Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
I truly don't dislike Hillary Clinton. At least not to the extent I dislike, say, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or President Obama himself. And by dislike I do not mean "hate", but simply "vehemently disagree with and detest their worldview." Hillary Clinton, perhaps by the default of being surrounded by such far-Left progressives in the current administration, has struck me as increasingly pragmatic and even-keeled. Maybe Madame Secretary was weening herself off the progressive ledge, I thought?
I was wrong.
This speech she gave in Geneva last week at the International Human Rights Day is, in my opinion, everything that is wrong with secular-progressive-liberal thinking. Here's a short clip from that speech.
Now I have to say that I stand side-by-side with anyone who vocalizes what all reasonable people believe: gay people are human beings with inalienable rights and are to be treated with respect and dignity, same as all Creator-endowed peoples. In other countries, specifically Muslim ones, gay people are routinely mistreated and in some cases murdered for their "crimes." This is disgusting and deplorable.
But in the speech, what riled me most were three specific points Clinton made.
1) That religious objections to homosexuality shouldn't play a part in the discussion of something like gay marriage's legality. Why I choose to vote or not vote for something (or some one) is entirely my business. The Left quotes Scripture to us when they want "social justice" implemented, but let a God-fearing conservative voice any dissent on any social issue and get ready for an overwhelming flood of "We don't live in a theocracy" and "Separation of church/state" comments. Obama goes to a radical church for 20 years? Who cares, say the media. George W. Bush says Jesus was his favorite philosopher and that he prays every day for the country/troops, and you would've thought a Methodist caliphate had been ushered in.
Some might say, "But she only directed that at Muslim countries where religious zealots believe homosexuality is a sin punishable by death." Thomas Sowell would call you a stage-one thinker should you say something like that. The real aim here of progressives isn't just to help suffering gays in Sharia-run countries - a noble and indeed important task. The real aim is to fundamentally transform Western society by removing gender distinctions and "normalizing" gay marriage. My evidence for this is point #2...
2) Hillary apologized for "my own country's" flaws when it comes to the treatment of LGBT's. Phwaaaa? The freest, most prosperous, most tolerant nation on the face of the earth? That country? She doesn't care as much about the murderous regimes in, again, mostly Muslim countries, but chooses to critique America on the world stage. What else could she possibly be talking about other than the fact that in every state gay marriage has been put on the ballot, the American people have said, "Thanks, but no thanks"??? We have NOTHING to apologize for. If liberals want to know what drives sensible conservatives most batty about their general demeanor, rhetoric, and worldview, this is Exhibit A. Self-flagellation for the sake of self-flagellation (and for the sake of not-so-subtly attacking Red State voters).
3) Clinton's entire argument in the speech was grounded in some convoluted, politically correct "rights belong to humans and gay people are humans so gay people have rights." There is SOOOO much that could be said here, but let me finish my post by simply saying that it is not enough to say that humans deserve rights because humans deserve rights. There is no depth to that claim. There is no accountability. There is no anchor to ground an gird those rights. Rights either come from God, or they are human constructions that can be taken away, replaced, or removed (like in those countries where secular-progressive ideology won out in the 20th century and more than 100 million people perished from the face of the earth from all of those "workers' rights" they were promised).
Thanks for indulging me. Look forward to your responses!
- Comment (34)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
President Obama started an initiative to protect LGBT rights abroad, did he? Hey - here's a thought! How about he starts promoting individual liberty at home and abroad and let the consent of the governed decide such things as same-sex marriage?
I've always trusted Hillary about as far as I could throw her. The smug self-righteousness of these people... Ghack.
Jul '11
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
I am sure part of Obama's strategy to appeal to his base is to force these issues. I never could figure out if Hillary was playing for the home team anyway but I have never liked her one bit. Being slightly right of Obama and a touch more realistic is not cause for admiration either.
You are darn right R. J. , we have nothing to apologize for as a country.
Sep '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
Last Thursday I went out to dinner with my (twin) sister, who went on and on and on about how wonderful this speech was. I had not seen it until now. Typically, I don't get her enthusiasm. I mean, seriously, what in the world good is it gonna do for the U.S. president to sign some order mandating—what was it, "strategies"?—for dealing with acronym folks (such as myself and my sister) outside the West? (code for Muslim nations). I mean it took Obama, what, three years to do what could have been in a couple of moments but for his own political concerns. I tell ya, so-called progressives are easily satisfied by folks like Hillary and Barack. ... R.J. love your podcast.
Edited on December 12, 2011 at 10:28pmAug '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
Naive in it's assumptions about the world, it's frightening to realize that is our Sec State. That is supposed to be the savviest person in the world when it comes to the culture of individual countries.
