Saturday, December 20, 2008

Attorney General Jerry Brown, AKA Fish-Out-Of-Water

"A flip-flop, flippty-flip-flip-flop you don’t stop…" says a community commenter at Michelle Malkin's blog.  The little ditty accurately describes the shenanigans taking place at the Attorney General's office.


Jerry Brown, CA Attorney General, came gallantly to the defense of the people's Prop 8 vote immediately following the November 4th elections, vowing to uphold the constitutional amendment against his own personal beliefs.  Now, however, in a perhaps-not-so-surprising turn of events, Brown has renounced his supportive position and fallen in with gay rights activists' "rainbow-love-change-civil rights-freedom" mantra, claiming that the amendment was "inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty."  RIP, Jerry Brown, RIP. 

Most outrageous is this quote from Brown himself that claims his change of heart was brought about by, "further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution."  It is my humble opinion that the astute and capable Jerry Brown, would undoubtedly already be quite versed in Proposition 8 and every aspect of its Constitutional repercussions; he is the Attorney General, after all.

Pearl opines:

How to win a 2010 governor's chair?  Jump ship on Proposition 8 in order to win popularity with the up-and-coming, "enlightened and progressive," young CA voter pool.

But really, can we really blame JB for being more afraid of the gay rights activists' reactions should Prop 8 be upheld than the traditional marriage supporters' reactions should Prop 8 be overturned?  Hm?  The answer is no, not if you've been following the blazing trail of GRA hate visible from outer space.

On a more positive note, joining the Yes on 8 legal defense team is the esteemed Kenneth Starr, Dean of Pepperdine University Law School, former US Court of Appeals Judge, DC Circuit, and former US Solicitor General who has argued 25 cases before the Supreme Court.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Permissive Laws, Permissive Behaviour

Dr. Trayce Hansen, licensed clinical and forensic psychologist, compiled an overview of various comprehensive research studies performed regarding the genetic v. environmental debate surrounding homosexuality.



Extensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.

A closer look at the research

Twin study investigations of homosexuality were recently conducted in both Sweden and Finland. Such twin studies compare rates of homosexual behavior between different sibling groups who share varying degrees of genetic similarity (ie, identical twins versus non-identical twins). By comparing such rates, twin studies help sort out the extent to which homosexual behavior is genetic and/or environmental. For instance, if homosexuality is genetic, then in cases where one identical twin is homosexual the co-twin should be homosexual nearly 100 percent of the time because identical twins share 100 percent of their genes.

But that is not what these two large-scale Scandinavian studies found. Both studies revealed that when one identical twin was homosexual the other twin was homosexual only 10 percent or 11 percent of the time. Such findings indicate that homosexuality is not genetically determined.


A Danish research investigation studied two million adults living in Denmark, a country where same-sex marriage has been legal since 1989. This study uncovered a number of specific environmental factors that increase the probability an individual will seek a same-sex rather than an opposite-sex partner for marriage.

For Danish men, the environmental factors associated with higher rates of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace and an absent or unknown father. Significantly, there was a linear relationship between degree of urbanization of birthplace and whether a man chose homosexual or heterosexual marriage as an adult. In other words, the more urban a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a man, while the more rural a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a woman.

For Danish women, the environmental factors related to increased likelihood of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace, maternal death during adolescence, and mother-absence.

...

Finally, an American research study—the most comprehensive and representative survey of sexual behavior in America—reported its findings concerning homosexuality. The results of this study also support an environmental theory of homosexuality, not a genetic one. In particular, this survey identified specific types of environments that increase the likelihood of homosexual behavior. The authors describe these environments as "congenial" to the development of homosexuality.

For American men, the environmental factor most related to homosexual behavior was the degree of urbanization during the teenage years. Specifically, boys who lived in large urban centers between the ages of 14 and 16 were three to six times more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than were boys who lived in rural communities during those same ages. The authors offer the following possibility: "an environment that provides increased opportunities for and fewer negative sanctions against same-gender sexuality may both allow and even elicit expression of same-gender interest and sexual behavior." Note the word "elicit." These researchers believe that growing up in a more pro-homosexual region may evoke or draw out homosexual behavior in young men. The implication is that some homosexual men who were reared in urban centers would not have become homosexual if reared in non-urban centers. The authors explain, "the environment in which people grow up affects their sexuality in very basic ways."


This map of the CA Prop 8 results would seem to support the "urban influence" findings.

For American women, the environmental factor most associated with a homosexual or bisexual identity was a higher level of education. And though that was also true for men, the pattern for women was more dramatic. For instance, a woman with a college degree was nine times more likely to identify herself as non-heterosexual than a woman with only a high school diploma.



For more information about the college education influence on homosexual determination, click here.

To read the entire Trayce Hansen research compilation with reference and source citation, click here.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

The Marketing of Evil

From another member of the DNA (Digital Network Army), comes a tip about a book that I will most definitely buy, devour, and promote, because I wholeheartedly agree with the very premise upon which it is written: that while the freedom-and-rights gift-wrap is beautiful and enticing, homosexuality is, at its very core, evil.


The Marketing of Evil, by veteran journalist David Kupelian.
"The Marketing of Evil" reveals how much of what Americans once almost universally abhorred has been packaged, perfumed, gift-wrapped and sold to them as though it had great value.  Highly skilled marketers, playing on our deeply felt national values of fairness, generosity and tolerance, have persuaded us to embrace as enlightened and noble that which all previous generations since America's founding regarded as grossly self-destructive - in a word, evil.

Sunday, December 7, 2008

Studly King Arthur - Defender of Truth; Defender of Tradition.

Last night I tortured my husband during our movie night on account of the fact that we had unknowingly chosen a movie that was right up the marriage defense ally. So the movie went something like this: pause, scribble scribble, play...pause, scribble scribble, play. I took notes religiously (pun intended).



First Knight is the Hollywood version of the King Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot story. I truly despise the Guinevere/Lancelot part of this tale. It disgusts me that two adults can't seem to exercise enough self-control to preserve the sanctity of marriage especially when they had so many opportunities to pursue their relationship prior to the marriage of Gwen to King Arthur. But, I digress.

