Daily Wisdom

October 06, 2006

Democrat Duplicity

I have been reluctant to comment on the Mark Foley situation, because the facts are not all in yet. Some have been quick to jump to Foley's defense, but there may yet be more information to come out which would make his defense unjustifiable. Nevertheless, if there is one thing in this whole case that seems certain, it is the duplicity of Democrats.

By now I am sure that you have all heard how Democrats have a double-standard. They think it's OK for a Democratic president to have phone sex and to get a blow-job from an intern, but it's not OK for a Republican congressman to send instant messages. Apparently it's OK for Gary Studds (D-MA), to actually "DATE" a 16 year old male page, get him drunk and molest him, but it's not OK for a Republican Speaker of the House to tolerate a Republican congressman sending E-mails. So, we won't rehash all that here.

But in my opinion, the Foley scandal was caused by Liberal Democrats, and they have the unmitigated gall to try and blame it on someone else. Sure, Mark Foley is a creep and must accept responsibility for his personal actions, but for years the Liberal Democrats have fostered an environment in this country which not only permitted Foley's actions, but encouraged them.

Consider for a moment the positions which Liberal Democrats have taken on the following issues:

  • Promiscuity: In the 1960's and 70's they advocated "free love", held "love-ins", and thought nothing of "wife-swapping". If you objected, you were labeled a "square".
  • Abortion: With all that free love going on, there was bound to be some unwanted pregnancies, but why spoil the fun... just kill the unwanted babies. So the Liberal Democrats pushed the issue to the Supreme Court and passed Roe v. Wade.
  • Sex in the Media: The entertainment industry is a bastion of Liberal Democrats, so nudity in live theater performances became the rage starting with the musical "Hair". Then they began pushing the envelope with nudity and sex in the movies and on television. Then the "shock jocks" like Howard Stern arrived, bringing entertainment to a new low. They promote TV shows like "Sex in the City" and "Desperate Housewives". They bare their breasts at Superbowl half-time shows.
  • Sex Education: Since sexual freedom is obviously such an important part of the Liberal Democratic culture, it was therefore important for them to make sure that young children received training on how to properly participate. Sex Ed started in high schools and then moved progressively down to the middle schools and finally to elementary schools.
  • Condoms: It wasn't enough to teach kids about sex, Liberal Democrats decided to promote sex amongst children with the distribution of free condoms.
  • Abstinence: Liberal Democrats apparently do not believe that children will listen to teaching about abstinence from sexual activity. However, they then assume that children will listen to all the rest of their teaching. This dichotomy is difficult to explain, unless perhaps they believe that hormones take precedence over intelligence. Considering the number of recent cases where teachers have had sex with their students, I guess teaching abstinence would constitute a conflict of interest. And as an aside, the teacher's unions are another bastion of Liberal Democrats.
  • Gay Rights: Liberal Democrats took up the cause of defending non-traditional lifestyles calling all who disagreed "homophobes" and "bigots". Bill Clinton's first act as President of the United States was to implement the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military. Hollywood jumped on the bandwagon producing movies and TV shows that promote the gay lifestyle as normal and acceptable. Liberal Democrats are trying to force acceptance of "alternative" sexual lifestyles onto school students through changes in the curriculum.
  • Diversity: According to Liberal Democrats, we all need to recognize and accept everyone for who they are. We are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. We must be "politically correct" and tolerant at all times... unless you're a Republican.
  • NAMBLA: Some Liberal Democrats even support the North American Man/Boy Love Association which, as the name suggests, advocates sympathy towards and the legalization of homosexual pedophilia.
  • Privacy: According to Liberal Democrats, the sexual preferences and activities of other Democrats are a matter of privacy. What goes on behind closed doors should be ignored and overlooked. Obviously, they do not grant the same privileges to Republicans.

  • Having thus created the "utopia" in which we now live, for Liberal Democrats to attack Mark Foley and Denny Hastert is a hypocrisy of the highest magnitude.

    19 Comments:

    At 10/06/2006 6:49 PM , Blogger camojack said...

    The positions of the Democrats are quite untenable. One wonders how anyone can fall for them...

     
    At 10/06/2006 9:28 PM , Blogger Barb said...

    I just don't think this is having th effect the Democrats thought it would. Once again story the Lib media spun, has turned out to have large gaping holes, the minor boy is 18,this all started as a prank by the pages,etc.
    Then there is the very serious question of how these messages were obtained. It is against the law to tap phones or intercept email,so why did anyone have these IM's?Wouldn't using the keystroke dohicky be just as much against the law?
    Well, obviously no one was supposed to question this story.
    Why has the young man hired a criminal attourney? Is he an activist for the Dims?
    Foley got out way too soon,he should have stuck it out,told the truth and turned himself into the first Gay Republican Hero.He is not a pedophile.
    I'd like to know what law he broke.

