In my first two rounds of debate at NewsReal with editor David Swindle on the subject of “gays” and conservatism, he called me a “totalitarian,” a “neo-communist,” a “radical Islamist,” and more.
Welcome to David Horowitz’s NewsReal!
David’s cuss-out session continued undisturbed in intensity throughout the debate. He slandered conservatives who refuse to agree that the “gay” agenda is a conservative one as “stupid,” “bigots,” “liars,” “cheaters,” and “theocrats.”
Before David’s meltdown was over he referred to the natural law upon which the United States is built as “malarkey,” declared that he was “banning” me from NewsReal and urged others to do the same.
David’s inclination to censure political opponents rather than debate them remind me of the time
Francois A. Houle censured Ann Coulter. Ann explains:
Francois A. Houle, the Provost of the University of Ottawa wrote me in advance of my visit to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.
I was given no specific examples of what words and phrases I couldn't use, but I take it I'm not supposed to say, "F--- you, Francois."
Upon reading Francois' letter, I suddenly realized that I had just been the victim of a hate crime! And it was committed by Francois A. Houle –French, for Frank A. Hole.
One need not feel badly for Ann or me. David and A. Houle are the real victims. Both men are cowards. It must be awful to live in such terror of the truth that a man feels his only way out is to slam the door on open debate –to choose to live in darkness.
So much for David Horowitz’s, “
Students for Academic Freedom!”
One might think David would exercise more restraint before “banning” people from NewsReal. After all Horowitz has been banned from speaking at St. Louis University by Scott Smith, the Dean of Student Life, twice! In the 1990’s his
anti-reparation ads were banned from newspapers across America.
What would compel David to reduce himself to the status of St. Louis University’s Scott Smith –an American “A. Houle?”
David’s ostensible reasons for banning me are based in his own accusations, not reality. David claims I, “lied three times,” “cheated in a card game" and, “took a dump on the table in front of him after lunch” –the last accusation arises from his own anally-fixated mind. None of them are true.
Let’s take a closer look at each of his claims.
First, I have never played cards with David or gone to lunch with him. Sound like a ridiculous way to respond? David’s case that I lied is based on the same level of inanity.
He claims I lied about the dollar amount the federal government spends to treat HIV/AIDS infected men who have sex with men.
I indicated that two-thirds of persons infected HIV/AIDS in the United States are men who have sex with men and that total federal spending on HIV/AIDS treatment is $20.5 billion.
David specifies that the $20.5 billion includes housing allowances, research, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security Disability, a Federal Employee’s Health Benefit Plan, and prevention. He highlights that $14.1 billion is allocated for “care/treatment” specifically.
Talk about missing the forest for a tree! Is playing silly semantics games the best David can do?
David purposely refused to respond to the point of the paragraph, which is simply that men who lead the promiscuous and irresponsible homosexual lifestyle actually do affect others economically, because our tax dollars go to pay for the various effects of their STDs.
David couldn’t refute the point, so he attempted to take his reader’s eye off the ball by accusing me of “lying” for using the word “treatment” broadly. How pathetic.
The mere fact that he attempts this equivocation is a sure sign he has nothing of actual significance to attack in my argument.
David’s second allegation is more offensive. He claims I “lied” about conservative icon Ronald Reagan’s position on the so-called “gay” movement. I never lied. In fact, he did.
David cited the fact that Ronald Reagan was opposed to the Briggs Initiative as evidence Reagan believed the homosexual lifestyle is compatible with conservatism.
Reagan actually
opposed teaching children about the dangerous homosexual lifestyle in schools, and therefore supported the general spirit of the Briggs Initiative:
I don’t approve of teaching a so-called ‘gay’ lifestyle in our schools…
Reagan opposed the Briggs Initiative because he considered it redundant. Reagan believed the legal machinery was already in place to deal with adults who expose school children to sexual perversion:
…there is already adequate legal machinery to deal with such problems if and when they arise.
David claimed the Briggs Initiative was not about “teaching homosexuality in schools.” If it wasn’t then why did Ronald Reagan specify his opposition to the Briggs Initiative within the context of redundancy? Of course the spirit of the Briggs Initiative was about exposing children to the dangerous homosexual lifestyle. The verbiage of the initiative makes that clear in black and white script letters:
For these reasons, the State finds a compelling interest in refusing to employ and in terminating the employment of a school teacher, a teacher’s aid, a school administrator or a counselor…who engages in public homosexual activity and/or public homosexual conduct directed at, or likely to come to the attention of, school children or other school employees. [Emphasis mine]
David took half of Ronald Reagan’s letter in opposition to the Briggs Initiative and presented it to his readers it as if it were the whole thing, conveniently censuring those aspects of Reagan with which he personally disagrees –that is lie #1.
David claims Reagan believed homosexuality was compatible with conservatism. Against David stands Ronald Reagan on the role of government in relation
to homosexuality:
We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality.
Ronald Reagan on “gays” and HIV/AIDS:
Maybe the Lord brought down this plague [because] illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments.
Ronald Reagan’s hand-picked Supreme Court appointees Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist upheld anti-sodomy statutes in
Bowers v Hardwick.
David claims Reagan would allow practitioners of the unnatural vice to openly represent conservatism, but due to Reagan’s Supreme Court appointees they weren’t permitted to openly represent themselves.
David further claims that conservatism ought to ban God and Religious belief from influencing legal proscription:
As demonstrated by my definition of conservatism, the movement is not grounded in a common religious or moral understanding of personal behavior…That’s why it’s perfectly rational to have…Pagan conservatives.
