[Vision2020] Re: David Horowitz [A gift to Ed] Was: A sad day in IDAHO

[Ed]

Don,

The list is as long as my arm. Ever heard of the quota system in college admissions, affirmative racism (action), hate crime laws only available to minorities or deviants? I would argue that colored's perpetrate more hate crimes on whites than vice versa--(John Perazzo wrote an excellent book on this--something about the myths of race relations). Liberals want a redistribution of wealth because the oppressed (a group) can never succeed. Minorities and other groups are encouraged to start/join clubs supporting their diversity (the racists clubs or La Raza and MECHA are prime examples)... Imagine me starting a American Heritage club on WSU campus? I'd venture to say that funding would not be forthcoming. How about Students of Color hogwash at the University? How abouts the other students (not of color?).. I'm flat sick of it. Groups are being granted special status on the mere merit of skin color or disgusting perversions.. Sorry, my pidgin is kickin' in--it seems to help the "others" get special treatment. Special treatmet for groups is pervasive..

--Ed
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Donovan Arnold 
  To: Ed ; Chasuk 
  Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 8:28 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: David Horowitz [A gift to Ed] Was: A sad day in IDAHO


  Ed,

  Can you justify this statement you made?

  "True conservatives advocate equal rights for all; liberals want special privileges for every diversity or enclave in the States. "

  I don't know of any liberals advocating special rights for anyone. Perhaps you care to point some out. I am not a liberal, but I also know the difference between special rights for some and equal rights for all. 

  _DJA


  Ed <ecooper at turbonet.com> wrote:
    Chas,

    I'm glad to see you're reading material from quality web sites. Horowitz is not my hero, but a great visionary and thinker. He makes some valid points in the article; but, in my estimation,  he fails to stress the importance of our Constitutionally-grounded individual rights in a society that is increasingly demanding group rights. 

    True conservatives advocate equal rights for all; liberals want special privileges for every diversity or enclave in the States. In my estimation, he (Horowitz) was a bit over the line in his dismissal of the KKK analogy. The KKK is somebody--even though their intentions/actions are racially-driven. However, one could categorize both these groups' agendas as harmful, detrimental to society. (Note, I don't advocate violence towards any person or any group--or kicking someone in the groin for that matter. )

    In sum, the article was well-written, but failed to mention his true feelings about the homosexual agenda..

    FWIW, my idol (if I had one) would be Lawrence Auster...another Jewish American.. (Horowitz and Feder, also great conservative Jewish intellects.) Course, I'm a racist, sexist, homophobe if you listen to some people..

    Thanks for sharing the article, Chas.  I enjoyed it...

    --Ed
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Chasuk 
      To: Ed 
      Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
      Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 3:25 PM
      Subject: David Horowitz [A gift to Ed] Was: A sad day in IDAHO


      On 5/17/06, Ed <ecooper at turbonet.com> wrote:

      > Next, a well-written article, by a Jewish intellect, many will find
      > interesting

      > HOMOSEXUALS HAVE EASTER BUNNY IN THEIR SIGHTS

      Thank you, Ed.  In the spirit of reciprocity, I'll share an article
      written by your hero, David Horowitz.  Actually, I think everyone
      should read this article.  I found it informative, and Horowitz is
      definitely not my hero.

      http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7910

      Pride Before a Fall

      In four Gospels - including the Sermon on the Mount -  Jesus neglected
      to mention the subject of homosexuality. But that hasn't stopped a
      handful of self-appointed leaders of the so-called Religious Right
      from deciding that it is an issue worth the presidency of the United
      States. In what the Washington Times described as a "stormy session"
      last week, the Rev. Lou Sheldon, Paul Weyrich, Gary Bauer and eight
      other "social conservatives" read the riot act to RNC chairman Marc
      Racicot for meeting with the "Human Rights Campaign," a group
      promoting legal protections for homosexuals. This indiscretion, they
      said, "could put Bush's entire re-election campaign in jeopardy."

