Wednesday, April 17, 2013



The national culture wars of the 1990s have finally made their way to the shores of Sarasota, Florida.  Twenty Years ago the mantra of the new left was “Celebrate our Differences” through “Multi-Culturalism” – that is, America does not have a culture but rather many cultures.  This ideology had morphed from the 1980s Pluralism to 1993 Multi-Culturalism, to 2004 Diversity.  The common theme behind each new manifestation was an obsession with matters that separate us. 

Rather than Celebrate Our Differences, a healthier motto is “Celebrate Our Similarities and Respect our Differences.”  This latter motto embraces a traditional view of America as the proverbial melting pot – “E Pluribus Unum (Latin for Out of Many, One) has been our national “motto” since 1782 only to be joined in 1956 by “In God We Trust” – another apple-pie motto also under attack by the vanguard of the new left – the ACLU.  E Pluribus Unum was settled doctrine until the Multi-culturalists gained momentum with the inauguration of Bill Clinton in 1993.

Locally a Trojan Horse has come to Island Park in the City of Sarasota under the guise of the 10th Annual Embracing our Differences Exhibit.  A public service announcement for the exhibit used GC, a 7th grade girl from Sarasota’s Booker Middle School as an announcer proclaiming that “No one deserves to be limited by another’s perspective.”  She goes on to proclaim the themes of the exhibit as diversity, acceptance, and tolerance…“because differences are a gift, not a mistake.”

It is hard not to be swayed by this articulate middle schooler proclaiming tolerance and love.  But we must resist liberalism of this sort even when they use a lovely young voice.  The rhetoric of “No one deserves to be limited by another’s perspective.”…is just plain giddy.  This young girl’s entire life has been and will be limited and shaped by her teachers and her parents.  Her performance on the SATs will determine her future in a big way and this will be done by total strangers working in Princeton, NJ.  GC should learn the irony of her words since the new left is notorious for limiting free speech: just Google George Washington University and Father Greg Shaffer.  You’ll see just one more example of the new left trying to shut down free speech in this case two gay seniors upset that a Catholic Priest is promoting the exclusivity of traditional marriage.  This type of intolerant thought by the two students, mixed with their contempt peaked during the 2008 election cycle when candidate Barak Obama addressed a fund raiser in San Francisco, the citadel of liberalism.  The junior senator from Illinois tried to explain small town Americans to his fellow progressives like this: “they (rural Americans) cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”  Really?  Basically if you disagree with a “liberal” you are marginalized as a gun-toting, bible thumping, xenophobe.     

GC is a potent example of the true nature of this modern day Trojan horse in downtown Sarasota, namely indoctrination over education.  Here are some examples to ponder: In 1993 author Jonathan Rauch, a gay liberal journalist, criticized the new left for embracing cultures that they liked and badgering cultures that they disliked in his ground breaking social critique of American society: Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought.  Twenty years ago he used a new term to our lexicon, Political Correctness.  He cited the abuse of the gun culture in the United States by liberal circles.  Out of the 39 posters none were embracing the 2nd amendment crowd.  Today, the same-sex marriage lobby loves to label traditional Christians who support traditional marriage as haters and homophobes.  Was there one billboard supporting 3,000 years of traditional marriage?  Good luck finding one because the hidden agenda of this annual event is liberal causes not liberal thought.

Recently I had the opportunity to visit this exhibit.  The weather and view of Sarasota Bay were perfect.  What troubled me however, were the dutiful 2nd and 3rd grade students following high school docents from posting to posting like characters out of a George Orwell novel, soaking up the liberal rhetoric as though it was established law rather than a point of view. 

I saw no posters on how the break down of the American family was producing students with no impulse control and no respect for themselves or their fellow classmates.  72% of urban babies are now born illegitimately to single mothers.  It seems that pandering and indoctrination is overshadowing a liberal arts education and serious academic debate. 

Listen to this clip from JFK about the idea behind the motto: “CELBRATE OUR SIMILARITIES, AND RESPECT OUR DIFFERENCES.”