The true hero of this epic tale is the noble King Arthur - defender of right, truth, and light. His nemesis, Malagant, is the complete antithesis, a vile man bent on defeating right, truth, and light. Once a knight of the round table, brother to King Arthur, Malagant's break from light produced devastating consequences for the innocent villagers and children across the border from his land. In his desire for conquest and rule, he brutally ended the lives and trampled the freedoms of many.


So, Malagant goes for the gold when he sets his sights on acquiring Camelot for his own; and his brilliant plan is to triumph through theft and coercion. You see, Arthur's heart belongs to the beautiful Guinevere and Malagant knows that by manipulating or capturing her, he will strike a heavy blow to Arthur's Achilles heel and hold in his possession the most coveted bargaining chip.

In short, Guinevere refuses to sign Malagant's so-called "fair" treaty, denying him power in her native Lionesse. Arthur invites him to come to Camelot to discuss the issue. Here is the transcript of their conversation. What strikes me is the glaringly obvious parallels between Malagant's faulty logic and bravado and the gay rights movement's similar conduct and outcry.

GRA = Gay Rights Activists

Arthur opens his council with a prayer:
"May God grant us the wisdom to discover the right,
The will to choose it,
And the strength to make it endure. Amen."
Malagant [with petulance]: "Other people live by other laws, Arthur. Or is the law of Camelot to rule the entire world?"

(GRA - Why do we have to be "subjected" to your beliefs?)

Arthur [with authority]: "There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. Either what we hold to be right and good and true IS right and good and true for all mankind under God, or we're just another robber tribe."

Malagant [threatening]: "Your fine words are talking you out of peace and into war."

(GRA - You're going to get what you deserve. We take no responsibility for our actions if you continue to deny us our supposed "rights").

Arthur [with conviction]: "There's a peace that's only to be found on the other side of war. If that battle must come, I will fight it!"

Knights of the Round Table [with loyalty]: "And I! And I! And I! And I!...."



Defenders of Traditional Marriage and Family [with urgency and conviction]:

Pearl - "And I!"
Beetle - "And I!"
Pomegranate - "And I!"
California Crusader - "And I!"
Kingfisher - "And I!"
Preserving Marriage - "And I!"
Journalista - "And I"
Standing for Truth - "And I"
Make My Vote Count - "And I"
A Shepherd's Voice - "And I"
Protect Biblical Marriage - "And I"
Article VI Blog - "And I"
(and the list could go on and on)


Malagant [with derision]: "The great Arthur and his great dream. No dream lasts forever."

[Discontented Malagant stomps off]

When he isn't promptly delivered what he wants on a silver platter, Malagant plots to take it by force (GRA - If the people of California won't give us what we want, we'll just rant and rave and throw the ultimate tantrum until they are intimidated and cowed into concession). He kidnaps something precious to Arthur (Guinevere) and in a show of ultimate contempt and disrespect, he strips it of its decency and modesty then mocks its very core (GRA - Defacing temples with graffiti, attacking innocent people, threatening, intimidating, etc.).

Lancelot saves Guinevere and returns her to Arthur.

Relentless in his hunger for authority and sovereignty, Malagant violently seizes Lionesse, drawing Arthur to defend the terrorized nation. When Arthur out-maneuvers him and his plan fails miserably, the petulant Malagant then meets Arthur on his own turf, infiltrating the great city of Camelot and surrounding citizens during the public hearing of adulterous Lancelot and Guinevere.


The pinnacle of this tale is achieved when Malagant and Arthur meet face to face, with Arthur clearly outnumbered and bested. The ensuing dialogue between the two leaders - one clearly right and the other clearly wrong - is so absolutely in sync with our times and our struggles against those forces who would promote practices that will ultimately destroy the fundamental and essential family unit.

Malagant [accusatory]: "The strong rule the weak; that's how your God made the world."

Arthur [patient]: "God makes us strong only for a while so that we can help each other."

Malagant [scornfully and forcefully]: "My God makes me strong so I CAN LIVE MY LIFE."

Malagant [speaking to the people]: "Arthur says to you, 'serve one another.' Well when are you going to start living for yourselves? Now THIS is the freedom I bring you. Freedom from Arthur's tyrannical dream. Freedom from Arthur's tyrannical law. FREEDOM FROM ARTHUR'S TYRANNICAL GOD!"

Malagant [speaking to Arthur again; demanding]: "I want your people to see you kneel before me, hero. Kneel before me, or die."

(GRA - We will accept nothing less than complete and total acceptance of our lifestyle, or else....)

Arthur dies entreating his people to never surrender to domination and forced submission; to fight to the death for right and freedom.

And so I will. I will fight as long as I have my voice: fight for my freedom of religion, fight to protect family and marriage and society, fight for the innocence of my children.

Friday, December 5, 2008

Evangelicals, Mob Veto, & Prop 8 Musical Reactions


So, I'm still here.  I've just been playing copy cat lately.  My new favorite site, Kingfisher Column, has apparently been hard at work boosting its visibility and I've been following suit, thus all the new buttons on my sidebar.  (Vote for me!)

But, this new fascination aside, I've still been keeping tabs on the SSM scene and here's what's caught my eye today:

["Nearly one of every four Californians who voted last month describe themselves as evangelicals or born-again Christians, and their overwhelming support for Proposition 8 was a key reason the ban on same-sex marriage was approved at the polls.

That is among the findings of a post-election survey of California voters released today by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California.

The survey found that 84 percent of self-described evangelicals or born-again Christians supported Proposition 8. Those voters represented 24 percent of the electorate."]

*

*


This full page ad appeared in the New York Times today.  It makes my heart sing that someone was willing to spend that kind of money to report this travesty in a paper that should have been all over it with their own news reporters and editorials. 























































*

*

Prop 8 - The Musical drew quite a bit of negative reaction, and rightfully so.  The little ditty was way off-target and extremely offensive.  Besides that, Mark Steyn makes a good point in his summary of the tasteless theatrical:
[If every single Mormon in California had voted for Prop 8, it would have been overwhelmingly defeated. Instead, it passed - in part because of Obama’s coat-tails: He drew a large black turnout, and regrettably for Mr. Shaiman the majority of those blacks voted ”anti-gay”. What, no “Ol’ Man River” parodies about homophobic stevedores?

