"The zeal which begins with hypocrisy must conclude in treachery; at first it deceives, at last it betrays" ~ Sir Francis Bacon
OK. Let me make myself perfectly clear. Mark Foley is a disgusting pervert. What he did was absolutely indefensible and I won't defend him or sugar-coat his actions. (unlike the Democrats, who do nothing but defend and sugar-coat reprehensible behavior on the part of their leaders, as we shall soon see) He resigned and he should have. He should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. He should be added to the Nationwide sexual predator list, and should have every thing he does monitored 24/7 to be absolutely sure he doesn't do it again. There is nothing that can be done to him that wouldn't be deserved in my opinion.
On top of everything else, Foley compounded the scandal by offering a variety of weak, ridiculous excuses for what is, in my opinion, utterly indefensible perversion.
He said he was an alcoholic. Then, he said he was a homosexual, no doubt to endear himself to the Democrats, who continue to insist that "homosexuality is normal". (In doing so, he forgot one very important tenet of Democratism, the position that homosexuality is normal unless the homosexual is a Republican, and then it is a perversion) Then, he said he was molested as a child by a priest. This is a blatant effort to minimize the offense.
Actually, he isn't so dumb, is he? He knows the Democrats love a good excuse for reprehensible behavior. If you can shift the blame to a more responsible person, you can be excused, even for child molesting.
It would have worked, too, if he had also jumped to the Democratic party.
None of these explanations are legitimate excuses for his behavior. No matter what kinds of trauma one may have been exposed to as a child, or even later in life, we are all accountable for our own actions, regardless of whatever malady, real or imagined, we may have gone through.
We always have a choice.
We can choose to allow negative influences to shape our moral character, or we can refuse to let them affect us and resolve to succeed in whatever endeavor we set our mind to.
That said, I also want to make perfectly clear that as far as I'm concerned no one is accountable for what he did but Mark Foley himself.
No, not even Dennis Hastert.
This is nothing but the typical Democrat tactic of trying to smear a Republican leader in order to gain votes, or at least, keep the Republicans from voting in the upcoming election.
Now that I have made it clear that I neither condone nor defend Foley's actions, I have a few other points to make.
The first is that I find it interesting that the Democrats vigorously defend the so-called rights of homosexuals unless it is a Republican homosexual, then all of a sudden they are perverts.
I have seen time and time again, whenever a Democrat is caught in some scandal, the Democrats and their accomplices in the media will rally to his defense, regardless of the infraction.
William Jefferson, Democratic Congressman from Louisiana, was caught hiding $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer. He got his hand slapped and is still in the legislature.
Rally 'round the reprobate.
Bill (BJ) Clinton was caught not only having sex with a 19 year old girl, including phone sex, (which could be argued to be even more personal than instant messages or e-mails), but then lied about the affair to a grand jury. But the Democrats all rallied to his defense, insisting that what he did in private was his own personal business, and not ours, and we should just stay out of it.
The Democrats insisted there is nothing wrong with a married President having oral sex with a woman 30+ years his junior and then lying about it in front of God and everybody, and yet, Mark Foley (and every other Republican) should be thrown out of office for his particular perversion.
A perversion, incidentally, that the Democrats continue to insist is normal and indeed, have been persistent in their efforts to get it legalized. Remember how hard they have been trying to get the legal age of consent lowered to 12?
Rally 'round the reprobate.
Democrat Jerry Stubbs, some years ago, did more than just type a few lurid e-mails to an underage page. He actually had sex with him. What did the Democrats do about it? They rallied to his defense, offered excuses, insisted that it wasn't the absolute worst thing he could have done, and then, when it became clear that they'd have to do something, they at last agreed to censure him. Then, when the whole thing blew over for him, his Democratic colleagues not only forgave him, but actually gave him a standing ovation upon his return to the chamber.
Rally 'round the reprobate.
Look, I'm not saying Mark Foley should be excused for what he did. I am saying that what's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.
If Foley is wrong to do the things he did, then so are the aforementioned Democrats. If he should be kicked out of office and publicly humiliated, so should they.