From the commencement address at American University in Washington, D.C. on June 10, 1963: “So, let us not be blind to our differences. But let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”  This was and is still great advice for the countries of the world and the young people of the United States.  Remember we live in the United States and not the United Nations.

Attend the Island Park Exhibition by all means but do so with an open mind and open eyes.  Word Total, 936.

Geoffrey G. Fisher is a federally designated Highly Qualified state-certified history teacher working in southwest Florida as a guest teacher.  He holds a BA in History from the University of Connecticut and a MA in Public Policy from Trinity College in Hartford, CT.  In addition to teaching he is a former elected official and speechwriter.  Mr. Fisher now writes the political blog: THE THINKING CAP at  

Monday, April 15, 2013



Dear Randy and Bob:

I think that Bob meant to say faith cannot be contested – religion is the manifestation of that faith.  Most people do not question that authenticity of Jesus’ remarks about the importance of the two commandments listed in my post.

My point was if you do follow Jesus Christ, then you should adhere to his actual words that one must love and trust in God with all your being and only then love your neighbor as yourself.  This is not up for discussion if you are a Christian.  My concern is when a lapse Christian decides on his own to deny Jesus as the Messiah.  This is a life changing comment.

Randy, as I’m sure you are aware, Evangelical Christians do not hate homosexuals, they hate the sin of homosexuality.  God also created Jerry Sandusky but we do not have to approve of his behavior.

I think the two of you need to take a deep breath and own your convictions that you approve of homosexuality and would have no problem whatsoever if your children became a homosexual.  From my position it is okay to disapprove of homosexuality on earthly moral grounds and also to disapprove of the sin of homosexual behavior if you have a Christian fundamentalist reading of the bible.  It’s called free speech.
Word Total: 215

Best, Geoff   

Friday, April 12, 2013

Facebook Discussion on Same-sex marriage and the Role of Christianity in our Lives

Facebook Discussion on Same-sex marriage and
the Role of Christianity in our Lives

Randall commented on your link.
Randall wrote: "Geoff, regarding your comment above about reverence for the bible, there are many faithful people who come from a tradition centered around Christ's teaching that fully reject bible worship. It is mind-boggling when "Christians" trot out select phrases from the bible to judge people different (or not really different) from themselves, while ignoring Jesus' command to love one another, be charitable in judgement, treat others as you wish to be treated (one of the 2 greatest commandments). The bible as we know it today was put together by the Roman Empire to preserve the Roman Empire, and other more spiritual gospels were banned as heretical because they did not require subservience to central authority. If we are to worship God's creation, we should use the brains God gave us to observe the real world around us, and not just follow false teachers like sheep."

Dear Randy:

Thanks for writing back.  I agree with your general contention that God gave us a brain that should be used constructively.  This is one of the reasons why I defer to the New Testament more than the Old Testament.  Yet, Jesus (himself) said that salvation is gained only through him.  That is pretty stark and not left to interpretation.

My main Christian tenets are similar to yours: love your neighbor as yourself, practice kindness and forgiveness towards your fellow man, and remain humble - go into a private room to pray rather than praying only in public like some televangelists.  But again, Jesus said that most important commandment is to love God with all your heart and all your being.  The exact quote follows.

Matthew 22:36-40
New International Version (NIV)

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two

It seems as though our friend is rejecting the words of Jesus and therefore Jesus himself.  This troubles me and I hope that he can reconcile his political beliefs with the Christianity of his family.  WORD TOTAL 382

Best, Geoff

Thursday, April 11, 2013



Dear Randy and Bob:

Bob your original post dealt with a silly comment about Democrats and Republicans and the same-sex marriage topic was an ancillary posting.  Yet, since the two of you have now thrusted the subject front and center and since the two of you have reference the imagery of me giving myself a prostate examination I will respond with some emotion.

Bob, let me start with you.  In circa 1977 you told Bill Shannon and me that you were a confirmed heterosexual and all that talk about homosexuals needed to stay away from you.  Basically, let the gays do what they do over there and away from you. 