How about the Hispanics? “Ev’rything’s Straight In A-me-ric-ca!” And, if it’s religious intolerance you want to take a swipe at, where’s the big dance number set at the Oakland Halal butchers?

Ah, but then you might get a more motivated crowd waiting at the stage door, right?]

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

"Prop 8 - The Musical" - Starring Jack Black, Margaret Cho, & John C. Reilly


*BEWARE - OFFENSIVE CONTENT*



Subliminal messages:

Gay marriage is trendy, youthful, and light; traditional Marriage is prudish, outdated, and black.

Love is all you need; the Bible is hocus pocus.

Gay marriage is right and good because all the money spent on weddings will save our economy. 

*Oh brother*

My take:

If this is what passes for comedy now days, I'll have no part of it.  It didn't make me laugh; it made me roll my eyes and throw my hands up in exasperation and disbelief.  I find it telling that the director went straight for mocking religious beliefs, completely ignoring the fact that there are stacks and stacks of secular research studies which prove that the gay lifestyle is violent, destructive, diseased, and unwholesome (check out the resources section here).  In truth, the reality of the gay lifestyle is a far cry from the bouncing, singing, "gaiety" depicted on the "beach" in this insipid musical.  The reality that is so conspicuously absent from this supposed "humor" is that of AIDS, violence and domestic abuse, broken homes, confused children, and a genderless, dead-end society, left stripped and scorned in the frigid cold, hugging its identity-complexed, family-murdered, dysfunctional self.

Reality Check:

Supporters of traditional marriage
(not anti-gay people, just anti-gay marriage)






Supporters of gay marriage 
(mockers and haters of all things religious)







Stark contrast, eh?  Let's be honest here, do these pictures inspire confidence in the gay community's touted love theme?  Does this look like a poor, victimized, minority that needs constitutional protection? Are these the same frolicking, gay beach-goers so "gaily" depicted in Prop 8 - The Musical?  The answer is a resounding "NO." Kinda like the one gays already got when 52% of Californians said that gay marriage was not acceptable to them.  Seems like we've got ourselves some kids who need a lesson on poor sportsmanship.  Gays need a modern-day Martin Luther who can teach them to be respectful and peaceful as they promote their so-called "rights."


And last....

Jack Black as Jesus?  Give me a break.  Check out this Jack Black Biography excerpt:

"This being the Seventies in Los Angeles, the parents believed that one should not say No to one's children, making life ever more volatile. Beyond this, there was what Black later described as weird family stuff, not wife-swapping exactly, but swinging. 'It was funny', he said 'and not funny ha-ha'."

Couldn't say "no" in the Seventies.  Gee, imagine that.  Perhaps, and this is just a theory, but perhaps the lack of parental discipline then is what feeds this sense of entitlement so prevalent among youth today.  Eh?  Can I get a "holla?!"  Just a thought.  So, anyway, back to Black.  He says he grew up with an awareness of the "weird" sexual practices of his parents, claiming it wasn't exactly ideal, but in a twisted turn-about he now supports the unconventional. (???)  Hm.  And then there's this....

"Black met cellist Tanya Haden, one of jazz great Charlie Haden's triplet daughters. In fact, he'd first met Haden back at his specialist high school, but the pair had never dated. Now, after just months together, they'd elope, getting married in March, 2006, with Haden bearing him his first child, son Samuel, that June."

Black doesn't exactly have the greatest track record to be able to establish what is good and right and to represent the Savior of the world.  When did sacred things become so openly and brazenly subjected to mockery without so much as a "by your leave?"  When were we taught to laugh at blasphemy and promote immorality?  When did Jack Black, Margaret Cho, and John C. Reilly become authorities on the Bible? And when did their opinion take precedence over thousands of years worth of Biblical teachings from the Savior Himself and His prophets?

Oh I could go on and on, but I'll save it for another post.  Coming up...discussion on how the media has spearheaded the moral neutering of society.

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Love That Most Definitely Does NOT Work



The following excerpt is the disturbing reality of activists' desires for society as a whole to embrace "alternative" lifestyles as good and wholesome and acceptable.  I find the statement located in the parenthesis of the third bullet to be most exceptionally pertinent to the Prop 8 conversation and debate.

"Literally tens of millions of responsible, well-adjusted people are seeking out and living new ways of relating that don't embrace the traditional model of 'one man, one woman, sexually/emotionally exclusive, legally bound for life.' 

Recognizing the demonstrated perils of legal marriage at a young age, people are postponing marriage, or (as has been the case in Scandinavia for decades) forgoing it altogether in favor of cohabitation in record numbers.  
Millions of senior citizens choose not to marry legally for a host of valid financial, tax, and emotional reasons.
Millions of same-sex unions, both sexually-exclusive and non-exclusive, exist and thrive - yet participants generally cannot (and many say they would not) legally marry.
Millions of couples (primarily) enjoy the swinging lifestyle, where sexual openness is paired with emotional exclusivity successfully to deepen and enhance the coupled relationship.
There is a rapidly emerging polyamory movement that practices multiple, simultaneous, open and honest romantic relationships, including varying degrees of sexual intimacy.
Elements of the BDSM/power exchange relationship style are being accepted by, and assimilated into, society at an increasing pace, despite widespread misunderstanding.
Religiously-motivated polygamy has gradually re-emerged from the shadows and, when practiced responsibly and consensually among adults, is being objectively judged by many as deserving a measure of tolerance out of respect for religious diversity.

All of these choices, when practiced consensually and freely among adults, deserve respect and social support.  They also need the kind of empirical research to discover and promulgate 'best practices' that the old monogamous marriage model has enjoyed for decades.  Finally, there needs to be empirical research to help demolish unfounded stereotypes and prejudices that work to inhibit complete freedom of relationship choice.  We seek to support the attainment of all three objectives.

We honor and respect those who freely choose monogamous traditional marriage.  It is unquestionably a valid choice for many.  Nevertheless, we equally and firmly believe it is time to lay aside prejudice, inflexibility, ignorance and the insistence that humanity in all its wondrous diversity must adhere to a single acceptable model of intimate relationships, or do without."

