<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>Joe,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>The logic prof., once again, brings
illogical arguments to the table.. C'mon Joe..</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>the homosexual agenda is one that
advocates special rights for their kind--some of those absurd rights
very eloquently laid out/described vision2020's own g. crabtree. No group
(or member of any group) deserves special rights, privileges,
considerations--regardless. These special rights, in my opinion, are group
rights. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>Joe, there must also be limitations
placed on individual rights, especially those that are harmful, cruel, hateful,
immoral etc... If we allow homosexual marriage to be legal, we are
essentially mocking the institution of traditional marriage, debasing its
significance--and, in my (and the majority of other's) opinion, condoning
immorality. But, is this an individual rights issue anyway? The outcome of the
proposed marriage makes it, by definition, a group--albeit, a small one at that.
Next, people will be lobbying to marry their dog, fish, or dolphin (as evidenced
by some eccentric millionaire in England).. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>There's no reason this perversion can't
exist; but, need we allow them to marry? And, should we allow them to be at the
forefront of society, parading themselves as normal? Pushing warped ideas, such
as forcing schoolchildren to be alerted to every
insignificant accomplishment made by a homosexual, while studying
history? In my estimation, this is bad teaching, as well as bad for society in
general. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>And, your use of the Preamble to support
your position? What? Are we using a literal interpretation? or a living
translation? Men are mentioned here, not women. Are these unalienable rights
deserved by them? Anyway, it is intended to buttress the notion of individual
rights--not group rights. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>No evasion here.--</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>--Ed</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>--Ed</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=joekc@adelphia.net href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net">Joe Campbell</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=ecooper@turbonet.com
href="mailto:ecooper@turbonet.com">Ed</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> ; <A
title=chasuk@gmail.com href="mailto:chasuk@gmail.com">Chasuk</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, May 17, 2006 8:14
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Re: David
Horowitz [A gift to Ed] Was: A sad day in IDAHO</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>What is the "homosexual agenda," Ed? How is the right of one
man to marry another man -- e.g., the right of each person to marry the adult
person of his or her choice -- a "special" or "group" right and not an
individual right? This is a right that you and I enjoy but clearly not
everyone enjoys this right. You are the one advocating special rights, rights
that straights enjoy but gays and lesbians do not.<BR><BR>This particular
liberal does not want "special privileges for every diversity or enclave in
the States," so your unsupported generalization is just plain false, as well.
All I want is equal rights for all. All I want is the US to realize the true
consequences of these very words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness."<BR><BR>You can suggest that this is something special but you
are smart enough to know better. I didn't notice any footnotes in the
Declaration of Independence advocating the narrow interpretation that you
would give it. Can you point them out to me?<BR><BR>I await your next evasion
of my clear and direct questions.<BR><BR>--<BR>Joe Campbell<BR><BR>---- Ed
<<A href="mailto:ecooper@turbonet.com">ecooper@turbonet.com</A>> wrote:
<BR><BR>=============<BR>Chas,<BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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. )<BR><BR>In sum, the article was well-written, but
failed to mention his true feelings about the homosexual agenda..<BR><BR>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..<BR><BR>Thanks for
sharing the article, Chas. I enjoyed it...<BR><BR>--Ed<BR> -----
Original Message ----- <BR> From: Chasuk <BR> To: Ed <BR>
Cc: <A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>
<BR> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 3:25 PM<BR> Subject: David
Horowitz [A gift to Ed] Was: A sad day in IDAHO<BR><BR><BR> On 5/17/06,
Ed <<A href="mailto:ecooper@turbonet.com">ecooper@turbonet.com</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR> > Next, a well-written article, by a Jewish intellect,
many will find<BR> > interesting<BR><BR> > HOMOSEXUALS HAVE
EASTER BUNNY IN THEIR SIGHTS<BR><BR> Thank you, Ed. In the spirit
of reciprocity, I'll share an article<BR> written by your hero, David
Horowitz. Actually, I think everyone<BR> should read this
article. I found it informative, and Horowitz is<BR> definitely
not my hero.<BR><BR> <A
href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7910">http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7910</A><BR><BR>
Pride Before a Fall<BR><BR> In four Gospels - including the Sermon on
the Mount - Jesus neglected<BR> to mention the subject of
homosexuality. But that hasn't stopped a<BR> handful of self-appointed
leaders of the so-called Religious Right<BR> from deciding that it is an
issue worth the presidency of the United<BR> States. In what the
Washington Times described as a "stormy session"<BR> last week, the Rev.