It was a constituency play, picking off the easy ones. Remember that Obama has a big cred gap in the DMA gymnastics.
I wouldn't want her to be president. She is manipulative, dishonest, and of unknown provenance in academia. Wellesley ?? And whatever reasons she had to stay married to one of the world's great philanderers has to be suspect. Have the democrats no one to offer up at all ?
Oct '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
Hillary has clearly run out of meaningfull things to do, no offence.
Mar '11
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
That reminds me of someone...the name is escaping me right now.
How is she reading a teleprompter?
Nov '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
Good post.
to flownover: What's DMA?
May '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
DMA = Defense of Marriage Act, I believe.
Hillary is not aging well.
May '11
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
I await the "first U. S. government strategy dedicated to combatting human rights abuses" against Christian persons abroad. There's a lot of that happening in Egypt, Afghanistan, and Iraq, to name three places very much in the news these days. It would be good to know that "all U. S. government organizations engaged overseas were working to combat criminalization" of Christian status and conduct in places like Saudi Arabia, for example.
Sep '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
The pony tail is just weird.
Sep '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
No kidding. Such bulsch concern clearly focused on the base back home.
Dec '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
Amen, brotha'! Wish I could LoVe button your comment.
Oct '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
Leslie Watkins: The pony tail is just weird. · Dec 12 at 7:13pm
Hillary has been strange for while, clear signs of burn out.
Jul '11
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
I view this as a move by Hillary to bolster her support at home so she can run a possible challenge (or at least a threat) to Obama. I do not think that she plans to knock him out, (though she would love that if it happened) as much as get herself placed on the ticket as VP. This will put her in place as the heir apparent for a 2016 run after Obama’s second term is over.
Hillary / The Clintons are very popular with a significant part of the Democrat’s base and among many independents. Removing the bumbling Joe Biden and putting a more competent Hillary in may heal the hard feelings from the 2008 primary election and heal the rift in their party.
I have seen much polling about how the various GOP candidates would do against Obama, but I have not seen any about how they would do against a Obama / Hillary ticket.
Thoughts?
Sep '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
Hillary and Barack get to preen for moral approval from Europe's transnational leftist elite, while doing nothing of any consequence for LGBT individuals in those countries of which they speak. The pony tail is meant to evoke her Wellesley College days:
May '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
"The Left" does not appeal to Scripture. Some leftists do, many emphatically do not. The ones that refuse to, that is, the secular ones, tend be the ones warning against theocracy and upholding the separation between church and state.
Not according to the various available indices of freedom and property rights.
GDP per capita, nope.
Debatable. Up there, but debatable.
I'd stick with the latter. We have the rights we fight for. Rights are earned through revolution, civil disobedience, political activism, etc.
Edited on December 13, 2011 at 5:25amJun '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
Remember, the "International Community (of Leftists)" is our god. But, in the name of tolerance (for the simple-minded,) wherever God (the old one) doesn't interfere with god (the new one,) then God (the old one) is allowed to guide your personal decisions. Note that all pronouncements of what god (the new one) requires of you are subject to arbitrary revision. Watch the US State Dept. web site for important updates.
Dec '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
Michael-
Appreciate the exhaustive parsing of my post. Few thoughts in response.
1) Left-of-Center politicians incessantly point to Scripture and Judeo-Christian values as the basis of their pro-social justice, pro-Obamacare, pro-Big Brother agenda. President Obama has done this often. Nancy Pelosi. Harry Reid. Joe Biden. I'm not saying that allusions to the Bible have no place in public discourse, but my point was that many of these same public figures who say things like Hillary did turn around and use the Bible when convenient. If you don't agree with this, I'm not sure what else to say.
2) We have, over our 235 years, been what the world recognizes as the "Freest" country. Indices aside, I think you're nit-picking here. Fine, we're 2nd or 3rd currently.
3) GDP...again, who has generated more wealth in the past 200 years than us? Come on, man. You know what I'm getting at.
4) We are the most tolerant (IN MY OPINION!!!)
5) The Founders appealed to a Creator...I'll stick with them.
I'm guessing you're secular?
Edited on December 13, 2011 at 7:30amMay '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
Yes. But my point was that this desire to appeal to religion is not a characteristic of the Left, as you suggested, but of only some leftists. You made it sound as if the Left writ large employ the language of Scripture to further its political program.
They may have appealed to the Creator, but it was they who provoked and pioneered the political/military campaign through which our rights were secured. What does it mean to say that we receive our rights from God? The cop on the street who prevents hoodlums from robbing you - your rights derive from him; without him, your right to private property would be kaput. I don't understand what it means to say our rights derive from the Creator.
May '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
Yes.