we may be looking at Barack Obama destroying the Democrat Party. It’s too soon to say that now, but we may be looking at that happen. There are reasons for optimism, but you are right: It is a dangerous time. It’s the most dangerous time in my life for freedom and liberty in this country.

BECK: I will tell you, a lot of people would say, “Well, that’s Rush Limbaugh. He’s… You know, this is hyperbole,” et cetera, et cetera. Would you agree with me, Rush, that this is not conservatives or Republicans or independents talking about this because they don’t like Rush — they don’t like Barack Obama. These are Americans. I’m an American. I’m speaking to you as an American. This is bad for anyone unless you’re in the power circle. You don’t want to go down this road with what they’re proposing with the FCC.

RUSH: No. Well, I don’t want to go down the road with anything they’re proposing on anything, Glenn. But you ask an interesting question. You know are people going to react to me simply because, “Well, it’s hyperbole. It’s what these guys do”? My first hour yesterday was chronicling how this man is systematically dismantling our ability to gather intelligence to protect ourselves against an attack. He is purposely using his attorney general to make the United States the villain of the world — and I’m going to tell you, folks: from the bottom of my heart, I am uncomfortable thinking and saying these things about a man who’s been elected president of the United States. It is terribly upsetting and disconcerting, and I wish I didn’t think it and I wish I didn’t have to say it. But there’s no way to sugarcoat it. This is not politics as usual. This is not left versus right. This is not Republican versus Democrat. This is statism, totalitarianism versus freedom. And if these people are allowed to go where they want to go unchecked, then some people, a lot of people — I don’t think half the country, but close — will wake up one day and find, “My God, what the hell happened?” Because this is not what they voted for. They had no intention of this. They thought they were getting something entirely different and it is a responsibility that we all have being honest and earnest to inform people of what these possibilities are because they are very real.

BECK: More with Rush Limbaugh next.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

LLOYD: In Venezuela, with Chavez, you really have an incredible revolution — democratic revolution — to begin to put in place things that were going to have impact on the people of Venezuela. The property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled — worked, frankly, with folks here in the US government — worked to oust him. He came back and had another revolution, and Chavez then started to take the media very seriously in his country.

BECK: America, I want to… First of all I want to thank the watchdog for bringing that video to my attention. You can be a watchdog. Just tweet me whenever you see things like this. But I have to ask you an honest effort here. I need you to scour the Internet and look for all the people involved with this government giving speeches and listen to them, and then pull them off and archive them yourself. Pull them off onto your own computer, because I think things could get scrubbed quickly. We’re back with radio talk show host Mr. Rush Limbaugh. Rush, when I see this comment from him — and yesterday, we were, you know, all on Van Jones — an avowed communist, self-avowed communist, Marxist, revolutionary –

RUSH: Right.

BECK: — advising the president of the United States. [John] Holdren, our science czar. He comes out and he says that you don’t have a right to, you know, a number of children. If you want to have three children, there’s no right in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence if the government says there’s only two children. Where is the true outrage from anyone in the media? Why are these things not grabbing traction at this point?

RUSH: Well, that doesn’t surprise me at all. I think the whole concept of reporting has gone out the window. I call them the State-Controlled Media because it’s what they are. They’re just repeaters. They take dictation from Rahm Emanuel for the most part, and they simply run with it. It’s who they are, too. They think, Glenn, at the end of all this that they are going to be in the elite circle. They think they’re going to be untouched by any of this. They think the Fairness Doctrine attack, or the attack on radio, is going to leave them alone. My father used to tell me when I was growing up and my brother when he was trying to warn me of the threat posed by Soviet communism and he told me about the media, he said, “These people are such fools. Don’t they understand they’re going to be the first ones shut up if this kind of thing ever happens in this country?” I think it’s just hero worship. I think these people, a lot of people come out of the civil rights era. This presidency is symbolic to them; it’s historical. They’re not reporting — in fact, Glenn, this is a great point. How is it that people know what’s in the health care bill? The press isn’t telling them. How is it that people know some of the plans the administration has? The Drive-By Media is not telling anybody anything — and they are discombobulated. I saw Chuck Todd the other day go ballistic because too many people are doing news now that are not journalists, that are not qualified and they’re reflecting people’s opinions on the media and so forth. These people, it’s embarrassing. I think they’ve met their Waterloo and their Waterloo is Obama.