     
    At 10/06/2006 9:31 PM , Blogger Barb said...

    BTW , I'm not an admirer of Foley ,I'm not sticking up for him .
    In the first place you don't make your mess in your own yard ,or where you work. In the second place ,any elected official who would put anything incriminating on paper is an idiot.

     
    At 10/06/2006 9:59 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

    Camo,
    I agree, but then... there are a lot of gullible people out there.

    Barb,
    Absolutely correctomundo. There are more questions than answers about this whole story.

    The left-wing group (C.R.E.W.) that notified the FBI about the Foley E-mails supposedly had the info as early as April, but waited until at least July to notify the FBI. But why wait if innocent children are at risk?

    The FBI apparently dismissed the information they got from C.R.E.W. because they had no basis upon which to start an investigation. The C.R.E.W. people are very upset with the FBI for not running with the story.

    The copies of the E-mails which C.R.E.W. gave to the FBI were heavily redacted (in other words, lots of stuff was blacked out). Why would someone black out a lot of information on an E-mail they were sending to the FBI, unless they didn't want the FBI to see that stuff? What were they trying to hide? Maybe something that would make the E-mail look more innocent?

    This C.R.E.W. outfit is funded by George Soros (richest, wackiest, left-wing nutjob out there). The top staff members of C.R.E.W. previously worked for people like Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden (the Democrat attack dogs).

    And now there is even some suggestion that there may have been evidence tampering. Apparently there are discrepencies between the E-mails the FBI received and the copies of those E-mails C.R.E.W. said they sent the FBI.

    You can check out some of this stuff HERE.

    Best regards...

     
    At 10/06/2006 10:27 PM , Blogger Travis said...

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
    At 10/06/2006 10:48 PM , Blogger Travis said...

    Hi, I have a few questions regarding the factual sourcing of your information.

    Since you “hesitated” to comment on this at first I can only presume you took that hesitation to source all of your statements.

    1.) You reference the 1980s scandal re: Gerry Studds (it is spelt Gerry…even though in your “factual” entry, you spelt it Gary) as some type of partisan justification of this. You paint the Democratic Party as saying this is ok. Did Tip O’Neill know about this, and where did you find his statements proving he knew it happened, and did nothing, as Hastert and Reynolds are on record as showing.

    2.) You say “they bare their breast during Super Bowls.” Really? I did not realize that Janet Jackson was a Democratic party strategist. Can you prove this?

    3.) The same with Howard Stern. Proof?

    4.) Are you saying that the viewers of Desperate Housewives are all liberal democrats? If so, how do you even know what the content of the show is, since you seem to know it is only for liberal Democrats, which you do not appear to be?

    5.) You say teaching people how to use condoms is bad. I am curious. What are the statistics of teenage pregnancy under years in which there was Sex Ed, vs. years in which there has been abstinence-only?

    6.) You say “gay rights” is a liberal cause. Then why did the most powerful Republicans in the country help advance a gay Republican into the party leadership? Can you say the highest ranking openly gay member of the Democratic party leadership?

    7.) “Some democrats” support NAMBLA. Really? Who? I don’t see you referencing any names whatsoever. Who?

    8.) Diversity is bad? Why do you only say it’s bad when it comes to gays and lesbians. In fact, most policies that annoy people regarding diversity, have nothing to do with gays and lesbians, but only people of color and women. Please clarify why diversity is bad, considering this reality.

    9.) Lastly, “privacy” is bad? Or just other peoples privacy?

    I know we would all appreciate knowing what your sources are, for placing the blame of pedophilia in partisan hands (conveniently not your party).

     
    At 10/07/2006 8:38 AM , Blogger Beerme said...

    Barb,
    First off, Foley is a predator and a pedophile and no one should be sticking up for him at all. He shouldn't have stuck it out to become any kind of hero he should have resigned, as he did. Sorry, that's the difference between Dems and Repubs. Dems stand up and act defiant, as they wag their fingers or turn their backs, while being accused of their "crimes".

    Travis,

    You ask about what Tip O'Neil knew and when he knew it. Studds had actual sex with the page in question, while on an overseas trip (to Portugal, I believe). He admitted to it. He was censured (over the strenuous objection of many Democrats, who felt that a reprimand would be sufficient). Censure requires that the reprimand be done on the floor, in front of the assembly. Studds turned his back on the process to show his disdain for the censure and he was cheered and given a standing ovation by the Democrats. For having a sexual relationship with a page who was 17. He was then re-elected five more times. I wonder how many children were preyed upon by this sick goof in the twenty years he had the candy store available to him.