One more thought:
By immediately resigning as soon as he was caught, he proved, as reprehensible a sub-human as he is, that he is still a better man than Bill Clinton. As far as integrity is concerned. Clinton didn't resign. He didn't even offer to resign. He denied, and fought, and passed the responsibility.
But then, that's to be expected.
After all, he is a Democrat, isn't he?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
This is Republic spin bullshit, Mark. There is not one single Democrat making any issue whatsoever about Foley's homosexuality. Not one. Zero, zip, nada.
That is purely the Republic bullshit spin. The issue IN NOT his sexuality but his actions and the LACK OF APPROPRIATE ACTION by the House leasership.
That's it. That's the issue. Not whether Foley is gay. There is no gay bashing going on by the left.
It is the right that attempts to conflate homosexuality and pedophelia. It's bullshit, spin.
It's not working because everyone is wise to it except those who idolize Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin, and O'Reilly.
You got nothing on this one.
Mark, if you actually think about it for a moment, I expect you’ll find that Foley is being labelled a pervert because his actions border on paedophilia rather than because he’s gay. Despite what many pulpit-bashing clergymen would have you believe, the two are not synonymous.
I have disabled comment moderation so it's open season. Go for it.
After reading some of the previous comments, disabling the comment moderation might not be a good idea.
I noticed that none of your critics even touch the subject of the blatant hypocrisy of the Dems.
Don't worry, it's obvious to people with a brain.
Perhaps you've all missed it. The Page in question was 18 when the "disgusting" IM's were sent back and forth. One cannot be a pedophile when the alledged victim is 18. It's sick disturbing behavior between 2 consenting adults. Should Foley have resigned? Based on a consentual exchange between two adults? Perhaps, perhaps not. It's moot anyway since Foley has resigned.
Gerry Studds can have sex with a seventeen year old (male) page and retain his seat in the house, be rewarded with reelection, 3 standing ovations from democrats, and given a coveted chairmanship. Yet Foley can't exchange salacious IM's with a consenting adult?
It's not about GOP cover-up... It's about Democratic hypocrisy.
The fact is: Jerry Studds, and Bill Clinton actually HAD sex. Foley merely chatted about it... to an adult no less.
To continue castigating Foley for his disgusting, sick, perverted behavior is, at the very least, gay-bashing. Imagine that! Dems bashing a gay for talking about sex. But rewarding fellow democrats for having sex.
Based on the information we have today, Friday October 6th, there is no crime worthy of prosecution except perhaps against the pages who engaged in Gay-Congressman baiting.
Because Republicans have never been involved in sex scandals.
Impressive list Jerky. Care to open the Democratic closet? I saw two congressmen and one senator on your list. What's your point? That Democrats have the moral high-ground? Tell that to Barney Frank. Tell that to Ted "sink or swim" Kennedy. No one has the moral high-ground. No one.
Hypocrisy, however, in this instance, weighs more heavily upon democratic shoulders.
By immediately resigning as soon as he was caught, he proved, as reprehensible a sub-human as he is, that he is still a better man than Bill Clinton. As far as integrity is concerned. Clinton didn't resign. He didn't even offer to resign. He denied, and fought, and passed the responsibility.
But then, that's to be expected.
After all, he is a Democrat, isn't he?
You are right, Mark. You just pushed some buttons that don't like to be pushed. This whole Foley thing for the Dems is a political opportunity. It's not about his supposed pedophilia. Yes, he's a sexual predator, but the medical textbooks don't label him a pedophile for flirting with a 16 or 17 year old. He's a homosexual, which is his real perversion - but the Dems can't say that...because homosexuality is embraced by them.
elashey--
You're making too much sense.
Expect Democrats to stick their fingers in their ears and say la la la la bullshit bullshit bullshit la la la la over and over again.
THEY are equating homosexuality with perversion, a fact that completely amazes me, given the flack San Francisco liberals and others gave organizations like the Boy Scouts over precisely this issue.