BECK: When I warned on the Patriot Act — which I was for as long as it had serious sunsets and as many booby traps in that thing as possible. I warned at the time I was really conflicted because you don’t want to give a government this kind of power. The kind of power that this government has right now is staggering! Rush, they tried to go after you with Timothy McVeigh and tried to enact all of these things. Is it different now? Are you at all fearful or do you have any fear that these things will come to pass?

RUSH: Well, I do, and I take it seriously that they’re going to try. But, you know, Glenn, they’ve tried a number of things with me over the years. You mentioned McVeigh. They tried to blame me, Clinton did, for the Oklahoma City bombing. They’ve routinely gone after me but they haven’t been able to shake anything away and the reason is the bond of loyalty that I have with my audience.

BECK: Mmm-hmm.

RUSH: I have total credibility with the audience. It’s an audience that continues to grow despite all of the new conservative shows on radio and television, and all of us in conservative media have that bond with our audience. The effort to discredit us is always going to fail. It will always fail as long as we remain true to who we are and don’t disappoint our audiences in any way in terms of substance and being serious about what we really believe. So I’m confident that this can be beaten back. If I weren’t, you know what, Glenn? I’d pack it all in and I’d spend my money before they take it and I’d go enjoy the rest of what my life is gonna be, but I –

BECK: That’s quite a shopping spree. Can I come with you? (laughing)

RUSH: (laughing)

BECK: All right.

RUSH: There’s plenty of room.

BECK: Mr. Limbaugh, thank you very much. I appreciate your time.

RUSH: It’s always a pleasure, Glenn. Thanks for having me.

BECK: Thank you.

RUSH: And one of these days we gotta do this on camera. I lost all this weight. I gotta show the people.

BECK: I… I would… I think he’s hitting on me!

RUSH: (laughing)

BECK: I think he’s saying, “I’m a sexy, sexy man.” Rush, thank you very much. We’ll talk to you again.

END TRANSCRIPT

Celebrating All Those Who Died Defending Our Freedom

IMG_4494

Happy Memorial Day

Grateful today for the freedoms I have. And those who fought and died to protect them.

Especially since so many want to silence my speech and insult my belief in God. Just look at any facebook page which supports traditional marriage.

Got this email from a facebook friend:

One of them [gay-marriage activists] even hacked onto my Facebook account and stole some of my family photos. C. Hawn is using my family photo as his profile pic…trying to get under my skin. Anyways, make sure you set all of your settings strict so they don’t do it to you. I was posting as [--- ------] but had to create this Facebook account because they reported me over and over again too. They hate to hear truth. It’s a battle, I appreciate having people like you in my corner. God Bless, and forgive me if I tell a few of ‘em I feel like cracking their teeth in or something. I try to keep my Federal side separate from my Church side…as they want me to.

In celebration of Memorial day, I commit to continue saying some Truths out loud:

Marriage is between one man and one woman.

Children deserve a mom and a dad.

 

<>the pomegranate apple blog

Consequences of Freedom of Speech on Religion

voice_of_the_nation_blogheader2

Post Show Thoughts on Freedom of Speech

Today on “Voice of the Nation”, we had Brian Brown from NOM on the show.  That guy is a firehose!  I have to say it never ceases to amaze me that after six months of beetle blogging, there are STILL things I have not heard of or considered regarding the fight for marriage.

Here’s what got me thinking today.  I of course, listen to the show after it’s over to take note of how this or that went, make mental notes of what to try next time etc.  Well today it took me three times through the show….Mr. Beetle came home and wanted to hear it also, so I actually heard the show at total of three times and finally, the third time through I had to actually stop the audio and bounce what I’d heard off Mr. Beetle because frankly it hit me like a ton of bricks.

Here’s what it was:  In San Francisco about a month, perhaps two months ago, they released a study that showed that no politician who voted for gay marriage ever lost his position as an elected representative of the people, in fact, not only was that the case, but often the politician’s electability actually INCREASED.  Now, at the time, this was big news to me.  How could the good people of my state and others continue time and again to elect people who kept their own agenda and not the people’s while in office when it came to family values issues?