In addition in 1983 I mentioned to you that I had just finished reading a biography on Oscar Wilde and I enjoyed it very much.  Apparently, my brother Herb was nearby and after I left the room you said to him: “Too bad Oscar Wilde was gay.”  In 1983 I thought your comment was thoughtless, cruel, and clumsy.  Wilde’s plays are to this day the epitome of highbrow humor and he remains one of the great wits of all time.  Just listen to his take on the progressive agenda towards drinking: “Drink is the curse of the working class.”  Of course this meant the Italians and the Irish.  Wilde saw this type of patronizing rhetoric for what it was – sentimental dribble by well-educated women with too much time on their hands.

Wilde responded: “Work is the curse of the drinking class.”

Bob, either your opinion about Wilde was that of an immature young adult with a malicious streak or today you are following the latest fad while trying to be sophisticated.  I am learning toward the latter point of view.  Your arguments are old and tired and not very convincing.  What’s wrong with two people falling in love and getting married in a same sex setting?  Well, let’s see:
1. It is literally unnatural, gays can never have children without artificial intervention.
2. At 3%-5% of the population gays have given new life to the term the tail wagging  
    the dog.  Remember that 4% of our population is still 14 million people.
3. Where does the “If it feels good, do it.” End?  How about honoring incestuous marriages.  Does anyone condone Randy’s son and daughter marrying?  Remember, they would be consenting adults who in this scenario would be in love.  The answer is of course neither of you would consider this union to be wholesome and neither one of you would vote for such enabling legislation.
4. Of course someone of the left would say this union could produce children with devastating birth defects.  Well then, let’s change the incestuous role slightly to homosexual incest.  No fear of birth defects and yet two consenting adults who love each other could be granted the dignity of holy matrimony.  So Bob in this instance you and your brother Tom could theoretically throw convention to the wind and marry.  Bob, are you ready to make this leap in order to maintain a consistent argument, that love makes a family?  I bet the answer is no.

Bob, it seems like you’re an unknowing phony, but a phony nevertheless.  Why in the world would you through 3,000 years of tradition out the window, and defy the teachings of the Christian bible.  Is it that important to you to run with the groovy people?

And Randy…I am at a complete loss as to your rhetoric since you never uttered one word of homosexuality when I knew you in college.  What I saw was a well balanced 19 year old who embraced the life of the “working class” intellectual a la Jack Kérouac of the Beat Generation, and Glenn Gould.  You strove (successfully) to project an authentic profile the iconoclastic young gentleman which is why I find your rhetoric now so out of character.

Take this statement: “…when language used assumes particular male or female roles; these make lasting impressions on children.  My response is so what?  This statement sounds straight out of a Jane Fried workshop from 1974.  Men and women are different and that’s a good thing in my opinion.

More Semagin rhetoric: “Traditional marriage is a contract where the husband acquires ownership of his wife (traditionally called mistress) from her father.  Really?  Randy was your mother a slave because I know that Mrs. Jones was not a slave nor was my mother.  Remember that women who maintain their maiden names actually are maintaining their father’s name.
And the crowd pleaser: “You both really have your heads up your asses on equal rights for gays and lesbians.”  Randy, this is more than just tawdry language, it smacks of a lazy intellect.  Although, I do not accuse you of switching positions on homosexuality, I do accuse you of jumping on the current bank wagon of fashion.  When the author of DOMA and his wife suddenly endorse Gay marriage I smell opportunism which of course is a mainstay for the Clinton’s or as Randy would say, Bill Clinton and his slave.  (WORD COUNT: 844)

Best to both of you, Geoff 

Sunday, April 7, 2013

Letter to a College Friend on the True Civil Rights Record of the Democratic Party

Letter to a College Friend on the True Civil Rights Record of the Democratic Party

Dear Matt:

Thank you for your thoughtful response.  You brought up many interesting points that deserve to be addresses.

It is true that I engaged in some cherry picking, after all I was trying to build a case.

