Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democratic power no answer to the Foley affair
Townhall ^ | October 9, 2006 | Star Parker

Posted on 10/09/2006 12:17:08 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

There's a difference between a party with principles not doing a good job executing those principles and a party with no principles. Anyone who thinks that turning the reins of power over to Democrats will raise the country's moral bar should take a cold shower.

We can parse out every element of former Republican Congressman Mark Foley's behavior that sickens normal, decent Americans and find that these elements are today, in one form or another, a generally accepted part of everyday life in the country. We can thank liberals for this state of affairs, and these liberals are Democrats.

What are we upset about?

Sexual promiscuity? A third of babies born today in the United States are born to unwed mothers. The idea that sexual behavior belongs in the exclusive realm of marriage has long departed from popular American culture.

We relate to others as objects for our use, and then cast them aside when they are no longer useful. Why should we expect the culture of the U.S. Congress be any different from what we find generally accepted in the country as a whole?

Homosexuality? Let's face it. Culturally, homosexual behavior is now an accepted part of American life. Homosexuals host popular national talk shows. Most American corporations provide benefits for "partners" and prohibit any talk or behavior that might imply lack of openness to all "lifestyles."

The entertainment industry provides a steady diet of films, TV shows and music that legitimize every imaginable form of sexual behavior.

Underage sex?

According to data gathered from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by Child Trends DataBank in 2005, 34 percent of high school students reported that they had had sexual intercourse during the previous three months, including 22 percent of ninth-graders. Half of 12th-grade students say they had sex in the last three months.

Twenty-eight out of our fifty states permit a teen-age girl to get an abortion without the permission of her parents. Seventeen states do not even require that the teenage girl inform her parents before getting the abortion.

One of these seventeen states is California, home of Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi, now palpitating at the prospect of becoming the first woman speaker of the House.

In 2005, parents in a local school district in California sued the school system for allowing a questionnaire to be distributed to kids from 7 to 10 years old, asking them explicit questions about their sexual feelings. The district court ruled against the parents. According to the court ruling, parents have no right "to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so."

Sexual "education" is now a regular part of public school curricula. Girls and boys receive this material together. The only message these kids get is that the only reason to abstain from any form of sexual behavior is the extent to which that behavior might inconvenience one's life. Sexual behavior is taught to be the result of "orientation" and not choice.

So what's the big deal about Mark Foley?

Bill Clinton transformed the Oval Office into a sexual romper room, used the power of the nation's highest office to prey on the young and naive for his pleasure, brought discussion about intimate sexual behavior into common public discourse, and educated America's children about alternative modes of sexual behavior.

Clinton suffered at most an embarrassing few moments, apologized for something or other that to this day remains ambiguous to me, and today postures as a global statesman.

Supposed Democratic outrage about Mark Foley cannot possibly have anything to do with Foley's behavior. In the world of the Democratic left, the only intolerance is intolerance. The only evil is to condemn any behavior that takes place between supposedly consenting adults.

Democratic outrage about the Foley affair is a simple stage show to provoke voters.

Republican leadership leaves a lot to be desired. The party has got to get focused and tighten the reins of management. But there is little question that there is only one party that still gives credence to traditional values, and that is the Republican Party.

To flip power over to the Democrats, the party of social chaos, is simply to take a bad situation and make it worse.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: conservatism; cutrun; defeatocrats; democrats; dnc; election2006; foley; gop; liberals; scandal; speakerpelosi
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last
Here, here! Well spoken!
1 posted on 10/09/2006 12:17:09 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Finally! Very good article. We need many more of the same over and over and over again to fight the lib hack machine.


2 posted on 10/09/2006 12:32:28 AM PDT by RacerX1128
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The Democrats are unbearably undesirable all by themselves...without launching a tribute to homosexual activity in our midst. The issue with the Congressman is the exploitation of minor chilren by adults for sexual purposes and not homosexual "lifestyles" perse.

Those who mistakenly believe that this writer has "nailed it" need to relook at their analytical methods as soon as possible.

This whole sordid business is backing up on the Dems like the runaway sewer it started out to be in the first place. Imagine for a brief second what kind of total idiocy they would bring if they were to prevail in the upcoming election.

The Dems have invalidated their rights to hold public office and more of their ridiculous stupidity can sure to be revealed as election time draws nigh.


3 posted on 10/09/2006 12:41:56 AM PDT by CBart95
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

.


4 posted on 10/09/2006 1:23:19 AM PDT by AmeriBrit (Soros and Clinton's for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington = SCREW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: CBart95

The R's are running out of time to successfully do this.