Excerpt can be found on the home page of lovethatworks (dot) org.

Cohabitation, homosexuality, swinging, polyamory, BDSM (Bondage and discipline, Dominance and submission, Sadism, and Masochism), and polygamy!  Wondrous diversity?  Acceptable?  Deserve social support?  Unreal!  I am flabbergasted.  These are not "misunderstood" relationships.  In fact, research shows that they are socially devastating lifestyle choices.  And, of course, if you are one of the quiet majority that chooses to uphold and defend traditional marriage for society, if you choose to protect the innocence of children and secure a mother and a father for the wee ones, if you believe that monogamous traditional marriage is divinely appointed by God, then you are obviously, what was it (?), oh yes, "prejudiced, inflexible, ignorant, and dogmatic."  No matter that research shows that traditional marriage is best (and required) for the continuation of society and for the good mental and emotional health of children.  No matter that marriage between one man and one woman has worked for thousands of years.  No matter that the success of government and greater society depends wholly upon the success of the traditional family unit.  In this case, the embracing of "humanity in all its wondrous diversity" would suggest that we toss aside reason and govern ourselves, our communities, and our society based purely on emotion and passion.  This is foolish folly.  We have a Super Ego for a reason.  We need reason to temper our passions.  We need to be checked and reigned in.  

Between the Id, Ego, and Super Ego exists the same system of checks and balances that exists (or used to exist) in our government between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.  In the case of Proposition 8, the Id (gay rights activists fueled by activist judges) jumped off the deep end, demanding same-sex marriage so that the homosexual lifestyle could be sanctioned by the government, receive a stamp of approval, and roll forward in its agenda for total surrender and acceptance.  And where the Super Ego (gay bashers and homophobes) would have called for absolutely no gay union rights, the Ego (52% of Californians) jumped in with a reasonable compromise to make both sides happy (you get all the same rights under the title domestic partnerships while we retain the sacred word "marriage").  Or so the formula usually goes.  In this case, the Id decided to take a turn for the teenage worse and set off on a Herculean rampage against the Ego.  Now, the Super Ego is sitting back laughing at the petulant Id as it destroys its own case for same-sex marriage.

Are you a member of the voice of reason?  The Ego?  What are you doing today to further defend traditional marriage.  This fight is far from over.  In fact, it's just beginning.  So, grab a laptop, a mug of root beer, and a favorite snack then sit down and start saving marriage.  The real marriage.  The marriage that we know by experience works.  Blog, comment, Facebook, Twitter, My Space, whatever you decide to do, just get out there and do something!  Marriage needs us.  And the Internet, which is largely controlled by that stampeding, raging Id, needs more voices of reason.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Mormon is the New Black - A Thanksgiving Story


Tonight (or I guess I should actually say last night) I watched Glory Road. Based on a true story, the inspirational movie chronicles a 1960's Black college basketball team who, against all odds, wins the NCAA Championships. The team was not completely made up of African American players, but after several incidents of racism, discrimination, and intimidation aimed at the Black members, Coach Haskins and "the White" teammates got fed up and turned the fight for the NCAA Championship over to their Black Brothers. In doing so, the NCAA win became a sort of "stick-it-to-the-man" victory.

Rising out of obscurity in a racist world, these Black basketball players were viciously targeted by White supremacists. At one point in the movie the players returned to their motel room after a game to find racial slurs, threats, and profanities splattered on their walls in blood. At another point, one of the players was surrounded by three White men in a bathroom, brutally beaten, and dunked in a toilet almost to the point of drowning.

In the wake of Proposition 8, a popular phrase has sprung into being and is being widely circulated on the Internet and throughout media outlets. I have heard it often alleged that "Gay is the new Black." Supposedly gays are the oppressed, battered, African-American sequels. I protest that comparison and would suggest a more accurate one. In a near-perfect echo of the horrific monstrosities played out against the Black Texas Western basketball players, I propose that in truth, "Mormon is the new Black." Seeing those blood-splattered motel walls immediately brought to mind the graffiti-littered LA Temple walls and angry, anti-Mormon epithets hoisted up on homemade signs, swaying to and fro above a seething, volatile crowd. "Ban the Mormons!" This is the current and beloved call of gay rights activists. Watching that Black basketball player being beaten senseless in a filthy public bathroom reminded me of the elderly couple beaten mercilessly by their neighbor for exercising their freedom of speech by placing Yes on 8 signs in their yard, and the young Hispanic women attacked by gay rights activists while trying to remove vulgar signs from sacred temple property, and the elderly woman in Palm Springs who endured the mockery and rage of a vicious crowd who promptly snuffed out her freedom of speech as they ripped her cross from her hands and crushed it under foot. The anger of this mob knows no bounds and the religious - Mormon, Evangelical, and Catholic alike - are the unfortunate victims.

The gay "rights" movement is steam-rolling forward powered by blood-lust and rage, leaving in its wake a carnage the likes of which this country has not seen since Blacks were sent to the back of the bus. While this new, millennial movement claims love and equal rights as its objectives; lying in its wake is the antithetical and conspicuous reality - the tattered remains of freedom of speech and religion. At the end of the rigidly pointing homosexual fingers stand the Mormons, being sent to the back of the bus for equally unfair reasons as their beloved African American brothers - they voted.

Mormon is the new Black.

Today, Thanksgiving 2008, I recognize and express gratitude for many wonderful things in my life. And at the same time I watch the steady vanquishing of freedoms so dear and so sacred. It's clear our country is in need of a Religion champion in the same way Lincoln championed Blacks.

["Our founding fathers did not wish to have a state church established nor to have a particular religion favored by government. They wanted religion to be free to make its own way. But neither did they intend to have irreligion made into a favored state church.