The Dems not only forgave Clinton, Mark, they forgave Senator Kennedy (still in office), Gary Sudds who had sex with a page and was re-elected, and Barney Frank who ran a gay prostitution ring out of his basement and was re-elected. Democrats do not hold their representatives accountable to any standards whatsoever, and neither do they condemn them, but boy, let a Republican screw up and they can't wait to condemn.
Don't get me wrong. Even though there's a Drudge report out now that shows the page was 18 and not 16 when the e-mails began, this is still disgusting behavior and I'm glad Foley stepped down. Still, the difference between Republicans who are caught in misdeeds and Democrats is stark!
That was supposed to be "Gary Studds." Sorry.
Jason is spreading his bullshit everywhere.
Jason said, "THEY are equating homosexuality with perversion, a fact that completely amazes me,"
This is just utterly blatant bullshit lying. There is no Democrat, no liberal, nobody except the right who is equating homosexuality with perversion here.
You want to know who is?
Jason himself!
And I quote Jason: "There is no reason to say that Foley is creepy or perverted beyond the notion that homosexuality is creepy and perverted."
You can read that for yourself. Check out comment #23.
You are repeating lies, Gayle. Barney Frank DID NOT run a prostitution ring out of his basement or anywhere else. This is false.
You are repeating lies, Gayle. Barney Frank DID NOT run a prostitution ring out of his basement or anywhere else. This is false.
Actually, Frank's male prostitute "friend" that he met through a personals ad was running the prostitution ring out of Franks' apartment.That is not a lie, and is a matter of public record. So we're supposed to believe that Frank knew nothing about it?
No, but Frank said that he kicked the guy out as soon as he found out about it. There is no evidence to refute that.
So it IS a lie that Frank ran a prostitution ring.
I have made my point many times about what I believe concerning Homosexuality.
I re-iterate: Homosexuality is a perversion and not natural or normal. That is what I believe, and no one will change my mind.
As far as a difference between homosexuality and pedophilia: If a male considers having sex with a male it is homosexuality. If a male considers having sex with an underage male, he is a homosexual pedophile.
The same rule apply to females.
Now, I don't think Liam will mind if I state (for the record) that he is gay. Before anyone accuses me of being a homophile. let me state here that I respect Liam as much as I respect anyone else who comments here respectfully and with thoughtfulness and insight. In fact, I will go so far as to say, I like Liam. In spite of the fact that he and I rarely agree with one another, I find him to be highly intelligent and respectful.
But I believe what I believe. One is not born gay. It is a choice.
That out of the way, the point of this entry was not a treatise on the difference or lack of difference between pedoplilia and homosexuality. My point is that Democrats rally around the reprobate while the Republicans throw them under the bus. I think that speaks volumes about the integrity of the two parties.
Stay on point. I will not argue semantics.
Well thank you for the compliments, Mark. If you ever get to London, do look me up; I suspect we could have some interesting debates!
A question for everyone though: Mark says, “Democrats rally round the reprobate while Republicans throw them under the bus,” and proposes this demonstrates a lack of integrity, but it strikes me as just the two parties responding from their own particular points of view.
You can only judge integrity in relation to what someone stands for to begin with; how far do they actually walk their respective talk? Democrats have the more liberal base, so are more likely to forgive individual indiscretions so long as they are not criminal and the person concerned hasn’t let it interfere with their job. Republicans are the conservative party and expect their representatives to adhere to more traditional codes about what is and isn’t acceptable personal behaviour. But at the same time, there’s the politics; each side wants to maximise the damage on the opposition while minimising it on one’s own side…
So, what do you think? Have they both been holding true to their basic beliefs or has there been a lack of integrity, beyond the normal impurity of politics, in Democrat/Republican responses to Mark Foley?
What's your point? That Democrats have the moral high-ground?
Perhaps if you had read the post you would have noticed the point, as it's clearly stated. No one said the Democrats have the moral high ground. But it's pretty damn clear that the Republicans don't either.
Kevron, I can't believe you are still around.
Well, it doesn't matter. I told you long ago that I will never allow your comments on my blog and I haven't changed my mind.