6 posted on 10/09/2006 1:44:30 AM PDT by johnthebaptistmoore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: diallo
I have my own outrage about perverts like Foley, but I am not voting for Democrats - you can be damn sure about that. They epitome of pagan evil in our government.
7 posted on 10/09/2006 2:25:08 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
This supposes the Republicans have principles and the Democrats don't, but I'm sure there are principles the Democrats are failing to live up to, too. There's actually one principle both parties share and observe: 'buy votes with tax money'.

It isn't really responsible to vote for either party.

8 posted on 10/09/2006 2:43:09 AM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grut
There's actually one principle both parties share and observe: 'buy votes with tax money'.

Amen

9 posted on 10/09/2006 2:44:44 AM PDT by Wormwood (Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter because nobody listens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Grut

Then what is your suggestion? Vote Libertarian, Reform or Constitutional party and waste your precious franchise? Start a viable third party (the work of a lifetime, in my estimation)? Or?


10 posted on 10/09/2006 2:50:15 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Second to none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Grut
Maybe you'd be happier living under a dictatorship.
11 posted on 10/09/2006 3:01:36 AM PDT by AmeriBrit (Soros and Clinton's for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington = SCREW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Then what is your suggestion?

As it is now, we vote against someone and the other candidate treats it as an endorsement of his policies. I propose writing-in "Moe Howard" (of Three Stooges fame) anywhere we think no candidate is qualified. If enough voters do this, the eventual, actual, winner will have trouble claiming "a mandate" for himself.

Because write-in ballots usually require an address as well as a name, Howard's current address is:

Hillside Memorial Park
6001 Centinela Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90045

The fact that he died in 1975 does not disqualify him from being a candidate. There have been several dead candidates in the last few years, notably Mel Carnahan in Missouri, who won election to the Senate.

12 posted on 10/09/2006 3:32:05 AM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I love Star Parker.


13 posted on 10/09/2006 4:21:09 AM PDT by Coldwater Creek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grut

So, it is more responsible to either stay home or cast your vote for someone that cannot possible win?

There is way too much at stake in this election to waste a vote.


14 posted on 10/09/2006 4:24:46 AM PDT by Coldwater Creek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: diallo

I am outraged at Foley not the Republicans. You can use any terms you want though these are mine. Queers should stay in the closet and everyone should stop molesting children. My children are grown and the little ones I have today have the word grand in front of them and some of the liitle ones that are neighbors are special to me too. Grandma and Grandpa pass out cookies and popsicles. We chew them out sometimes too. We watch them all so no one hurts them. If I caught someone trying to hurt any of them "I" would be in prison. I've been chewed out by people I've seen in the neighborhood that I took as strangers, that were stopping and talking in their cars to the little ones in the neighborhood. Their Moms and Dad would hear and come out and tell the people to back off because they knew what I was doing. Luckily the people I was getting on actually turned out to be known by the Moms and Dads and they even understood why I was doing what I was doing and they understood.


15 posted on 10/09/2006 5:03:40 AM PDT by JOE43270 (JOE43270, God Bless America and All Who Have and Will Defend Her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RacerX1128

"To flip power over to the Democrats, the party of social chaos, is simply to take a bad situation and make it worse."

Social chaos is the first step to a Marxist takeover. With chaos comes order of the police state magnitude. Only one party wants that power. Only one party is intolerant of the same behavior it says to tolerate.


16 posted on 10/09/2006 5:12:23 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz ("Freedom by its nature cannot be imposed, it must be chosen")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: diallo
What more do you want?
The moment Foley was exposed he was gone.
Do you want the Democrats in office?
How precisely will that improve things?
You're naivete is frightening. There are homosexuals in Washington. Plenty. Some are Republicans 'cause it is now against the law to notice it (Democrats created hate crimes).
This is a political exercise, the Democrats flung open the Foley window so that cultural conservatives would be shocked and run away! Well, what then ? They will have manipulated the poor rubes in the sticks and will win, and no one will be allowed to notice that anyone is a homo.

This morning the Washington Post has a top of the fold article that says "Lawmaker saw Foley message in 2000" Guess what! the " Lawmaker" Kolbe (R) is, get ready, another Homosexual. Yup. There are at least 2 generally known and at least 3 others that are "rumored" . Look, I would like to re criminalize sodomy. But the fact of the matter is that Star Parker is right, the culture is not going to do that. This whole thing may have the salutary effect of bringing this ugly "lifestyle" ( deathstyle, more aptly described) into the light where if you and I and those who agree with us are bold enough we can point out the obvious. But if you think that by playing the role of the Church-lady on Saturday Night Live that the left set up for you will somehow help save the culture, you are blind.
17 posted on 10/09/2006 5:35:24 AM PDT by Bainbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: LibertyisSpecial

What do you mean by Homophobic?
Do you even know what that actually means?


20 posted on 10/09/2006 6:44:33 AM PDT by Bainbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson