"When I am President" - Hilary Clinton Promises Pro-homosexual Administration

Promises expansion of hate crimes laws, Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), and ending military "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy

An era of aggressive homosexualist policies is the future for the United States, promises Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, brashly saying when, not if, she becomes President in 2009. Hillary Clinton, former First Lady and junior Senator from New York, released a statement for "Gay and Lesbian Pride Month" in which she told homosexual activists that the victories for the homosexual agenda obtained by Congressional Democrats and others in the past year are only shades of things to come.

Among these are the demise of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which she called "divisive and discriminatory," the implementation of civil unions legislation in New Jersey and New Hampshire, and the imminent passage of hate crimes legislation, which President Bush has promised to veto, out of concerns for its implications for religious liberty.

"I'm running for president to replace the divisive leadership of the past six years," said the former First Lady and junior Senator from New York. "America deserves a president who appeals to the best in each of us, not the worst; a president who values and respects all Americans, gay and straight; a president who treats all Americans equally no matter who they are or who [sic] they love."

"For six long years, the Bush Administration has only seen the families that matter to them. It's been a government of the few, by the few, and for the few," Clinton continued.

"But when I take office in January 2009, we'll finally be able to define success by more than the bigotry we stopped and the bad decisions we prevented. America will finally have a president who moves this country forward."

"She is calling anyone, specifically the President, but anyone else like the President who doesn't embrace her brand of moral relativism [a bigot]," said Matt Barber, Concerned Women for America's Policy Director for Cultural Issues to LifeSiteNews.com.

"If the dynamics were such that we had Hillary Clinton in the oval office and a liberal controlled congress then I think there is no doubt . that she will essentially remove any barrier to protection between first amendment freedoms and the radical homosexual agenda."

Clinton promised a broad expansion of federal hate crimes laws, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), and the end of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military.

Barber explained ENDA and the hate crimes legislation are imperatives of the homosexual agenda that "set the table for religious persecution and puts us on a slippery slope to silence any opposition to homosexual lifestyle that is rooted in sincerely held religious beliefs."

Clinton has positioned herself as the de facto leader of homosexual activists in the United States when she told the homosexual activist group, Human Rights Campaign (HRC), "I am proud to stand by your side" and spoke enthusiastically of the "agenda we are pursuing."

Source



THE STALINIST LEFT NOW DOMINATES BRITAIN

The two most personally decent groups of people I know, by and large, are the Brits and the Israelis. The basic decency of the vast majority of people in those countries needs no defense. Which makes it all the weirder and more stomach-churning that the British college teachers union just voted to boycott Israel's universities and colleges.

There is something so grotesque and Kafkaesque about this move that it simply cries out for explanation. Why would England, home of the "Mother of Parliaments," support the destruction of a small and besieged country that has managed to maintain the only true democracy in the most treacherous neighborhood in the world? Why would professors and teachers, who are presumably dedicated to free speech and thought, be opposed to the free exchange of information with such a democracy?

Ten years ago Europe was appalled over ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. Today the British vote to open the door to ethnic cleansing in Israel. I've talked to British and Israeli friends about these things over the years. Two British academics have simply told me that they feel ashamed of their country. No one I know over there has defended it.

It's now clear that the anti-Israel boycott reflects the politics of Britain today, much like a surgical wound reflects the anatomy of the human body. The boycott move shows the powerful return of the anti-democratic Left in Britain, very similar to the Stalinist Left that did so much damage to Britain and the West in the 20th century. It also shows the new power in British academic institutions of Islamic fascists. A major fact is that the same UCU board that voted to deligitimize Israel also voted to block police inquiries about Islamist recruiting on university campuses. The message is clear. The academic Left will protect Islamofascists on campus.

The anti-Israel boycott further undermines democracy in Britain, which has seen a steep decline in its sovereignty with the rise of the European Union. More than 30,000 pages of regulations governing Britain and the rest of the EU have been unilaterally decreed out of Brussels. Parliamentary sovereignty is out of fashion. British foreign policy is increasingly to be run by Brussels, and the British armed forces are to be merged into the European Union. Killing the Anglo-American alliance is a major goal of these political maneuvers.

So the boycott is bad news for Israel's universities, but also for British freedoms and for America's strongest alliance in Europe. It should alarm all of us. Ask not for whom the bell tolls/It tolls for thee... as an English poet wrote, in an age that was not so different after all.

The majority of university professors in the UK are personally decent people, who were of course not consulted in the boycott vote. But they are intimidated by the code of Politically Correct conduct that now pervades all of British life is pushed by the hard Left, the BBC, radicals in the labor unions, and in the political parties. In places like London there is an explicit alliance between the hard Left and Islamist forces, as Melanie Phillips shows so chillingly in her book Londonistan. The threat of Islamist violence also shapes academic decisions in Britain today.

British universities therefore must live with the deep shame of a vile and anti-democratic action performed in their name. After all, they allowed the election of the union agitators who have been working to destroy Israel for years. Viciously slandering Israel and of course the United States has become socially acceptable in Europe today, and Britain is no exception. Both of those hatreds are very selective: no such superhuman standards of moral conduct are applied to Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, or Zimbabwe, or France for that matter. Politically Correct intimidation governs British society, which is as frightening in its own way as Cromwell's witch-hunts four centuries ago. The spirit of the witch-hunt is alive today, and Britain's academics, and for that matter Britain's Jews, seem to be frozen in fear. Given the dark history of Europe this is another throwback to a mad past.

Today UK universities allow Islamist imams to recruit terrorists without restraint, even after fifty innocent citizens were blown to shreds on the London Underground. British police estimate that more than two thousand British Islamofascists are ready to commit acts of terror. The universities silently acquiesce in hate campaigns mounted by Islamofascists and the hard Left. Those fanatics threaten violence against people who speak up against them, including teachers and students, just as the Hitler Youth did in its time. But we should not feel we are immune to the same forces in America, not after Harvard University fired its president for speaking a politically incorrect truth. Our campuses are also under siege.

It is still true that for evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing; and it is also true that raising your voice in the face of threats and intimidation takes a lot more guts than keeping your mouth shut. The majority in Britain have therefore stayed silent in the face of a rising tide of fanaticism on their soil. Hatred has been allowed to become endemic. And of course, the most immediate victims are those who live there.

So this is a moment of historic shame for Britain and its cowed universities, the more so because the boycott vote was completely predictable. It culminates a long and systematic anti-Israel campaign in the Guardian and in the six-billion dollar-a-year involuntary fee-funded BBC, which laid the foundations for today's fall from grace. Alas, Britain is no longer the tolerant and humane country it once was.

The British Left, which spearheads the hate-Israel movement, has always been prone to a kind of Stalinist fanaticism, a psychological need to destroy scapegoats and idealize dictators. So this is not new. Martin Amis has written about the dangerous failure of the British Left to repudiate its Stalinist past. Amis' father Kingsley Amis was a life-long Stalin supporter. In Koba the Dread, Martin Amis tried to explain why Stalin and his followers were never denounced. It is a deeply shameful and frightening history --- frightening because of what it means for the future. Because the fanatics we see today are no different from the Stalinist fanatics of the 1930s. Today, we can even see a new Hitler-Stalin Pact in the making, as Socialist Workers' Party members and Islamofascists march side by side in the streets of London. The extremes touch hands again.

For the True Believers of the Left the crumbling of the Soviet Empire was not a sign of failure. Instead, it was a kind of opportunity to renew their faith. The Left could now argue that the Soviet Union was not a true test of Communism after all. One hundred million dead victims of Marxist regimes were not enough. If that kind of thinking isn't profoundly mad and twisted, I don't know what is. It could only spread by intimidation, and that is of course what Political Correctness is all about: It makes free speech dangerous and allows the Left to seize power, step by step. Today, BBC Radio 4 reports that its audience considers Karl Marx to be the greatest philosopher of all time. That is just a reflection of what the BBC has been drilling into its listeners day after day for all these years: It's a push-poll for the Ministry of Truth.

Americans tend to idealize our political mother country. The freedom-loving English-speaking tradition did lead to Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, but with quite a few mad totalitarian swings, which never quite stopped, all the way from Cromwell's witch-hunting years to the PC Left of the 21st century.

It is important for Americans to understand Europe's never-ending fascination with totalitarians. James Bond was not just a fantasy but an outright historical lie. The truth is that the Soviet KGB had British intelligence totally penetrated from the 1930s onward, because they selected their spies from promising young Communists at Cambridge University in the decades before. The Soviets also made good use of the homosexual underground that long existed in Britain, which gave its adherents lifelong practice in living two separate lives. So the top Soviet spies in British intelligence were commonly gay Cambridge graduates who were dedicated Communists. On the royalist side, King Edward VIII tried to persuade Hitler to make him the Nazi puppet king in England. In response, Churchill had Edward exiled to Barbados during World War II.