I will comment on your assertion: “…but nobody's going to be stupid enough to fall for the implication that the Republican Party was responsible for passing civil rights!”

Now Matt, I hope you’re hungry because I have a big slice of humble pie for you today.  Indeed the Republicans did play a pivotal role in passing the 1964 bill.  The votes by party:
The original House version:
·                                 Democratic Party:   152–96   (61–39%)
·                                 Republican Party: 138–34   (80–20%)

The Senate version:
·                                 Democratic Party: 46–21   (69–31%)
·                                 Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House: [16]
·                                 Democratic Party: 153–91   (63–37%)
·                                 Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

“Most Democrats from the Southern states opposed the bill and led an unsuccessful 83-day filibuster, including Senators Albert Gore, Sr. (D-TN), J. William Fulbright (D-AR), and Robert Byrd (D-WV), who personally filibustered for 14 hours straight.”  Byrd who by 2008 had become a darling of the new left was a former member of the KKK. 

Also, please note: “Republicans…had included equal rights for women in their party's platform since 1944…”

Matt you’ll want to wash down that slice because there is more pie coming.
“President Obama has what Politico is calling a debt problem: The staggering national debt — up about 60% from the $10 trillion Obama inherited when he took office in January 2009 — is the single biggest blemish on Obama's record, even if the rapid descent into red began under President George W. Bush. Obama has long emphasized Bush's role in digging the immense hole. But he owns it now…What happened in 2007? The financial crisis hadn't struck yet. But we did elect a new Democratic Congress, with Democrats controlling both houses for the first time in over a decade… So does that mean that the ballooning debt is all Obama's fault? No. Most of those spending bills got Republican votes, too. But it does mean that, as Politico notes, Obama now owns the 60% increase in the debt that has occurred on his watch, and can no longer credibly blame Bush (under whom plenty of Democrats voted for spending bills). (From Glenn Harlan Reynolds writing in USA Today, on Tuesday, January 15, 2013)
The truly dangerous thing about the 21 century debt crisis is the president and the new Democrats, do not care about the trajectory of the debt because more government spending means more votes for their party. 
Your points about Reagan were only half correct.  Yes, he did dig a big whole but he ended the cold war that was fought courageously by Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford.  It is also true that that President Bill Clinton along with Speaker Newt Gingrich dispatched with the debt.
Although I personally liked George W. Bush especially his brilliant work combating AIDS in Africa, he did recklessly spend money on a lot of programs like, the prescription drug bill (Medicare Modernization Act or MMA).  “The MMA was signed by President George W. Bush on December 8, 2003, after passing in Congress by a close margin.”  The No Child Left Behind act and the Special Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 both contributed to the debt and to mind numbing regulations.
Ironically, his invasion of Iraq has produced a stable nation in a volatile region.  Have you noticed that Cindy Sheehan is quiet these days?
My point with Bob’s original comment was that feel-good rhetoric does little to advance serious policy discussions very far.  I believe my party has a proud history and is trying to advance policies today that build on individual liberty and economic opportunity through fewer regulations and smaller government.
Best, from the Right, Geoff Fisher                   World Total: 659

Friday, April 5, 2013

History of the Democratic Party vis-à-vis The Republican Party, A Letter to My College Roommate

“Let's rename the Democratic party the Progressive party, and the Republican party the Regressive party.”

Dear Bob:

Let’s review the facts of your Democratic Party:

1789-1865: Nickname of the Democratic Party, THE SLAVE PARTY

1861-1865: Majority of the Democratic Party engages in open rebellion and therefore treason against the United States. 

The Republican Party supports preserving the union and fights the insurrection and wins the American Civil War.

1864 Election: Republican Abraham Lincoln wins re-election and proposes and gains the passage of the 13th amendment, granting freedom to all black Americans held in bondage.  His opponent was disgraced former union George Brinton McClellan who runs repudiating the PEACE DEMOCRATS.  His party was ready to give the south their independence while at the same time, giving southern blacks perpetual enslavement.