Notice the terrible irony if this trend were to continue. When the secular church goes after its heretics, where are the sanctuaries? To what landfalls and Plymouth Rocks can future pilgrims go?" - Neal A. Maxwell]

["When they came for the gypsies, I said nothing, because I wasn't a gypsy. When they came for the homosexuals, I said nothing, because I wasn't a homosexual. When they came for the Jews, I said nothing, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I said nothing, because I wasn't a Catholic......then they came for me, and there was no one left to defend me." - Neimoller in Nazi Germany]

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Another One Bites the Dust


Los Angeles, CA -- Richard Raddon, director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, resigned over the weekend. Not wanting to bring the Film Festival any more negative publicity or reaction, he stepped down from his post due to overwhelming harassment and intimidation he was receiving for his $1500 personal contribution to the Yes on 8 campaign.


"After Raddon's contribution was made public online, Film Independent was swamped with criticism from "No on 8" supporters both inside and outside the organization. Within days, Raddon offered to step down as festival director, but the board, which includes Don Cheadle, Forest Whitaker, Lionsgate President Tom Ortenberg and Fox Searchlight President Peter Rice, gave him a unanimous vote of confidence.

Yet, the anti-Raddon bile continued to bubble in the blogosphere, and according to one Film Independent board member, "No on 8" supporters also berated Raddon personally via phone calls and e-mails. The recriminations ultimately proved too much, and when Raddon offered to resign again, this time the board accepted.

...

Raddon's support for Proposition 8 has sparked debate within both the gay community and Hollywood, as many publicly worry about punishing people for free speech, even speech they deemed hateful, and his departure has already provoked ambivalence."

Read the full story here at the LA Times.

Monday, November 24, 2008

"Awakening a Slumbering Majority"

This is so powerful.

Friday, November 21, 2008

Martyr McGehee


Fresno, Calif -- There is, in the world of communication, a specific style of unhealthy conversation, aptly named "one-upping," in which the speaker embarks on an emotional telling of his tragic story and, instead of validating it (or in this case, even acknowledging it), the listener tries to trump it. This is the case with Lesbian mom, Robin McGehee, who is being raised up as a martyr for the No on 8 campaign.

Robin, whose 5-year-old son, Sebastian, was enrolled in St. Helen's Catholic School in Fresno, attended a publicized "No on 8" candlelight vigil, on Nov. 6th, following the vote that reestablished marriage as a union between one man and one woman. She is also the Central Valley program coordinator for the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and has been interviewed several times on television. And while she never walked around campus sporting a "No on 8" pin, McGehee was, nonetheless, open about her sexuality.

After her appearance on television and her "No on 8" rally attendance, she was approached by Father Salvador Gonzalez, Jr., of the Fresno diocese, and asked to resign from her volunteer post as president of the PTO (Parent Teacher Organization). Her visibility as an opponent of traditional marriage was seen to be in direct conflict with the Catholic Church's teachings that marriage is between one man and one woman.

That's it. That's the story folks. However, if you read it here, you will get an earful of sentimental background fluff, building up and lauding McGehee for her participation in school projects, her donations to fund-raisers, and her various volunteer efforts with walk-a-thons and holiday-themed parties - efforts that many mothers in this state make on a regular basis for the enhancement of their child's education. We get it, we do; she is a great mom. But this blatant immortalization effort is a transparent attempt to build up a martyr for future, inaccurate claims of victimization. Oh, and let's not forget where the story conveniently breezes over the fact that darling little Sebastian has two mommies AND two daddies:

"[McGehee and her recent bride Kathy Adams] have two children 5-year-old Sebastian and 2-year-old Jackson. Also, two fathers, William 'Aj' Kruth and Aaron Olson, are a part of the family."

Homosexuality or Polyamory? Honestly, I don't know. But it's obviously a hugely altered definition of a family. And this is what we have to look forward to with legalized same-sex marriage. Suddenly we live in an "anything goes" society. I think even those in favor of gay marriage might take issue with this. But, setting random and unsettling redefinitions of family aside, let's forge onward with McGehee the Martyr.

Contrary to popular gay belief, McGehee's story does not compare to the intolerant and bigoted targeting of Scott Eckern which lead to his resignation as artistic director for the California Musical Theater over a $1000 personal donation to the Yes on 8 campaign. Let's take a look at these two cases in a side-by-side comparison, shall we?

Scott Eckern
25 years at the California Musical Theater.
Robin McGehee
Six months as president of the PTO.


Scott Eckern
Forced to resign from his paid position, his job, his livelihood.
Robin McGehee
Asked to resign from her volunteer position.


Scott Eckern
Publicly targeted and forced to resign for the personal, legal donation he made to a cause he believed in.
Robin McGehee
Privately asked to resign from a leadership post for not only living, but championing a lifestyle that is in direct opposition to the teachings of the church she was volunteering for.


Scott Eckern
Vilified for participating in a democratic process and having an opinion.
Robin McGehee
Has not been vilified.
Has not received hate mail or slanderous accusations aimed at her.
Is still free to live her homosexual lifestyle and be involved in her child's education, just like any other parent...just not in an authoritative, leadership role. The church even asked her to keep her son in school, but she and her partner made the decision to pull him.

This is a case in point for the "six consequences" which caution that, following legalization of same-sex marriage, churches will be accused of hate speech and discrimination simply for standing behind their beliefs that homosexuality is immoral. It is already happening even with Proposition 8's success. Robin McGehee was not asked to resign for being homosexual, she was asked to resign for being a vocal opponent of Proposition 8 and a highly visible proponent of the No on 8 Campaign. The Catholic Church is well within its rights to monitor the teaching and volunteer activity and leadership of the children attending its private schools. Thus, the real victim here is the falsely vilified, unjustly slandered Catholic Church, not Ms. McGehee.

And yet....


...notice the "bleeding heart" title of the latter?

The Catholic Church is misrepresented, and yet the gay community cries foul and promptly writes a heartrending, fervor producing, purely sentimentalist story that is conspicuously lacking in thoughtful reasoning. But that is, and always has been, their platform; "It feels good, we feel good, help us to feel good and you'll feel good too. Forget thinking, it's not important. Just feel (*imagine lulling, hypnotic music and the pungent smell of incense*). What we do in our lives won't hurt you in yours." Mm hmmm. Zzzzzz.

NO! BAD! WAKE UP!