Well, this is where the ton of bricks hit.  I had made a comment on the show about the gracious nature of family oriented people,  somehow good Christian, religious folk just didn’t have it in their hearts to hold people down to a standard.  Too much “turn the other cheek” to be effective legislative watchdogs.  Well, yeah, maybe there’s that, maybe it’s apathy, or maybe it’s that we’re busy toting kids to soccer practice instead of watching to make sure our families are safe from government— but Brian Brown took a different angle and he took his time getting there but when he did, it really hit home.  It was intimidation.  Our people are being intimidated into not saying anything.  The silent majority is silent because of brute intimidation.  Here’s how it plays out:

The groups that care about family values are churches, naturally.  Churches, church affiliated groups, those are the core groups that fight for and pass legislation in favor of families and values.  BUT when it comes to politicians, there is a limitation for these religious nonprofits.  They cannot point the finger and say, This man did not hold up to what he said he would, he ought to be thrown out!  Because!  If they did, they would be crossing the line with the IRS and they would lose their tax exempt status.

One entire section of the population is completely muzzled by the threat of suffering punitive monetary damages if they speak.  These are the most organized on our side.  The ones who have the most at stake in the moral arena.

Curtailing the free speech of religious institutions is an outrage.  What is the reason?  Separation of Church and State?  No way.  If anything, controlling with threats of exorbitant fines is no less interference than if POTUS was crowned by the Pope himself.

If you limit the religious voice in the political arena, the natural consequence is for morality to suffer and secularism to flourish.

How is it that we’ve allowed our government to muzzle our churches?

—Beetle Blogger

Missed it?

Catch the show here

Court to State: Churches Have Free Speech Too

free_speech

It’s still free speech…”Whether you like it or not”

Note to all those out there salivating, waiting for churches to lose their tax exempt status for their involvement in promoting traditional marriage in the last election.  Courts in Montana are reaffirming religion’s free speech rights.

Montana was one of the states which voted to reaffirm the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.  Marriage being a moral issue, churches across the nation are taking a stand for marriage, but some people think the church should be muzzled from public speaking on the issue.

Hear this from the judge ruling in this case:

“The media are free to promote political opinions without registering as independent political committees and without disclosing the identity of those owning the facilities used to promote the opinions. The most likely sources of potent political input into an election are removed from the statute’s scope. The generality of the statute is destroyed. The neutrality of the statute is preserved as to the media while all religious expressions on a ballot measure are swept within its requirements. The disparity between the treatment of the media and the treatment of churches is great and gross,” he said.”

Common sense from the Judiciary!

—Beetle Blogger

See more on this from WorldNetDaily:

Court: State trashed church’s 1st Amendment rights

Encouraging members to support traditional marriage is protected speech

An appeals court ruled the state of Montana violated a church’s First Amendment rights to encourage its members to support traditional marriage.

The ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the state’s determination that the church was an “incidental political committee” because members promoted and signed petitions supporting traditional marriage, and the pastor also encouraged it.

The complaint against Ferry Road Baptist Church of East Helena was sparked by a complaint from a homosexual activist group, the court ruling noted. The Alliance Defense Fund took up the fight for the church by filing a lawsuit in 2004 after the state issued its ruling against the church.

“Churches shouldn’t be penalized for expressing their beliefs. They should never be forced to forfeit their free speech rights just because the government decides to enact unconstitutional laws requiring them to remain silent on social issues,” said ADF Legal Counsel Dale Schowengerdt, who litigated the case with co-counsel Tim Fox of the Helena law firm of Gough, Shanahan, Johnson & Waterman.

Separation of Church and State

pilgrims2

Separation of Church and State!

Thoughts behind the effort to ban churches from participating in the national conversation

I’ve been listening to a lot of interesting theories on how this church or that church should lose its tax exempt status over its involvement in the moral issues of politics.  “Separation of church and state!” the religious opponents scream, but is the problem the churches running the government or the government running the churches?

