First, while pretending to be outraged by the stupid utterances of one Todd Akin, who has been completely repudiated by the RNC for his remarks, they will bring forth their keynote speaker, Bill Clinton, exploiter of workplace sex with then vulnerable intern Monica Lewinsky, not to mention that he was the target of several sexual harassment-like suits coming from Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick. But let's not also forget Jennifer Flowers. Maybe Bill will be holding a cigar while he gives his talk. He wouldn't be able to light it, of course, because that would mean -- oh, dread! -- second hand smoke! And what could be worse than second hand smoke! Yet no mention will be made of Clinton's sexual dysfunction in the liberal blogosphere, of course. Bill will dutifully say what the DNC requires of him, that Obama's policies are essentially the same as his and that happier days are just around the corner, if only we can get past those mean-spirited Republicans.
His wife Hilary, however, won't be seen at the DNC. She doesn't want to be tainted by damaged goods and a losing proposition (E.g., "You didn't build that!"). Bill has nothing to lose by being associated with the disastrous presidency of Barack Obama, but Hillary certainly does. The Clintons know -- because they probably listen to Dick Morris, their once trusted adviser who has turned on them -- that Obama is going to lose. It is already in the cards. Bill and Hillary are much too smart and too experienced in these matters to not know. But they will pretend to support and provide what little support they must in order to keep up appearances. But make know mistake, they will be back in 2016 with Hillary as the challenger against President Romney.
Never mind that Bill Clinton lied about his sexual escapades as well and was nearly impeached by Congress for his attempted cover up. None of that will be mentioned, except by us in the blogosphere.
Next we will hear from Sandra Fluke, who is outraged over the insensitivity of conservatives who think it is wrong for them to want her to pay for her own contraceptives. But wait, I forgot: She admits that she can afford her own contraceptives; she is just looking out for the poor who can't afford them. Always looking out for the poor. Aren't they compassionate? Yet it is not just the pill that she and the Dems are trying to force us to pay for against our conscience, no, they are not satisfied with that. They want us to pay for the morning after pill as well, the abortifacent that kills a conceived child before it has a chance to attach to the lining of the uterus. Some of us call that murder. But the DNC sweeps that under the rug by calling it "choice." And we conservatives are again labeled as mean-spirited because we won't pay for that. What about all the other things that are not being paid for? The DNC is not proposing to make us pay for condoms. Why is that an exception? Are they mean-spirited for not proposing that? How about natural family planning, why is that off limits? (Oh, I forgot, Planned Parenthood is a major donor to the DNC and they don't like natural family planning -- it cuts into their abortion revenue.)
Sandra Fluke, whose instant celebrity status was conferred on her by the anointed left and their Anointed One, is now a supposed expert on all these things. This is typical of the left. Turn a nobody into a celebrity and voila, they are suddenly an authority. Plus she is a college student and it plays well with other college students. They can use FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) to scare college students into thinking that those mean Republicans (made of straw, of course) are going to taking away their rights to pills and abortions. And if that is not enough they can go the extra mile and entice college students with the nod-nod-wink-wink prospect of having the government pay off their student loans. How does one spell pandering? -- oh, yes, it is 'p' 'a' 'n' 'd' 'e' 'r' 'i' 'n' 'g'. It is so easy to beat straw Republicans with arguments made of straw, but college students don't learn about that anymore, about fallacious reasoning, nor about the meaning of the word 'pandering.'
Never mind that institutions such as the Catholic Church have a 2000 year old record of teaching about the serious moral evils of abortion and contraception. Such qualifications are not important. After all having even minimal qualifications to be president doesn't preclude the Dems from nominating the most underqualified person in US history. And he nominates Sandra Fluke as expert on all things sexual. But never mind. Here's what a 2000 year old Christian institution has to say in their catechism about abortion:
ABORTION: Deliberate termination of pregnancy by killing the unborn child. Such direct abortion, willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life (2271–2272).On artificial contraception:
CONTRACEPTION, ARTIFICIAL: The use of mechanical, chemical, or medical procedures to prevent conception from taking place as a result of sexual intercourse; contraception offends against the openness to procreation required of marriage and also the inner truth of conjugal love (2370).And here is what the link provides:
Next, we'll be having speakers at the DNC convention no doubt trumpeting their new-found cause, same-sex marriage, since their Dear Leader Barack Obama has suddenly "evolved" on this issue. Yet, once again, that 2000 year old institution has something to say about that as well:2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (2333)Yet the rationale repeated given by left wing proponents of same-sex marriage is that those desiring it simply "love each other," as if affective love were the ONLY basis for marriage. If love were the only basis, then what is to prevent a threesome from demanding their "right" to marry? Or a foursome of two men and two women who are bisexual? Or four such humans and a dog, with whom all four -- or some of the four -- also want to have sexual relations? You see, the open-ended nature of this has disastrous consequences for society. And yet this, in essence is what the Democratic Party is trumpeting as "progressive."
The genesis of this affective love rationalization for same-sex marriage can be traced to the 1960s, when one of my generation's idiotic slogans was "If it feels good, do it!" Fortunately, I outgrew this nonsense in the 1970s, but I am dumbfounded by the number of people in my own generation who have NOT outgrown it, and who continue to mindlessly pull the lever for the DNC, which keeps telling them they are compassionate to do so. Some people never grow up, I guess.
This most likely will not be the end of the DNC's celebration of sexual depravity. Perhaps there will be transgender folks paraded out and applauded for their "bravery." I for one will be praying that good Americans will see the DNC's decadence for what it is and not be suckered into supporting them because they are supposedly "compassionate" toward all.
The Democratic Party was once a noble institution. John F. Kennedy was a fine example. But the noble party took a hard left turn in the 1960s and now we see the result. Nowadays, when you place Kennedy's speeches before high school students and ask them to guess if the person who gave the speeches was Republican or Democrat, they almost always say Republican. I guess Kennedy is just not progressive enough for the Democratic Party. He wasn't very "compassionate."
It is not the purpose of this post to simply scoff at the real sexual dysfunctionality of Democratic Party or any particular Democrats. People who suffer from these things really do need compassion and help. But the DNC's attempt to celebrate this dysfunctionality as if it were legitimate diversity is truly beyond the pale.
No comments:
Post a Comment