Wake up, people of America! Wake up and step away from your collective Id for a moment. Give your Super-ego the chance to sound that warning bell that's saying: "ERRR. Wrong! Wrong! Warning! Warning! Don't try to fix something that's not broken. Don't tamper with marriage!" Marriage between a man and a woman works. The traditional family unit is what society relies on to exist and survive and thrive. Evidence shows the homosexual lifestyle to be dangerous and destructive. Now is not the time to be Id-driven, allowing our feelings to govern and control us. We must give research it's day in our cranial courts. We must allow logic and self-restraint to temper passion and emotion. We must protect marriage to protect our little ones, our innocents, and to ensure the continuation of our society and government.

Image: "Female Martyr" by Jacob van Oost the Elder, oil on canvas.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Dr. Phil - Friday 11/21/08


So there's been all this talk about Dr. Phil's show tomorrow, 11/21, on CBS. I finally went and watched the preview here, and all I can say is...ugh. I don't know if I can actually bring myself to watch that show tomorrow. I got the most awful feeling just watching the preview; the few seconds of heated debate with members of the audience popping up and yelling at each other. This is what that short segment reminded me of, a quote from Elder James E. Faust, late member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

["Who has not heard and felt the enticing of the devil? His voice often sounds so reasonable and his message so easy to justify. It is an appealing, intriguing voice with dulcet tones. It is neither hard nor discordant. No one would listen to Satan’s voice if it sounded harsh or mean. If the devil’s voice were unpleasant, it would not persuade people to listen to it....Some of Satan’s most appealing lines are 'Everyone does it'; 'If it doesn’t hurt anybody else, it’s all right'; 'If you feel all right about it, it’s OK'; or 'It’s the ‘in’ thing to do.' These subtle entreaties make Satan the great imitator, the master deceiver, the arch counterfeiter, and the great forger."]
I can guarantee you'll hear some of those very same phrases tomorrow if you can stomach the show. Here's what Pastor Jim Garlow said of the experience as a guest for the Yes on 8 side:
["With these guests, plus a fired-up studio audience that hassled, yelled, catcalled and tried to drown us out at times, it made for an (how do I say this?) interesting experience. It was so intense that Dr. Phil- after the hour taping ended- decided to keep us there for another taping, for another show to be aired (we are told) in December"]

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Gas and Same-Sex Marriage


What? Seriously? What could gas and same-sex marriage possibly have in common? Well, I'll tell you if you can sit still for a minute (or 10). Tonight as I drove toward Mexican food, like a mosquito heading for light, I noticed the local gas station prices and narrowly avoided crunching the car in front of me while doing double takes. Hallelujah (!), I thought, but my elation was short-lived as I pondered the reason for the gas price plunge. With gas, we've won a battle, but the war against our failing economy is far from over. The declining gas prices are a symptom of a larger problem. With the economy taking hit after hit and consumerism at an all-time low, it's a given that prices (i.e. gas) will also fall. I tremble to think what the future holds for our economy and that, sadly, there might come a time when I won't even be able to afford gas at the price it stands now, in all its deflated glory. But, that's another conversation for someone else's blog.

This same sense of winning a skirmish then falling back to regroup applies to the same-sex marriage issue. The demand for legalized gay marriage is a symptom of a greater societal problem. With Proposition 8, we have won a battle, but it is ever-increasingly apparent that the war against moral relativism is really just beginning (or, if we're being honest, began with the 1960's Hippie movement). Regardless of when moral decline began, however, it is definitely rearing its ugly head with this homosexual movement that is threatening to redefine marriage and wreak havoc on the fundamental unit of society - the family.

["When you stop and think about it from a diabolically tactical point of view, fighting the family makes sense. When Satan wants to disrupt the work of the Lord, he doesn’t poison the world’s peanut butter supply, thus bringing the Church’s missionary system to its collective knees. He doesn’t send a plague of laryngitis to afflict the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. He doesn’t legislate against green Jell-O or casseroles. When Satan truly wants to disrupt the work of the Lord, he attempts to confuse gender and he attacks God’s plan for His children....That’s all it takes, because Satan knows that the surest and most effective way to disrupt the Lord’s work is to diminish the effectiveness of the family and the sanctity of the home....Lucifer is the enemy of the family!" -Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]
The successful outcome of the Prop 8 vote on November 4th felt a mite bit empty as I ruminated on the slim margin of victory, evidence of a shifting cultural perception toward and acceptance of homosexuality in general. And the victory, quietly and humbly celebrated by good people all over the country, became even more bitter-sweet in the terrible, violent, anarchical backlash that followed from the opposition.

Now, ask any defender of traditional marriage what they think the future holds for same-sex marriage, and you may be surprised to discover how many readily admit that legalized same-sex marriage is not only likely, but inevitable. We are optimistic, not dumb. We won't soon forget how the interpretation of four judges overturned the will of millions. We aren't blind to the upcoming new voters - the MTV educated, A-list influenced, slogan screaming, automated, entitled young people of America. We won't soon forget the incredible sham of media bias and slant displayed during these 2008 elections - teaching us more about Gov. Sara Palin's clothing expenditures and personal life than we know about President-elect Obama's political platforms and plans. This same media is guilty twice over on the marriage front for first perpetuating lies such as Jack O'Connell's empty promises, then hiding behind a conspicuous silence as the world watches the gay community openly ferret out and attack one religion for the part its members played in a free and democratic process and vote. Religious bigotry has gone not only unimpeded, but largely unacknowledged by the mainstream media. More than shameful, it's alarming! We democratic people of the world are watching in shock as all three branches of the government here in California brazenly disregard the will of the people whom they claim to represent, urging instead the reversal of Proposition 8 and crying the acceptance of a destructive lifestyle in the name of equal rights and...wait for it...love.

Again I say, this war is far from over. It's a war that has come and gone in cycles since Adam and Eve were escorted out of the Garden of Eden. Trying to keep people from forgetting God in times of wealth and prosperity is like trying to herd cats. For some reason, money and God are like oil and water. Money tends to create and then influence the slinky little folk like pride and corruption and greed. We were doing great, we were feeling good, economy was thriving, then BAM, we're back at the bottom of the world economic food chain and begging the Lord to remember us when we've forgotten Him. This happened with 9/11, too - we remembered God in a very unified manner after those attacks, praying and mourning together. Then slowly, ever so slowly, we forgot Him again once we had moved beyond feeling threatened, once complacency and economic success replaced fear and re-engaged our consumer-driven, self-gratifying, greedy impulses.