The prevailing argument seems to say that there ought to be separation between church and state, so that means anyone who belongs to a church can’t speak or assemble, or have a public opinion on how government operates or the government will punish them by taking away their tax exempt status.

Even as we gather to celebrate the flight of pilgrims to America from the oppressive religious persecution of England, religious oppression is again raising it’s head in our recent political dialogue.  In the name of freedom, advocates of same sex marriage are threatening to oppress the religious community with monetary retribution as retaliation for expressing opinions the gay community does not agree with, and that’s not right.

As Glen Dean says in his recent post on religious freedom,

“The whole purpose of the first amendment establishment clause was to protect religion and religious people from government.”

Fundamentally the United States is a country that was built on freedoms, and freedom of speech and religion are among the foremost of these.   Pilgrims coming to the Americas wanted, above all, to be free to express their religious thoughts without being forced to conform to another set of values, political or otherwise.  England’s government required religious conformity because they had a state sanctioned church governing what could and couldn’t be said or done.  That is the origin of the thought that there ought to be “separation of church and state.”  No one ought to try to control religious freedoms by coercion or manipulation.

I look at the politically correct movement that uses tax dollars as a form of coercion to muffle dissent and control actions, and I see a situation mirror opposite to that of America’s forefathers, but with the same result—-censorship.

Today we have a situation where instead of having a church controlling the government, we have the government trying to control churches through tax law, and those who oppose churches are using the government as a tool to silence their opponents and to ultimately stifle dissent.

Whether it’s taxing churches and controlling them through tax code manipulation if they don’t conform, or whether churches are tax exempt and controlled by threatening to take the exemption away if they don’t conform, the result is the same.  It’s two ends of the same stick.  The only true freedom is the recognition that churches have freedom from government control that is inherent, not granted by the government.  If the freedom to speak is granted by the government, it can be taken away by the government.  Churches can and ought to say what they want as fellow voices in the national dialogue, and that speech should be free from recrimination or tax penalties for speaking on themes unpopular to others.

Those who think churches should be muzzled don’t have a constitutional leg to stand on.  Tax exemption has been the hidden boogey man that has kept church opinions in a box for years.  Oohoo, you’d better not say this!  You’d better not do that!  You might get the IRS after you!

From Wikipedia:

Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.  The right to freedom of association is recognised as human right, political freedom and a civil liberty.

In short, these freedoms are a human right, not a privilege benevolently bestowed by the government that can then be unilaterally whisked away.  So why does the Government think that it has any right to curtail the ability of people to assemble in churches to voice their opinions?  What about Freedom of Speech?

And to the voices clamoring for censorship of churches I ask the same question.  Why are you so eager to have censorship of ideas that conflict with your own?  If the facts are laid bare, truth will defeat falsehood in open competition.  It is up to each individual to uncover the truth; no one is wise enough to act as a censor for all individuals.
Noam Chomsky said: “If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Goebbels was in favour of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favour of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.”

The whole argument for trying to tax churches boils down to the false idea that this tax exemption is a subsidy of churches by the government.  They don’t pay taxes because churches are good for society, so the government subsidizes them and encourages them to flourish.  If church tax exemption is a subsidy given by the government, then it can be taken away by the government.

Unfortunately, that thought goes against the much ballyhooed “Separation of Church and State!” that everyone says they care so much about.  The truth is that to be truly separate, the government should get out of the church’s way and quit trying to threaten them with boogeyman threats for conformity, in this case silence in the moral/political realm, or we’ll be losing more than just “tax status”, we’ll be losing the very freedom our country was founded to achieve.

–Beetle Blogger

Trampled by Tolerance

freedom-of-speechTrampled by Tolerance

As I look at how the world has changed in the last week, I’ve been shocked.  When I saw the kindergartners and first graders being taught about same sex marriage while our leaders told us it was impossible, I was shocked.  When the Los Angeles Temple in Westwood was targeted, threatened with arson, I was shocked and alarmed.   When 44 of California’s legislators came out against the will of Californians, when even the Governor of our state came out against the voice of the people, I was shocked.  But when the L.A. Times started providing names of our neighbors who supported the marriage amendment to vigilante mobs, I moved beyond shocked to she-bear rage.  Has the world gone mad?  Where is these people’s sense of decency and honor?

