<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>Chas,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>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. )</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>In sum, the article was well-written, but
failed to mention his true feelings about the homosexual agenda..</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>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..</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>Thanks for sharing the article, Chas.
</FONT> <FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>I enjoyed it...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>--Ed</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=chasuk@gmail.com href="mailto:chasuk@gmail.com">Chasuk</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> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, May 17, 2006 3:25
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> David Horowitz [A gift to Ed]
Was: A sad day in IDAHO</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>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>