Ronald Reagan believed the exact opposite of David:
Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.
Publicly David claims that the “gay” socio-political construct and the cultural Marxist agenda which gives it context are compatible with conservatism. Privately however, he declares his views on social issues unchanged
since his days as a leftist:
My views on so-called ‘social issues’ remain largely unchanged from my college leftist days. I still see nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. I wish gay marriage was legal. I think abortions within the first trimester should be legal. Pornography among consenting adults should not be regulated by the government. And all drugs should be decriminalized.
Claiming to be a conservative and then stating that your views remain largely
unchanged from your college
leftist days is lie # 2, David.
David isn’t only a leftist on social issues. Apparently he is a libertarian too.
As a social libertarian I loathe the idea of government trying to impose the right way to live morally.
That is lie # 3.
David lies as easily as he breathes. He implies that he also represents
conservatism on social issues:
So where does this leave conservatives on the question of gay marriage? The same place where gays are…There are gays who support gay marriage, civil unions, and the status quo of no government recognition whatsoever. Therefore, why should there be a “conservative” position on the issue?
After forbidding the conservative movement in general from taking a position on marriage, David presents a position the movement should take up! His position is that conservatives should not take a position, and that is, in fact, a position in itself. He goes on to declare that this “debate is not about gay marriage...” after bringing the issue up himself.
The contradictions of the medieval church or seventeenth century French letters don’t match David’s’ level of hypocrisy.
David also declares himself a
libertine:
And for someone as agnostic, libertine, and absurdly open-minded as myself that’s practically impossible.
Your entire political position is impossible, David. That is lie number 4!
This “left-wing, conservative, libertarian, libertine” who contradicts himself more times than the Marquis de Sade is so open minded that his brains have fallen out.
Andrew Breitbart called Ted Kennedy a “duplicitous bastard” for less. I wonder what he might call David? Perhaps a “quadra-plicitous bastard” if it wasn’t so clunky?” No matter, I hereby dub David, “Mr. Swindle” -a fitting name for a liar.
Mr. Swindle accuses me of calling Andrew Breitbart “gay.” Well, I had good reason to believe Andrew Breitbart was going “full gay.” Apparently, so did
Philadelphia magazine. In fact, Andrew Breitbart had to trot out his “
correction Alpaca” to make clear to the world that he is not a homosexual. What does it matter Breitbart? Are you a "homophobe?" Democratic Party officials have also mistaken Andrew Breitbart for a
homosexual.
Why all the fuss about Andrew Breitbart?
For starters Andrew Breitbart joined the
Executive Board of an openly homosexual organization. He takes photos like
this, which suggest he seeks to French kiss another man, and
this, standing behind I sign which reads “Proud Gay…” Andrew Breitbart also organized a “
Big Gay Eighties Dance Party” to make a mockery of CPAC. How can Mr. Swindle criticize me for making such an honest mistake?
Further, Andrew Breitbart, Greg Gutfeld, and Tammy Bruce have been accusing opponents of homosexual behavior of engaging in it themselves for months. How can Breitbart act as though he is offended when someone makes an honest mistake about him, especially after he called my Facebook photo sitting with my surfboard a “Blue Boy Test Shot?”
Mr. Swindle accuses me of taking a dump on the table in front of him for making a very honest mistake about Andrew Breitbart on my personal Facebook page. That analogy would better suit Mr. Swindle’s wife’s
pornography.
In the end Mr. Swindle lost the debate. His cowardly attempt to win-by-censure backfired leading many of his own readers to declare yours-truly the winner.
Atlas_Collins made his position clear:
David lost the debate when he ‘banned’ Sorba.
BDouglasAF1980 had a message for Mr. Swindle:
Admit you are a libertarian and be happy with it.
Calvin Frieberger reacted thusly to Mr. Swindle's position on GOProud:
You’re going to ignore GOProud's well-established record of anti-conservative antagonism and expect conservatives to tolerate an organization run by one of conservatism's worst possible enemies?
NewsReal contributor Lisa Graas
praised my stance on the issue:
I applaud Ryan Sorba for taking his time at CPAC to stand for natural law and submit himself to ridicule by those who purport to be “conservative.”
Not only did Mr. Swindle stick his fingers in his ears and sing “LaLaLaLaLa” when he “banned” me, as Atlas_Collins wrote, but he was also accused of deleting comments critical to his position during almost every round –and he has the nerve to accuse me of cheating in a card game?
In this debate Mr. Swindle falsely accused me of “lying three times.” He cited these three lies specifically as grounds for “banning me from NewsReal.” I have addressed and corrected Mr. Swindle's false accusations for the public record here. It should now be clear to readers that I did not “lie three times.”
Now I would like to know if Mr. Swindle is willing to play by his own rules.
Mr. Swindle made the argument that anyone who lies three times should be banned from NewsReal Blog. In this article I showed that he lied 4 times himself.
Will Mr. Swindle be consistent and ban
himself from NewsReal, or will he commit lie # 5 by staying on board as editor? Will he ignore his own inconsistency and further discredit his own objectivity as an editor? Will he prove his pretenses to ban political opponents as ad hoc and whimsical?
Perhaps David can remain at NewsReal Blog without hypocrisy if he offers me an apology for his false and quite literally vile accusations, and then retracts his previous article of lies, but I doubt he is man enough to do the "Right" thing. You know what they say, “Once a cheater always a cheater.”
Good luck to you in your endeavors, “Mr. Swindle,” you are going to need it.
Rest assured, you’ve made an enemy outta me. Ya you. You’ve made an enemy outta me.
By Ryan Sorba