This is everything the proponents of proposition 8 warned would happen…freedom of speech, freedom of religion, parental rights…..all things dear to the heart of democracy and freedom in this country are being set aside for the doctrine of tolerance, which at it’s heart is the epitome of intolerance.    The voice of the people is not being heard, it’s being trampled.

Meridian Magazine today has articulated a thought that has been percolating in my own head for some time.

“One of the most potent arguments against same-sex marriage is that it tramples religious freedom. A group of distinguished legal scholars recently published a book called Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, Emerging Conflicts . While they fall on both sides of the issue concerning the desirability of same-sex marriage for our culture, they unanimously agree on one point—that a conflict is brewing for religious freedom, which includes freedom of speech.Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote in 2004, during the same-sex marriage debate in Massachusetts, ”the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance, and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination…The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don’t go along.”

Religious groups have legitimate concerns that they will be gagged regarding the importance of traditional marriage and family, if same-sex marriage becomes a civil right. Yet, same-sex advocates know it doesn’t take the force of law alone to silence opposition. You can harangue and intimidate people into silence. You can threaten their jobs and target their livelihood—even if they have been at their job for 25 years.”

This is what’s happening before our eyes.  There is ample reason to be alarmed.  If our government will not stand up for our rights, if our voice by the polls is not respected, if our newspapers are tools of the opposition’s mobs, where do we go to be represented?  52% of the people are being disenfranchised by a small but powerful minority whose hue and cry is all about their “rights” while they trample everyone else’s.

The whole system of checks and balances is to provide a way for voices to be heard peacefully.  Without that process to respect and hear the people, what do we have left?  Revolt, anarchy and chaos.  Let’s pray that the system works the way it was designed and that disaster can be avoided.  Are we still part of the United States?  Land of the free?  What kind of message are they sending?

Whether you like it or not.  Whether you vote for us or not.  Whether you elect leaders to represent you or not.  The message is, it doesn’t matter.

Update—A note on the continuing boycotts:

First we heard about Scott Eckern….gave $1000 to proposition 8….was boycotted, lost his job of 25 years.

Then we heard about Marjorie Christoffersen of El Coyote Mexican Restaurant in L.A…….she gave $100 of her personal money to proposition 8…..her business was boycotted because she wouldn’t renounce her Mormon faith.

Now today we hear about the Marriott Hotel Chain.  Rumors abounded today that the Marriott chain of hotels had possibly given money to proposition 8.  In the face of an impending boycott, Mr. Marriott released this statement:

As many of you may know I’m a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Some might conclude given my family’s membership in the Mormon Church that our company supported the recent ballot initiative to ban same sex marriage in California. This is simply untrue. Marriott International is a public company headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, and is not controlled by any one individual or family. Neither I, nor the company, contributed to the campaign to pass Proposition 8.

AND…..do you think they were satisfied?  No.  They’re boycotting him anyway!  Not because he donated, no, but because he’s Mormon.  See the ful text of the statement and the reaction here:

http://www.blogs.marriott.com/default.asp?item=2284808

now while this story about the Mariott Hotel chain is getting absolutely no press, I find it interesting that we’ve gone from a thousand dollar infraction, to a hundred dollar infraction to a zero dollar infraction and the reality seems to be, they’re being boycotted because they’re Mormons.  Nothing more.  There’s nothing these people could do to appease short of renounce their faith.

Tolerate?  no, that’s not the issue.  Condoning is the issue.

Children’s Rights before Adult Preferences

Mary Cassatt--Mother and Child

Mary Cassatt--Mother and Child

Reasoning Behind France’s Rejection of Same Sex Marriage

By John-Henry Westen

MONTREAL, March 20, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In late January, a 30 member parliamentary commission of the French National Assembly published a 453 page Report on the Family and the rights of Children, which rejected same-sex marriage.

DeSerres, told LifeSiteNews.com “Referring to the rights of children as a human rights issue, the report argued that children ‘now have rights and to systematically give preference to adult aspirations over respect for these rights is not possible any more.’”