It was the absolute faith of totalitarianism that made it all so seductive. Communism presented a fanatical, absolutist answer to all questions in life. So did fascism. As insane as it may sound, even today, for Leftist Europeans, Karl Marx is still the Prophet of the future. Failures simply don't count.

Americans always make the mistake of thinking the British to be much more democratic than they really are. When we see the Coliseum in Rome, the great Cathedral at Chartres, and the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, we rarely remind ourselves that those top tourist destinations stand for three kinds of violent European regimes --- from the brutal Roman Empire to Napoleon's mad attempt to stroke France's national ego by killing millions of other Europeans. In so many ways Europe is a mad place, as mad as the Middle East. It has simply been defeated time and time again. But that does not automatically make for a democratic mindset. The sad fact is that British democracy is in steep decline today, and nobody seems to care.

"Giving in to the totalitarian temptation," as German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer described his own youth, has always appealed to the Brits as well as other Europeans. Europe's bloody-minded professors have an attraction to totalitarianism, one that keeps popping up throughout history like some recurrent plague. Hitler and Stalin were not the first; unfortunately they were not the last either. Both Hitler and Stalin fancied themselves as high-flown European intellectuals, writing books and articles about politics, linguistics, race, and the nature of art. After their crimes were exposed, Europe's scribbler class simply looked for new mass-murdering heroes to worship. In the 1950's Jean-Paul Sartre sensed a shift in the political winds, and changed his powerful public support from Josef Stalin to Mao Zedong. Mao was even then murdering his own people by the millions, as Sartre must have known. He didn't care. It was all for a good cause.

Just a few years ago Europe proved itself completely unable to see Saddam Hussein's evil for what it obviously was, and to celebrate his overthrow with a sigh of relief. France and Germany tried their damndest to sabotage American policy toward Saddam, by hook or by crook. Today's difficult Iraq War is due in part to that constant sabotage by the Western Left, both in America and Europe.

It is not an accident that Saddam's Baath Party was a carbon copy of Europe's fascist parties of the 1930s. The Baath Party learned its craft from Europe. Saddam Hussein was a European-style dictator, like Franco, Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin. Today Europe again turns a blind eye to Ahmadi-Nejad's Islamofascist regime reaching toward nukes in Tehran. They simply hope they are not themselves in danger; it's their usual self-deception; soon, they will be fifteen minutes from Tehran by ICBM. Europe's proudly proclaimed "pacifism" is only passivism in the face of clear and present evil.

Along with a worship of absolutist politics, Europe's intellectuals have a record of hating democracy. Napoleon famously sneered that Britain was only "a nation of shopkeepers" --- petit bourgeois capitalists. Both the Communists and Fascists voiced the same contempt for Anglo-American democracy, and practically all of Europe's most famous intellectuals of the 20th century were totalitarians of one kind or the other. Mussolini and Mitterand actually managed to become both prominent Fascists and leading Socialists in a single lifetime.

The most revealing book about European politics is Julien Benda's Treason of the Clerks (that is, the intellectuals), written in the 1950s, but still as relevant as ever. It is a badly written book in many ways, but its point is made clear in the title: Benda pointed out that all of modern European politics is governed by the intellectual class, which always manages to betray its own peoples to serve itself. Socialism is of course a pure product of European intellect, starting from Plato's Republic to Karl Marx by way of Friedrich Hegel. Each of them celebrated their own version of dictatorship by the intellectuals. Not surprisingly, socialism serves the intellectual apparatus that it keeps in power. Europe today is still governed by elites who have contempt for democracy. Consider how they feel about the voters having a voice in the so-called "European Constitution," for example.

And there's the answer, I believe, to my question about the anti-Israel boycott. Why are the British university unions boycotting a free and democratic country, besieged by dictatorial murder cults? Because the universities are filled with bloody-minded professors, just as Churchill said. They are still searching for a True Belief. Relatively small numbers are Muslims, but Muslim fanatics have been allowed free reign by the Left, neo-Stalinists who have worked their way into positions of power, covered by the doctrine of Political Correctness. British universities are the breeding grounds of a new Left-fascist alliance, which operates by intimidation and media control, just as the old one did. Britain is no longer the country that defied Hitler. Instead, it has fallen back into another and darker identity.

Source



Muslim sexual fears

When you meet the Somali-Dutch writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali, you can't help but notice she is a great beauty, far more so than photographs might suggest. She is one of those rare, graceful creatures who transcends racial and cultural stereotypes and is just exquisitely beautiful in anyone's language.