1866-Today: Democrats organized a social club of former Confederates officers known as the Ku Klux Klan.  “As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans.”    

1915: Birth of a Nation is released as a tribute to the KKK.  D.W. Griffith’s aggressive promotion of the Klan was praised by Democrat Woodrow Wilson as a great triumph.  “Under President Woodrow Wilson, it was the first motion picture to be shown at the White House.”

1964-65: Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson cannot pass the civil rights bill even though Democrats control both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.   The president turns to Senator Everett Dirksen and his Republican caucus for the needed votes to carry the bill over the finish line.

Summer of 1964: Democratic President Lyndon Johnson misleads the American public vis-à-vis the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and launches America into a bloody war that kills 56,000 Americans.  By 1975, the North Vietnamese renege on the Peace Treaty negotiated by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in 1973.  The Democratic majorities of both Houses refused to enforce the treaty and the south is invaded again and crushed. 
In 1975 the Khmer Rouge took control of Cambodia - it was formed in 1968 as an offshoot of the Vietnam People's Army from North Vietnam. It was the ruling party in Cambodia from 1975 to 1979, led by Pol Pot…(t)he organization is remembered especially for orchestrating the Cambodian Genocide…(b)y 1979, the Khmer Rouge had fled the country…(t)he U.S. State Department-funded Yale Cambodian Genocide Project estimates approximately 1.7 million…” Cambodians died from the rule of the Khmer Rouge that is, from the instability of Southeast Asia caused by the refusal of Democrats in Congress to enforce the Peace treaty between the United States and North Vietnam.
I could go on regarding how Democratic social policies have obliterated the black family in America to the point that today 82% of black children are born illegitimately.  The results of that fact are seen everywhere – in education, the prison systems et cetera.  Today, the Democrats now own a $17 trillion debt.  Bob, I think I’ve made my point – stop inhaling canisters of Reddy Whip and try to treat your opposition with a semblance of respect.
Your friend, Geoff                                                                        Word Count: 527
Geoffrey G. Fisher is a federally designated Highly Qualified state-certified history teacher working in southwest Florida as a guest teacher.  He holds a BA in History from the University of Connecticut and a MA in Public Policy from Trinity College in Hartford, CT.  In addition to teaching he is a former elected official and speechwriter.  Mr. Fisher now writes the political blog: THE THINKING CAP at  

Monday, April 1, 2013

Moral Relativism and Same Sex Marriage Need to be Confronted with Civility and Firmness - A Letter to a Childhood Friend

Moral Relativism and Same Sex Marriage Need to be Confronted with Civility and Firmness A Letter to a Childhood Friend Dear John: Homosexuals should be accorded the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex – if they chose not to do this or if they feel they cannot do this then they should available themselves of civil unions et cetera. Same sex marriage, in my opinion, is one bridge too far. Who’s the husband, who’s the wife? Most people who are in my camp are incredulous to the proposition of same sex marriage. John, with all due respect, the people who are pushing this issue tend to be the same people who view our society through the lens of Moral Relativism, that is “the denial that there are universal moral values shared by every human society; and the insistence that we should refrain from passing moral judgments on beliefs and practices characteristic of cultures other than our own." As a Christian, I reject this sloppy feel good view point – when the Aztec nation was practicing human sacrifice at the rate of 2,000 people per weekend to satisfy the vanity of Quetzalcoatl, the Conquistadors rightly put an end to this practice. Sometimes there is right and wrong and as humans we should embrace clarity of our values when we can. I reject same-sex marriage for the same reason I reject incestuous homosexual relationships between consenting adults who cannot produce deformed off-spring. Members of the current rainbow revolution if they remain true to their position would warmly endorse incestuous homosexual unions along with heterosexual and homosexual polygamous unions. But of course they do not endorse these unions because when all is said and done these rainbow warriors do have certain standards. Americans seems to be endorsing the preposterous in order to avoid hurting people’s feelings.This noble sentiment ultimately leads to disaster in the long run. Civil unions, with dignity and respect, are the right course now and for the future.