Here's a little lesson from the scriptures (The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ). Read Alma Chapter 1 and Helaman Chapter 4, in the Book of Mormon. It's like reading about this very situation we're experiencing right now. While some in the gay rights camp use the "history repeats itself" card against the Church and bring up Blacks and the Priesthood, Polygamy, etc., I say, historically more noteworthy is the repetition and effect of "altering" and "trampling" and "corrupting" the laws the Lord has commanded us to live by, and the denial of "the spirit of prophecy" and "the spirit of revelation." But don't take my word for it, read it yourself!

Alma 1:3-4 (Note: Nehor is an anti-Christ)
["And he {Nehor} had gone about among the people, preaching to them that which he termed to be the word of God, bearing down against the church...."

"And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life."]
Alma 1:6
["And he began to be lifted up in the pride of his heart, and to wear very costly apparel, yea, and even began to establish a church* after the manner of his preaching."]
*Establishing the church of irreligion as described by syndicated columnist, M.J. Sobran:
["The Framers of the Constitution … forbade the Congress to make any law 'respecting' the establishment of religion, thus leaving the states free to do so (as several of them did); and they explicitly forbade the Congress to abridge 'the free exercise' of religion, thus giving actual religious observance a rhetorical emphasis that fully accords with the special concern we know they had for religion. It takes a special ingenuity to wring out of this a governmental indifference to religion, let alone an aggressive secularism. Yet there are those who insist that the First Amendment actually proscribes governmental partiality not only to any single religion, but to religion as such; so that tax exemption for churches is now thought to be unconstitutional. It is startling to consider that a clause clearly protecting religion can be construed as requiring that it be denied a status routinely granted to educational and charitable enterprises, which have no overt constitutional protection. Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it."]
This new church of unbelief is also discussed by Elder Neal A. Maxwell, Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in a 1978 discourse:
["This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened."]
1978, people! This man, an apostle of the Lord, special witness of the Savior Jesus Christ, prophesied the moral decline of this nation. He knew the path we were walking down then would lead to where we are now. And people wonder why we put our faith in the leaders of this Church. There you have it - continuing revelation through the Lord's Prophets and Apostles. Okay, back to the scriptures....

Alma 1:7,9
["And it came to pass as he {Nehor} was going, to preach to those who believed on his word, he met a man who belonged to the church of God, yea, even one of their teachers; and he began to contend with him sharply, that he might lead away the people of the church; but the man withstood him, admonishing him with the words of God."

"Now, because Gideon withstood him with the words of God he was wroth with Gideon, and drew his sword and began to smite him.* Now Gideon being stricken with many years, therefore he was not able to withstand his blows, therefore he was slain by the sword."]

*Hm...now whose response does this remind us of? "I don't like what you're saying, so I'm going to draw my protest sword and climb the walls of your temples, vandalize your property, and spew slanderous and false accusations at you, intimidating you into giving me what I want or else...."

So, Nehor is sentenced to die according to the law Mosiah had established. But with his death, the spreading of priestcraft did not end. Those who enjoyed his teachings of "eat, drink, and be merry," continued to spread that false doctrine under the inaccurate pretense that their teachings were a system of "belief." Because, as it says in Alma 1:17
["...now the law could have no power on any man for his belief."]
But, it wasn't enough for these malcontents, members of the Church of Irreligion and Unbelief, to co-exist with the members of the true church of God.

Alma 1:19-20
["But it came to pass that whosoever did not belong to the church of God began to persecute those that did belong to the church of God, and had taken upon them the name of Christ."

"Yea, they did persecute them, and afflict them with all manner of words, and this because of their humility; because they were not proud in their own eyes, and because they did impart the word of God one with another, without money and without price."]
It's so interesting to me that many in the gay community are tossing around this "live and let live" bit, yet when you read something like this last passage, it becomes obvious that the irreligious are never satisfied with just co-existing. The ultimate goal (whether conscious or subconscious) is to bring down the religious, the humble, the moral. Now, let's switch gears and take a look at Helaman, Chapter 4, where the Nephite society suffers defeat after defeat (at the hands of the Lamanites) because of its own citizens' wickedness and failure to remember God.

Helaman 4:11-13, 21-23
["Now this great loss of the Nephites, and the great slaughter which was among them, would not have happened had it not been for their wickedness and their abomination which was among them; yea, and it was among those also who professed to belong to the church of God."

"And it was because of the pride of their hearts, because of their exceeding riches, yea, it was because of their oppression to the poor, withholding their food from the hungry, withholding their clothing from the naked, and smiting their humble brethren upon the cheek, making a mock of that which was sacred, denying the spirit of prophecy and of revelation, murdering, plundering, lying, stealing, committing adultery, rising up in great contentions, and deserting away in the the land of Nephi, among the Lamanites--"


"And because of this their great wickedness, and their boastings in their own strength, they were left in their own strength; therefore they did not prosper, but were afflicted and smitten, and driven before the Lamanites, until they had lost possession of almost all their lands."


"Yea, they began to remember the prophecies of Alma, and also the words of Mosiah; and they saw that they had been a stiffnecked people, and that they had set at naught the commandments of God;"


"And that they had altered and trampled under their feet the laws of Mosiah, or that which the Lord commanded him to give unto the people; and they saw that their laws had become corrupted, and that they had become a wicked people, insomuch that they were wicked even like unto the Lamanites."


