Email
Print
SyndicateSieg Heil!
By Robert Ringer - Monday, April 27, 2009
As I witness the daily events that surround me, I sometimes feel as though I’ve landed on another planet. Or perhaps that I’m having a dream where I’m trapped inside a George Orwell novel. Comments like “We live in an upside-down world” and “The world is standing on its head” have become cliches a result of decades of a dismissive attitude by “social progressives” (or, more accurately, socialist progressives).
It seems as though speech and behavior that was once considered morally wrong, uncivilized, or inappropriate is today not only tolerated, but extolled. Likewise, speech and behavior that the vast majority of people once considered to be morally right, civilized, and appropriate is now reviled.
So, yes, the world is upside-down. I saw this moral transformation coming late in my teens, and started writing about it in the late seventies. Of course, giants like Ayn Rand, F.A. Hayek, and George Orwell preceded me — and many other likeminded writers — by decades.
But when I was in high school — at a time when a generally accepted code of behavior actually existed in the Western world — I had no idea that so-called progressivism had been gradually moving forward since at least the days of Teddy Roosevelt. In fact, some liberty purists would argue it began moving forward when the Constitution was ratified.
I thought about this during the recent flap over Carrie Prejean’s (Miss California) answer to a loaded question from a nasty little bug who goes by the pseudonym Perez Hilton — one of the judges in the Miss USA pageant. It’s not just that a question about gay marriage would have been unthinkable in a Miss USA contest not that long ago, it was an outrageous question even in today’s upside-down America.
What in the world does anyone’s personal opinion about gay marriage have to do with being a worthy Miss USA? Obviously, nothing. So, why did this Hilton character pose the question to Ms. Prejean? Because, having taken control of the body politic in Washington, progressivism is feeling its oats. Agree with us, or else. Sieg heil!
Much like a brown-shirt youth having to swear his allegiance to Adolf Hitler back in the thirties and early forties, having the “right” opinion of gay marriage is a litmus test for liberal fascists. The message is: You’re either with us or you’re against us. Hmm … seems like George Bush said something similar regarding terrorism (how antiquated that word now sounds), and to this day he is being hammered for his audacity.
As to the gorgeous-times-10 Ms. Prejean, her answer, under enormous pressure, earned her an A+ for poise on my scorecard: “We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage,” she said. “And you know what … I think … in my country … in my family … I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”
Would it have been possible for her to be any nicer … any more tactful … and still have the courage to say what she believed in? Now, juxtapose her gracious response to the Barney Frank-like hysterical babble of gay militant Perez Hilton.
Until I saw him in the news, I had never heard of this little weirdo. In fact, I just now looked him up on the Internet and found that his real name is Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. Converting that to “Perez Hilton” took quite an imagination. Though I would never be one to disparage anyone who calls himself a Hilton, as far as I can tell he is a nobody whose only achievement to date has been to find a way to mingle with minor celebrities.
After he stated, on camera, that Carrie Prejean lost the Miss USA contest because “she’s a dumb bit–,” the media was all over the story. When Sean Hannity asked her about the remark, Ms. Prejean politely replied that he was obviously a very disturbed individual and that she felt genuinely sorry for him. I believe she meant it.
Watching Hilton in action in those news clips, I have to agree with Ms. Prejean. His words and demeanor are those of a very angry, very disturbed person. Maybe he’s mad because he can’t be in the Miss USA contest himself.
Like abortion, gun control, and other hot-button issues, the question of gay marriage isn’t going to go away — ever. And the progressives will probably win on this issue, as they have on most everything else, because they are relentless. Their march to reverse, one by one, the mores of Western civilization is nonstop.
Personally, I don’t believe that homosexuality, of and by itself, bothers most people all that much. In fact, I think that a large percentage of Americans sympathize with the plight of “gay” people.
Like anything else that makes a person feel like a outcast, I have to believe that homosexuality has to be the source of an enormous amount of pain and frustration for those saddled with that condition from birth (as opposed to those who simply choose to lead a perverse lifestyle). A gay person has a right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, the same as anyone else, and I’ll stand up and be counted on that every time.
What is distasteful, however, is the in-your-face, hateful attitude of a significant number of gay men and women. If only they were smart enough, and secure enough, to just go about their business in private and leave others alone.