      According to the Times' report by Ralph Hallow, the RNC chairman
      defended himself by saying, "You people don't want me to meet with
      other folks, but I meet with anybody and everybody." To this Gary
      Bauer retorted, "That can't be true because you surely would not meet
      with the leaders of the Ku Klux Klan."

      Nice analogy Gary. Way to love thy neighbor.

      This demand to quarantine a political enemy might have had more
      credibility if the target - the Campaign for Human Rights -- were
      busily burning crosses on social conservatives' lawns. But they
      aren't. Moreover, the fact that it is, after all, crosses the Ku Klux
      Klan burns, might suggest a little more humility on the part of
      Christians addressing these issues. Just before the launching of the
      2000 presidential campaign, George Bush himself was asked about
      similarly mean-spirited Republican attacks. His response was that
      politicians like him weren't elected to pontificate about other
      people's morals and that his own faith admonished him to take the beam
      out of his own eye before obsessing over the mote in someone else's.

      The real issue here is tolerance of differences in a pluralistic
      society. Tolerance is different from approval, but it is also
      different from stigmatizing and shunning those with whom we disagree.

      I say this as someone who is well aware that Christians are themselves
      a persecuted community in liberal America, and as one who has stood up
      for the rights of Christians like Paul Weyrich and Gary Bauer to have
      their views, even when I have not agreed with some of their agendas.
      Not long ago, I went out on a public limb to defend Paul Weyrich when
      he was under attack by the Washington Post and other predictable
      sources for a remark he had made that was (reasonably) construed as
      anti-Semitic. I defended Weyrich because I have known him to be a
      decent man without malice towards Jews and I did not want to see him
      condemned for a careless remark. I defended him in order to protest
      the way in which we have become a less tolerant and more mean-spirited
      culture than we were.

      I have this to say to Paul: A delegation to the chairman of the RNC to
      demand that he have no dialogue with the members of an organization
      for human rights is itself intolerant, and serves neither your ends
      nor ours. You told Racicot, "if the perception is out there that the
      party has accepted the homosexual agenda, the leaders of the
      pro-family community will be unable to help turn out the pro-family
      voters. It won't matter what we say; people will leave in droves."

      This is disingenuous, since you are a community leader and share the
      attitude you describe. In other words, what you are really saying is
      that if the mere perception is that the Republican Party has accepted
      the "homosexual agenda," you will tell your followers to defect with
      the disastrous consequences that may follow. As a fellow conservative,
      I do not understand how in good conscience you can do this. Are you
      prepared to have President Howard Dean or President John Kerry preside
      over our nation's security? Do you think a liberal in the White House
      is going to advance the agendas of social conservatives? What can you
      be thinking?

      In the second place, the very term "homosexual agenda," is an
      expression of intolerance as well. Since when do all homosexuals think
      alike? In fact, thirty percent of the gay population voted Republican
      in the last presidential election. This is a greater percentage than
      blacks, Hispanics or Jews. Were these homosexuals simply deluded into
      thinking that George Bush shared their agendas? Or do they perhaps
      have agendas that are as complex, diverse and separable from their
      sexuality as women, gun owners or Christians, for that matter?

      In your confusion on these matters, you have fallen into the trap set
      for you by your enemies on the left. It is the left that insists its
      radical agendas are the agendas of blacks and women and gays. Are you
      ready to make this concession -- that the left speaks for these
      groups, for minorities and "the oppressed?" Isn't it the heart of the
      conservative argument that liberalism (or, as I would call it,
      leftism) is bad doctrine for all humanity, not just white Christian
      males?

      If the President's party - or conservatism itself -- is to prevail in
      the political wars, it must address the concerns of all Americans and
      seek to win their hearts and minds. It is conservative values that
      forge our community and create our coalition, and neither you nor
      anyone else has - or should have - a monopoly in determining what
      those values are.
    _____________________________________________________
    List services made available by First Step Internet, 
    serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
    http://www.fsr.net 
    mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
    ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060517/3722b97f/attachment.htm