Lou Sheldon, Paul Weyrich, Gary Bauer and eight<BR> other "social
conservatives" read the riot act to RNC chairman Marc<BR> Racicot for
meeting with the "Human Rights Campaign," a group<BR> promoting legal
protections for homosexuals. This indiscretion, they<BR> said, "could
put Bush's entire re-election campaign in jeopardy."<BR><BR> According
to the Times' report by Ralph Hallow, the RNC chairman<BR> defended
himself by saying, "You people don't want me to meet with<BR> other
folks, but I meet with anybody and everybody." To this Gary<BR> Bauer
retorted, "That can't be true because you surely would not meet<BR> with
the leaders of the Ku Klux Klan."<BR><BR> Nice analogy Gary. Way to love
thy neighbor.<BR><BR> This demand to quarantine a political enemy might
have had more<BR> credibility if the target – the Campaign for Human
Rights -- were<BR> busily burning crosses on social conservatives'
lawns. But they<BR> aren't. Moreover, the fact that it is, after all,
crosses the Ku Klux<BR> Klan burns, might suggest a little more humility
on the part of<BR> Christians addressing these issues. Just before the
launching of the<BR> 2000 presidential campaign, George Bush himself was
asked about<BR> similarly mean-spirited Republican attacks. His response
was that<BR> politicians like him weren't elected to pontificate about
other<BR> people's morals and that his own faith admonished him to take
the beam<BR> out of his own eye before obsessing over the mote in
someone else's.<BR><BR> The real issue here is tolerance of differences
in a pluralistic<BR> society. Tolerance is different from approval, but
it is also<BR> different from stigmatizing and shunning those with whom
we disagree.<BR><BR> I say this as someone who is well aware that
Christians are themselves<BR> a persecuted community in liberal America,
and as one who has stood up<BR> for the rights of Christians like Paul
Weyrich and Gary Bauer to have<BR> their views, even when I have not
agreed with some of their agendas.<BR> Not long ago, I went out on a
public limb to defend Paul Weyrich when<BR> he was under attack by the
Washington Post and other predictable<BR> sources for a remark he had
made that was (reasonably) construed as<BR> anti-Semitic. I defended
Weyrich because I have known him to be a<BR> decent man without malice
towards Jews and I did not want to see him<BR> condemned for a careless
remark. I defended him in order to protest<BR> the way in which we have
become a less tolerant and more mean-spirited<BR> culture than we
were.<BR><BR> I have this to say to Paul: A delegation to the chairman
of the RNC to<BR> demand that he have no dialogue with the members of an
organization<BR> for human rights is itself intolerant, and serves
neither your ends<BR> nor ours. You told Racicot, "if the perception is
out there that the<BR> party has accepted the homosexual agenda, the
leaders of the<BR> pro-family community will be unable to help turn out
the pro-family<BR> voters. It won't matter what we say; people will
leave in droves."<BR><BR> This is disingenuous, since you are a
community leader and share the<BR> attitude you describe. In other
words, what you are really saying is<BR> that if the mere perception is
that the Republican Party has accepted<BR> the "homosexual agenda," you
will tell your followers to defect with<BR> the disastrous consequences
that may follow. As a fellow conservative,<BR> I do not understand how
in good conscience you can do this. Are you<BR> prepared to have
President Howard Dean or President John Kerry preside<BR> over our
nation's security? Do you think a liberal in the White House<BR> is
going to advance the agendas of social conservatives? What can you<BR>
be thinking?<BR><BR> In the second place, the very term "homosexual
agenda," is an<BR> expression of intolerance as well. Since when do all
homosexuals think<BR> alike? In fact, thirty percent of the gay
population voted Republican<BR> in the last presidential election. This
is a greater percentage than<BR> blacks, Hispanics or Jews. Were these
homosexuals simply deluded into<BR> thinking that George Bush shared
their agendas? Or do they perhaps<BR> have agendas that are as complex,
diverse and separable from their<BR> sexuality as women, gun owners or
Christians, for that matter?<BR><BR> In your confusion on these matters,
you have fallen into the trap set<BR> for you by your enemies on the
left. It is the left that insists its<BR> radical agendas are the
agendas of blacks and women and gays. Are you<BR> ready to make this
concession -- that the left speaks for these<BR> groups, for minorities
and "the oppressed?" Isn't it the heart of the<BR> conservative argument
that liberalism (or, as I would call it,<BR> leftism) is bad doctrine
for all humanity, not just white Christian<BR> males?<BR><BR> If
the President's party – or conservatism itself -- is to prevail in<BR>
the political wars, it must address the concerns of all Americans
and<BR> seek to win their hearts and minds. It is conservative values
that<BR> forge our community and create our coalition, and neither you
nor<BR> anyone else has - or should have - a monopoly in determining
what<BR> those values are.</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>