    Oh and count Conyers and Schumer among the Dems who supported Studds, it's in the record.

     
    At 10/07/2006 2:38 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

    Travis,

    1) Read what Barb said about Gerry Studds.
    2) Read HERE about Janet Jackson. And no, I didn't say she was a "Democratic party strategist". I implied that she was a Liberal Democrat. You CAN be a Liberal Democrat w/o being a "strategist".
    3) Read HERE about Howard Stern.
    4) No, I'm not implying that the viewers are Liberal Democrats. I'm implying that the producers are Liberal Democrats.
    5) I don't know what the statistics are. Why don't you look them up and get back to me?
    6) The 2004 Democratic Party Platform HERE includes this..."We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families".
    7) Read HERE about ACLU support for NAMBLA. The ACLU is one of the most Liberal organizations out there.
    8) Diversity is not bad. I'm simply pointing out that Liberal Democrats are tolerant of gay Democrats, but they are NOT tolerant of gay Republicans... in other words, "duplicity".
    9) Same as above. Privacy is not bad. I'm simply pointing out that Liberal Democrats only respect the privacy of Democrats but not the privacy of Republicans... again, "duplicity".

    In summary, let me say this. I checked your blog, and I see that you are a young person. In fact, you are about my daughter's age. I'm in my mid-fifties. I lived through 1950's to the present (well, DUH! I'm not dead so I must still be living). Anyway, I've seen a lot that you haven't. That doesn't make me any smarter... just more experienced. Since John F. Kennedy, the Democratic Party has been moving in a decidedly Leftward, Liberal direction. What they have wrought on America has not been pleasant to watch, and a large number of us Conservatives are rebelling through the blogosphere.

    Welcome to the Revolution!

    (:D) Regards...

     
    At 10/07/2006 2:40 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

    OOPS! Sorry. Read what Beerme said about Gerry Studds.

    (Sorry Beerme... ducking and running)

     
    At 10/07/2006 7:07 PM , Blogger Maggie said...

    Foley brings new meaning to the word 'stud'.
    (there is a thought process at work with this comment and I'm stillworking on it)

     
    At 10/07/2006 7:48 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

    Maggie,
    Hahahaha! Good one! (:D)

     
    At 10/08/2006 2:55 PM , Blogger Barb said...

    Actually my "Gay Republican Hero" was supposed to be sarcasm.The Democrats seem to have such high regard for the openly Gay,I just thought it would be nice if they (the dims) could have one Republican to admire.

     
    At 10/08/2006 10:24 PM , Blogger Travis said...

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
    At 10/08/2006 10:43 PM , Blogger Travis said...

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
    At 10/09/2006 8:31 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

    Travis,
    Why did you delete your comments? Change of heart? I thought they were rather good actually.

    (:D) Regards...

     
    At 10/09/2006 10:20 AM , Blogger darth_meister said...

    You've nailed it exactly ... Democrats are shamelessly scandalmongering and the lamestream media is aiding and abetting them.

     
    At 10/09/2006 10:28 AM , Blogger darth_meister said...

    It is spelt "Gerry Studds", but I've heard it pronounced "Gary Studds".

    Mel Reynolds (D-Moon) is also another real work of art. No question both Republicans and Democrats have been involved in sexual scandals (pederastic sex, adultery, prostitutes, etc).

    And both parties do "take care of their own." But in the Republicans' case either the voters or the leadership will throw the bum out whereas the Democrats, either voters or Dem colleagues, shield their miscreants and they continue serving in Congress.

    Reynolds, Studds, Franks, Gary Hart, Kennedy (okay, he ONLY got someone killed in his Oldsmobile while DUI) are just a few of the Democrats that have benefitted from the liberal DemDonk's double-standards. It's kind of like, we have our standards and we don't raise them for anyone!

     
    At 10/09/2006 9:19 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

    Darth,
    It simply goes to show that the Dems have no honor. What a pack of ravenous, plotting, lying, sleazy, two-faced, back-stabbing, hedonistic, partisan, low-life wolves in sheep's clothing!

    (If I missed any, please feel free to add them.)

    (:D) Regards...

     
    At 10/13/2006 11:11 PM , Blogger Travis said...

    No hawkeye...no change of heart.

    I just didn't feel like opening up emotionally only to have you and your fellow bloggers call me names (which seems to be a very common occurance) and make assumptions (yet another very common occurance) about me as a human-being. Therefore, I figured it was wiser to just quit and let you all enjoy your blog.

    Take care.

     

    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

    << Home