In the report, the commission says that “the child represents the future of society.” The commission asks legislators to make sure that “children, confronted with mutations in family models, be fully taken into account and not suffer from situations imposed upon them by adults.” It adds: “The interest of the child must take precedence over adults’ exercise of their freedom (…) including with regards to parents’ lifestyle choices.”

The report also stresses that marriage; adoption and medically assisted reproduction are inseparable.  The report thus, rules out homosexual adoption, and medically assisted reproduction for homosexual couples.

“Based on the best interests of the child,” DeSerres told LifeSiteNews.com, “our Canadian Parliament must re-evaluate the definition of marriage in light of these new developments.”  The Montréal based national movement has invited Members of Parliament from all parties to reconsider the definition of marriage by giving priority to the rights of the child, as France has done.

See the 2-page summary of the French report in English:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006_docs/Francesummary.pdf

See the fuller translation here:

http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France_Report_on_the_Family_Edited.pdf

Related articles here:

http://www.preservemarriage.ca/eng/links.htm#FRANCE-REPORT

Whether You Like It Or Not–My needs above yours

Whether You Like It Or Not

My needs above yours…at any cost.

In my post, “It’s Not Just About Love” I brought up the idea that there are more intentions, more drives at play with the same sex marriage debate than just love.  There is more at stake as well, but for a moment I want to focus on the intentions, the goals of the gay movement.  They say it’s just about love, but I think it’s about affirmation and acceptance, about domination of ideas, my needs above yours at any cost.

Our friends in the gay community ask us to accept changing the definition of marriage from one man and one woman, because their heart’s desires are excluded.  Are we unfair?  Biased?  Bigoted?  Homophobic?  No.  The idea that desires sometimes go unmet for the greater good is part of life for responsible adults.  Gay marriage at the expense of our children’s development, and our social stability is not a responsible path.  If my heart’s desire is to two partners, I am free to act on that desire, but I am not free to call it marriage, no matter how much I may want it and feel lost without it.  The consequences for society are too great.

It seems that there is a need in the gay community for affirmation, for society to stop “looking down” on the gay lifestyle.  There is a tendency to blame all the misery they feel, and the harm they do to themselves and others on society because their lifestyle choices are not morally accepted in society.  Somehow everything is supposed to change, people will be happy,  once they’re accepted.  How does changing the definition of marriage all of a sudden bring the light of happiness into a same sex couple’s life like we’re being told it will?  It doesn’t.

I’ve made enough mistakes in my life to know, that just because someone says what I’m doing is ok, it doesn’t make the guilt I feel go away.  People have no effect on God’s laws.  If it’s wrong now, it will still be wrong even if all the courts in the land say it’s not.  Morality is not peer driven.  Does the gay community believe their misery will be lifted if we’re all affirming their lifestyle by inclusion?  The guilt will not go away, it will just spread as we include our children in the sphere of exposure.  If you’re not happy now, changing the definition of marriage won’t make you happy either.

Here’s an article that was amazing to read because of it’s source.

Gay Talk Show Host Opposes Gay Marriage

by Al Rantel

“…Forcing a change to an institution as fundamental and established by civilization as marriage is deemed by gay activists and other cultural liberals as the equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval for homosexuality itself. The reasoning goes that if someone can marry someone of the same sex then being gay is as acceptable and normal as being short or tall. While I certainly do not think people should be judged by who they choose to love or how they choose to live their lives, the cultural liberals in America are after more than that. They want to force others to accept their social view, and declare all those who might have an objection to their social agenda to be bigots, racists, and homophobes to be scorned and forced into silence.

The gay left has still not matured into a position of self-empowerment, but is still committed by and large to the idea that the rest of society must bless being gay in every way imaginable. This includes public parades in all major cities to remind everyone else of what some people like to do in their private bedrooms while in the same breath demanding to be left alone…”

Juxtapose that with the following statement by Mayor Newsom in his now famous video clip about the doors being wide open, whether we like it or not… and the point is really brought home for me, that this truly is about more than love.  It’s about a lot of things, primarily putting the needs of a few above the good of the whole….Whether you like it or not.

« Older entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.