"And because of their iniquity the church had begun to dwindle; and they began to disbelieve in the spirit of prophecy and in the spirit of revelation; and the judgments of God did stare them in the face."]
So, gas and same-sex marriage. I promise this all ties back together somewhere here. In essence the gist of this super long post is that we are waging a war here, one of epic proportions the likes of which you'd see in, oh, Lord of the Rings. Despite all the demands for facts and proof and philosophical debates on the relative merits of the homosexual lifestyle, this war is truly a simple one. It is classic Good vs. Evil. Heterosexual love vs. Homosexual love. Now before you walk away in disgust (that is, if you haven't already, my nemesis readers), hear me out. I am not calling gays evil. Let's clear that up right now. I am calling homosexual love/sex evil. I don't believe that homosexuals are "born with it" insomuch that they are left without choice. That would be Satan's plan and we all know that Satan didn't win in the pre-existence. I believe that homosexuals are born with strong feelings of attraction for the same sex, feelings that can and should be denied and, in some cases, can even be overcome and replaced with appropriate attractions for the opposite gender. Satan, however, being his usual cunning and wily self, has placed into the hearts of men a thought, simple yet powerful in its ability to cut the traditional family structure to the core. "Why?" That's it. "Why should I deny my feelings?" By planting the seed of entitlement to self-gratification in these individuals' hearts and minds, Satan is effectively working toward the destruction of that which he desires above all, but can never have - to be a father and have a family. If all people began to demand concessions based on self-gratification, government would disintegrate and anarchy would rule the day. Black is still black and white is still white, people, and even if the entire population of the world were to scream that black is acceptable, that evil is good, it would still be untrue. Good is the family as the Lord has outlined it to His Prophets and Apostles in The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Evil is any other definition of the family, including same-sex marriages. It's truly as simple as that. So, for now, a battle is won, but the war wages on. And for the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would plead that we all make a special effort to stay close to the spirit and follow the chosen and anointed Prophet of the Lord, for therein lies safety and truth.

To wrap this all up nicely, I am including my own father's powerful testimony and a prophetic quote below.
["I bore my testimony to my students today. Those who claim that 'prophets ought to keep their noses out of politics' have never read the Old Testament! Think about Moses, and Elijah, and Isaiah, and Amos, and others; they went directly to their respective political leaders and told them what the Lord wanted them to do, what course to pursue. (Can we limit what God can say about anything?)"

"I testified that the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles is the wisest group of leaders on earth (!), and not just from their cumulative intellectual prowess (world-class heart surgeon, nuclear physicist, judge and legal mind, etc., etc.) but because of their direct connection with Heaven, and living by the Spirit every day. I testified that the sifting has begun. And I encouraged them to remember that we’re on the winning team – the Lord’s Team. In all other dispensations the truth has been lost; there has always been an apostasy; but not anymore. The truth is restored to stay. It will never again be lost or taken away from this sphere. This great Cause, in the end, will triumph. So, I warned them, don’t ever quit the Team! In the future, stay with this wisest group on earth – whatever the issue."]

["
President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident which happened to him: I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home. . . .Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.'" [In Conference Report, October 1960, 78]]

Alice in Queensland


Have you ever seen Alice in Queensland? Well, it's not really a movie, it's just a part of a movie, but if you haven't inserted that DVD in your machine for a while, don't worry, you've been watching its live remake on the news for the past couple of weeks. See what I mean....

Queen of Hearts Campaign

Moral of the story: It's generally better to "campaign" before the vote, not after.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

The "Right" to Win

Thomas Sowell has done it again. The man is brilliant. In a world where grey is the new green, Sowell re-emphasizes that white (free and democratic election) and black (anarchical aftermath) still exist.


The Right to Win
by Thomas Sowell

[Among the many new "rights" being conjured out of thin air, a new one seems to be a "right" to win.

Americans have long had the right to put their candidates and their ideas to a vote. Now there seems to be a sense that your rights have been trampled on if you don't win.

Hillary Clinton's supporters were not merely disappointed, but outraged, when she lost the Democrats' nomination to Barack Obama. Some took it as a sign that, while racial barriers had come down, the "glass ceiling" holding down women was still in place.

Apparently, if you don't win, somebody has put up a barrier or a ceiling. The more obvious explanation of the nomination outcome was that Obama ran a better campaign than Hillary. There is not the slightest reason to doubt that she would have been the nominee if the votes in the primaries had come out her way.

As the election approached, pundits warned that, if Obama lost, there would be riots in the ghetto. We will never know. But since when does any candidate have a right to win any office, much less the White House?

The worst of all the reactions from people who act as if they have a right to win have come from gay activists in the wake of voter rejection of so-called "gay marriage," which is to say, redefining what marriage has meant for centuries.

Blacks and Mormons have been the main targets of the gay activists' anger. Seventy percent of blacks voted against gay marriage in California, so racial epithets were hurled at blacks in Los Angeles -- not in black neighborhoods, by the way.

Blacks who just happened to be driving through Westwood, near UCLA, were accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, "You better watch your back."

Even blacks who were carrying signs in favor of gay marriage were denounced with racial epithets.

In Michigan, an evangelical church service was invaded and disrupted by gay activists, who also set off a fire alarm, because evangelicals had dared to exercise their right to express their opinions at the polls.

In Oakland, California, a mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in such numbers that officials shut down a nearby freeway exit for more than three hours.

In their midst was a San Francisco supervisor who said "The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs." He added, "This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they've forgotten some lessons."

Apparently Mormons don't have the same rights as other Americans, at least not if they don't vote the way gay activists want them to vote.

There was another gay activist mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in Orange County, California.

In the past, gay activists have disrupted Catholic services and their "gay pride" parades in San Francisco have crudely mocked nuns.

While demanding tolerance from others, gay activists apparently feel no need to show any themselves.

How did we get to this kind of situation?

With all the various groups who act as if they have a right to win, we got to the present situation over the years, going back to the 1960s, where the idea started gaining acceptance that people who felt aggrieved don't have to follow the rules or even the law.

"No justice, no peace!" was a slogan that found resonance.

Like so many slogans, it sounds good if you don't stop and think -- and awful if you do.

Almost by definition, everybody thinks their cause is just. Does that mean that nobody has to obey the rules? That is called anarchy.

Nobody is in favor of anarchy. But some people want everybody else to obey the rules, while they don't have to.

What they want is not decisive, however. It is what other people are willing to tolerate that determines how far any group can go.

When the majority of the people become like sheep, who will tolerate intolerance rather than make a fuss, then there is no limit to how far any group will go.]

Related Posts with Thumbnails