This is not a random sexist observation, made during an afternoon discussion with Hirsi Ali in the Crows Nest offices of the Centre for Independent Studies on Tuesday. Hirsi Ali's beauty in a way defines her, a strictly brought-up woman from Mogadishu who renounced her Muslim religion and her God, who lives in America as a 36-year-old emancipated, well educated, divorced, childless, atheist feminist with a Jewish boyfriend. It must have given her power over men from the start, a dangerous advantage in a culture defined by its toxic suppression of feminine power.

Her beauty is both an insult and a reproach to an Islamism so deeply troubled by female sexuality that it routinely mutilates the genitals of little girls to keep them "pure". In her best-selling autobiography, Infidel, Hirsi Ali describes her gruesome experience of female circumcision at five, and the heart-rending screams of her younger sister. It underlines her critique of her former religion, that its oppression of women is the root of all that ails the Muslim world. "You don't need a Freud to understand that the core problem with Islam is sex and sexuality," she said on Tuesday, citing comments from Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly. "By describing women as raw meat and men as wild dogs [Hilaly revealed] a world view that is sexually centred."

As a Dutch MP, Hirsi Ali rose to worldwide prominence in 2004 after the murder of the filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Muslim extremist outraged by a short film, Submission, which Hirsi Ali helped make. In it misogynist verses from the Koran were painted on the naked body of a Muslim woman. Pinned to van Gogh's chest with a knife was a death threat against Hirsi Ali and she has lived with round-the-clock protection ever since. When she visited the Centre for Independent Studies on Tuesday she had three state-supplied bodyguards.

Hirsi Ali was the superstar of last week's Sydney Writers' Festival, drawing sellout crowds and standing ovations. But her criticism of Islam as a religion in need of profound reform, and of multiculturalism as another religion which condones Islam's repressive practices, has made her enemies among the intellectuals of the liberal-left establishment. They have labelled her a reactionary polemicist in bed with neo-conservative Islamophobes, and expended endless words on whether it is culturally insensitive to criticise a religion that advocates stoning a woman to death for adultery.

She is a refreshing antidote to those who try to politely explain away the barbaric subjugation, enslavement and murder of women around the world in the name of Islam. "If you improve the conditions for women you would change the religion the fastest," she says.

But if you accept the idea that women wield the most power in their individual sexual relationships with men, and certainly that they have power over their young sons, then you have to ask how Islamic culture could remain so oppressive towards women without the support of women. On Tuesday Hirsi Ali skated over the question of why Muslim women are complicit in their own subjugation. She acknowledged it was her grandmother who secretly had her circumcised against her father's wishes.

Her father, a Somali opposition politician and "modern man" who adored his spirited oldest child, had "considered the practice barbaric [and] had always insisted that his daughters be left uncut", she writes in Infidel. "My grandmother was concerned I would not find a husband [unless circumcised]. From her point of view she was doing me a favour," she said on Tuesday. "Women think they have to be submissive because that's what gets you ahead."

But she also pointed to the phenomenon in some Muslim countries of mothers-in-law instigating honour killings and stoning of their daughters-in-law. In many cases the subjugated mother exerts her power through her son, and in the Middle East often is defined by him, being known as mother of Mohammed, rather than wife of Osama. "The boy child is the key to the lock but that all goes away when [he marries]," Ali said. Marriage "takes away her boy child and all her anger and resentment is then projected onto the bride".

The Arab-American writer Nonie Darwish has written on the mother-in-law problem and what she calls the "impossible family dynamics of Islam". When men are free to marry multiple wives, the result is "strained and hostile relationships among women in the Muslim world . constant fear of envy". The channelling of female resentment against other women is but one of the catastrophic consequences of subjugation. It may also play a role in the reluctance of Muslim migrant families to integrate in the West.

It is perhaps unsurprising that Muslim families would not want to unleash their daughters into a culture in which Paris Hilton is the dominant female archetype and young girls are prematurely sexualised and objectified. Such women would not be the ideal wives for the precious sons of Muslim mothers. Hirsi Ali acknowledged that "90 per cent" of the complaints she heard from Dutch Muslim families about Western culture were "legitimate. They worried that Dutch culture would overtake their children with drugs and sex."

But she concluded that Muslim children were only vulnerable to Western vices because their parents "haven't prepared them". This overlooks the fact that non-Muslim families in the West also struggle with the effects of a decaying moral culture. Hirsi Ali says the West can "win the war of ideas if we persuade as many Muslims as possible [of the benefits] of equal opportunities for women and men, gays and heterosexuals". This will happen only if Muslim mothers can be persuaded that their sons will not be lost to wanton women.

Source

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

***************************