But being an integral part of the fascist progressive movement, they cannot settle for that. They feel compelled to force others to think as they do. Probably nothing short of outlawing the traditional family will appease them.
After watching Mr. Lavandeira-Hilton spew out his hateful remarks, I couldn’t help but think about one of my all-time favorite actors, Richard Chamberlain. In his 2004 book Shattered Love, Chamberlain discusses, in a calm, forthright, dignified manner the trials and tribulations of his coming to grips with his homosexuality.
What sticks out in my mind is when he said, during a television interview, that he came to realize that his homosexuality was actually a “pretty uninteresting fact.” And he said it with that Father Ralph de Bricassart (The Thorn Birds) smile that must have endeared him to most of the folks watching.
So you see, Mr. Mario-turned-Perez, you can be as gay as a thorn bird if you want, without feeling the need to shove it in everyone’s face. Sorry, but your sex life is about as interesting to the rest of us as is Rosie’s — and interest in her sex life hovers around zero. And whether we — and, for sure, a contestant in a beauty pageant — are against gay marriage is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. And that’s the politically incorrect truth.
Sorry, junior, but you’re a bore compared to serious newsmakers like Dog Chapman, Octomom, and O.J. It takes super shtick to make it in today’s world of full-fledged progressivism — a world where
anything goes. You’ve got to come up with something better than naming yourself after Paris Hilton if you want to stay in the limelight.
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.
Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints. Make your case passionately, but please keep your comments civil and to the point (150 words or less). Obscene, profane, abusive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.
If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion. Thanks for your participation.
14 Responses to “Sieg Heil!”
Leave a Reply
1500 characters maximum.
Hi Robert,
Without a doubt on my mind, I agree 100% with your thoughts on this. Thank you.
And to the very beautiful Ms Prejean, I think that though Mario-turned-Perez might have designed his question for evil, all right-minded people can only see smartness, decency and maturity – all added on to her sweet credentials – and for her good!
What an age! Up is down, right is left, progressive is…well, not very progressive, etc. I feel bad for polygamists living in America; they just don’t seem to get the respect that the homosexual community has managed to achieve. And I don’t remember ever hearing about a proliferation of STD’s associated with this reclusive sub-culture. I mean, we can’t hardly legitimize so-called gay marriage and make illegitimate polygamy – an we? I smell a U.S. Supreme Court case.
Amen Brother!!!!!!! Modern Liberals are rapidly becoming Fascists.
Thank you for your commentary on this subject, Robert –
I have one son (only child) and he’s 30 years old. He is gay. When he came out, it knocked me off my bearing. I never expected or even suspected – I guess I probably didn’t want to even consider it. But, I took my time. I studied. I published a book for one of my authors on changing one’s lifestyle from homosexuality to straight. But, I never put any pressure on him or tried to force him to changel I never let anything influence me except these few things – he is MY son and always will be, he is a fantastic person, I love him unconditionally – and it’s his life and just as I’ve chosen how to live my life, he has exactly that same right. I have, yet to meet anyone who knows him as a friend, colleague, whatever, who hasn’t told me that he is one of the most fantastic people they know. How could a father of a son or daughter be anything other then PROUD, no matter what their sexual, political, etc. orientation is (and he is liberally minded and democratic leaning – as opposed to my Libertarian and generally more conservative views). Yes! Ms. PreJean doesn’t need to be Miss USA to be a very class act and Mr. Dipstick Hilton can go climb back under whatever rock he crawled out from under – his act is low class – no-class.
Enthusiastically,
Ed Helvey
Robert,
Unfortunately this is the only time I agree with you and sanity does fit. You actually had a Voice of Reason to go with Sanity. It amazes me that this agenda gets any press at all when you look at how much venom they spew if you don’t agree with them. I hope to see more of your writings in line with this. Otherwise your on my radar for the insane comments. But its America and you have your right to your opinion. But what if the direction we are going is right for these circumstances? And were you bring to task the industry that put all of us in jeopardy to begin with Sean Sannity included. Humor me.
Regards,
Christopher Thompson
Patriot
Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Russian Revolution and founder of Soviet Communism once said:
“The goal of socialism is communism.”
And Communism has most aptly been described as “A LICENSE TO HATE.”
Having once, in my foolish youth, “been among them,” I can tell you that while they may not be Communists, the so-called “Gay” community has been profoundly influenced BY them. Hence, the “License to Hate” as we see it in all of its obscene “glory” spewing out of the mouth of AKA “paris hilton.”
God Bless you.
Persevere.
Rev. Bhagavan Friend
Please let me clairify – I was very involved with the RADICAL LEFT in my foolish youth NOT the Gays!!!
I really like what you say Robert Ringer. What saddened me was that Mr. Hilton requested what she felt and she gave an answer that came from her heart. I personally disagree with what she said but I will defend her to the death for her ability to say it. To name call her and tell her she lost because she didn’t agree with him was so sad and showed what a tryant and immmature person that Mr Perez Hilton showed the world and what a true class act Miss California truly showed under pressure. What was more sad was that the California organization that runs her is telling her she needs to keep her thoughts to herself. I didn’t know that they had gotten rid of the 1st amendment. So sad and we truly are in a upside world.
I couldn’t help laughing out loud when I read the following:
> Maybe he’s mad because he can’t be in the Miss USA contest himself.
I don’t laugh easily. It takes a timely and clever remark, or a surprising rhythm-changing comment, for me to really enjoy a laugh.
And I find often in your books and articles such touch of humor (too sarcastic for my taste sometimes, though); suddenly coming out in the middle of deep, conventional-thoughts challenging topics.
Nice writing, Mr Ringer.
P.S.
When I saw that Perez-Hilton fellow on Larry King; I thought I had been living under a rock (I had no idea of his existence, I mean, he had to be someone whose opinion is worth on national prime time broadcast); watching the interview, I reinforced my idea that he’s just a worthless opportunist, getting his shot of fame by stepping on a girl’s efforts.
I see more people share this perception.
You know that you have been a source of inspiration to me for many, many years.
Unfortunately this coin you write of is double sided. I am a Christian and I do my best to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. I am also a heterosexual. I did not make a concious choice to get turned on by beautiful women. It just happened that way.
You correctly pointed out that homosexuals also do not make a concious choice to get turned on by members of their own sex. They are not so much different than I, other than that of their faulty brain wiring. (Yes…It IS faulty as homosexuality does not allow for natural reproduction, a necessity for the survival of any animal species.) They do not “choose” to be homosexuals anymore than I “chose” to be a heterosexual.
However this is where you have missed the point. In many “Christian” organizations, and a lot of society at large, the homosexual is ostracized. In fact if someone claims to be homosexual then that person is jugded, by most, to be not worthy of God’s love.
If, and when, I bring this topic up in a church study groups I am also subjected to the same ostracizing behavior as if I were a homosexual. When I do not echo the church’s “party line” then I am no longer welcomed at that church.
Now I have been invited to leave many, many churches…So I have become used to it. So much for the love of God? It is pretty sad. The churches are failing in their primary mission to love one another as Christ loved us. Churches are faulty as they are filled with the sinners whom God loves. So I pray for them.
Well I have got some news for you all…God loves ALL sinners, even the gays. That is why Christians believe that God sent His Son to earth to die for and to be raised from the dead for, according to the Bible. Christ was the propitiation for ALL sin.
So why should I expect a different response from a openly gay militant than the one that he would have gotten from most of the churches in this country? Retaliation is the World’s way, not the way of Jesus Christ.
Now I do not wear shirts that read “Straight Pride”, although I have seen some do. That perplexes me. I do not wear my heterosexuality on my sleeve. Now if Adam and Steve want to “wed” then who am I to tell them that they can’t? Personally I’d rather wed Eve.
You understand that I am not God. Yet I do have a PERSONAL relationship with God. My own sin is more than enough to deal with and I am not so righteous as to be able to cure others of their sin. Only Jesus can do that. So I will leave that to God. It is way too easy to point out the sin of others as it will enable one to avoid dealing with their own sin.
Maybe when we, as a society, wake up and understand, perhaps the behavior of the militant homosexual might change. Maybe when we, as a society, wake up and understand, perhaps the behavior of most of the society and most churches might change.
However the “brown shirt” behavior is not a monopoly held by the homosexuals. When I feel the urge to point out the sin of others I think that it is really a damned good idea to step back, take a deep breath, and look into the mirror.
Can you see that this coin has two sides?
God bless you Robert Ringer. I will pray for you. I will pray for this character “Hilton”. I can understand why this upset you. I am also upset by this poor behavior. I will also pray for the beautiful and classy Miss California. She really deserves better and I am certain that, down the road, she will be rewarded for standing up for her beliefs. She exhibited a deep, wholesome character. What a cutie!!!
So as I opened this letter I will close this letter. You have been an inspiation to me for many, many years. I am certain that you will continue to do so.
Tall Tom
I Cor 13
Robert-while I certainly agree with your assesment of “the little Bug”–what happened with all the other judges–did they just go along with the bug???
Thank you Robert for stating what many of us wanted to say to that clown Perez Hilton – and unfortunately also stating how the progression of progressives – like most avalanches – will not likely be stopped.
As for Gay Marriage – as a libertarian, I have a problem with it – as I have a problem with the government making any distinction or preference for any relationship or existance other than citizen. Since our good governement gives preference for marriage (man and woman), then gays should be included as well – or else risk hipocracy.
If gays can find a way for their theology to rewrite the Bible and most other faiths and religions to be accepting of their lifestyle, then it is not for me to stop them. I will simply stand y my own beliefs, and change faiths if I disagree.
But litte Perez is a Bully. Read his site. He is a major major Bully – hurling the worst gossip and inuendo that exists against anyone who dares to rear their head in “society”.
What a world we live in – where the Bully of today can be a pint size little man, wearing bright colors, eye make up and dyed hair with too much product in it.
What Perez is saying is – agree with me or face ostracism. Thank you Mr. Trump and your Miss USA pageant – You have given him another bully pulpit.
Overall, I agree that there is a bit too much “in your face” upset over the issue of gay marriage. The reaction of whats-his-name was just wrong, wrong, wrong, and he’s an idiot. Asking a contestant her thoughts on such a poignant social issue is in bounds. Vilifying her answer, or using it as a litmus test, is way out.
What I do NOT hear you or anyone else on the “traditional” side say is that, from a libertarian point of view, defining marriage as being between a man and a woman is just as WRONG. The problem is, it establishes a contract between 2 people to which the state (government) gives certain privileges, then declares that certain classes of citizens may not enter into such a contract. If there were a similar bill giving specific benefits ONLY to gays and lesbians, you’d be up in arms. The other problem is that most arguments against same-sex marriage, and homosexuality in general, are based in tradition (read “religion”); we should and do have a separation of church and state in this country.
The only rational answer is to separate the notion of “marriage” from the notion of “holy matrimony”. The state could require that all secular institutions treat any such union equally, regardless of the partners. Religious institutions would be free to hold out for a “higher” standard, one that is consistent with their beliefs. Therefore (to come up with a simple example) a government-sponsored orphanage would not be able to discriminate between homo- and heterosexual couples on matters of adoption, but faith-based organizations could exercise their right to hold out for “matrimony” that they recognize. And individuals on both sides would know that there is equal treatment in this world, but there may not be in the next.
Of course, there would be detractors, taunters, and complainers. But there always are, and complaining about them doesn’t solve anything. Your mother’s advice works best: “Just ignore them, dear, and they’ll go away”.
Per Alfoss1540: The state has every right and authority to define civil matrimony and establish the rules. The individual has every right and authority not to play. But if the individual chooses to play, then he must abide by the rules. Western civilaztion has, for centuries, deifined mariage as the union between a man and a woman. This legal tradition of course is derived from English sic. Common Law, which is based in Judeo-Christian ethic. It would be nice if the state kept its’ nose out of our business, even marriage, but I’m afraid that is not the case. So, if we begin unwinding the legal traditions which have bound us for generations, with what special interest does it end? Some press the case for polygamy i.e., to define marriage as that union among one man and women. Is their legal petition not valid? And what about Sharia Law – shall our society accomodate those who advocate for Sharia as well, or risk hypocracy? One of the traps that non-libertarians use, both left and right of center, is to set an argument out of proper context. Though it may trace its foundation in certain religious tradition, in western culture we have long held that a constitution and civil code is not a religious code. Sometimes civil code is in concert with many religious traditions and sometimes they are in conflict. If society establishes laws which which conflict with one’s own closely held beliefs – that individual basically has two choices; to comply or resist. So, the libertine should support laws which protect the individual from aggression from others and fight those laws which would do harm to the individual, being careful not to get caught in the trap which clouds the two.