I have deleted your comments. Again. Now go away.
Sorry, friends. I thought Kevron was tired of making himself look stupid on my blog. Comment moderation is back. Thank Kevron, who can't seem to get it through that thick whatever-it-is that he calls a mind that I don't want his comments.
"IF Mr. Foley had been heterosexual, the Nation would have been just as outraged!!!! A Pretater is a predater no matter what the sexual persuation."
Clinton was a sexual predator too, and his party rallied 'round that particular reprobate-- he's a democrat after all. He lied to a Federal Grand Jury, but he's a Democrat. And with numerous opportunities to get Bin Laden, he worried more about poll numbers than protecting Americans, but again, he's a Democrat and can therefore do no wrong.
Republican's throw a congressman out on his ear, and all the Democrats can do is demand Hastert's head? The War's not going as expected but all the Democrats can do is call for Rumsfeld's head? What a blood-thirsty group, those Democrats. And what hypocrisy!
If ever there was a party so thoroughly acquainted with hypocrisy and lies... If ever there was a party so desperately in need of new eyes and ears... If ever there was a party so dangerously degenerate... this country would be best served if Democrats never gained power again. Their policies are founded on false assumptions and dangerous ideologies. And their moral clarity is anything but-- and a recipe for national disaster.
But the sad truth is, Republican's are more worried about retaining power than doing what is best for this country. And when Democrats manage to drag us all to the cultural landfill only Democrats will be calling for toasts, speeches, and congratulations all around-- martinis and manhattans raised high --all amid the stink of refuse, filth, and swarms of disease-laden flies.
And that's all I got to say about that.
Of course, as usual -- as virtually always with EL -- I assert the following, honest to God, with my hand up, only swap "Republicans" for "Democrats."
"If ever there was a party so thoroughly acquainted with hypocrisy and lies... If ever there was a party so desperately in need of new eyes and ears... If ever there was a party so dangerously degenerate... this country would be best served if Democrats never gained power again. Their policies are founded on false assumptions and dangerous ideologies. And their moral clarity is anything but -- and a recipe for national disaster."
Y'all are drivin' -- and y'all are gonna drive this country so far into to the ditch we may never get out. A Democratic House will stay the collapse. A Democratic House and Senate will stop it. Y'all can even have the presidency again in 2008, as long as a Congress with balls is there as a check on lunacy; we have no such check now.
elashey said,
"Republican's throw a congressman out on his ear".
This is a joke of course, and the whole point is THEY DIDN'T throw him out. HE QUIT when he found out that ABC was about to make the information public. The Republics DIDN'T thow him out when they knew about him for years.
what
And what would they have thrown him out for? Please tell me what he did that was illegal or even morally reprobate given what the Dems have been telling us over the last two decades. Would they have him thrown out because he is gay? Or because the early coverage of this story said he was a pedophile? Since it has now been established that the page in question was of the age of consent, what is the problem now? Don't get me wrong. In my book, what he did was sick. But the "scandal" that it has caused does not fit with the agenda that the Dems push. Square peg--round hole.
Here's the issue: Classic case of a powerful person lording it over the less powerful. That is *the* basis for sexual harrassment, and others forms of actionable harrassment.
Mark, to ignore your lefty spit slingers for a minute. Here is an article they might like to read and attempt to answer, Mike Adams asks many very good questions of his students. I know you will enjoy it and probably get many blog ideas as I did. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=legislating_morality&ns=MikeSAdams&dt=10/12/2006&page=1
"Classic case of a powerful person lording it over the less powerful."
You mean like Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski?
No, Lash.
That doesn't count.
Clinton was a Democrat, and Monica was a girl, over the age of consent.
Never mind the fact that Clinton was the most powerful man in the World, sex is a private matter.
As long as you are a Democrat.
Besides, Clinton tried,/i> to kill Bin Laden, he ,i>intended, to deal with th problem of Terrorism, and nobody can really define the word "is".
Clinton never lied to a Grand Jury, he only sdought to protect the honor of a poor, innocent young lady who blew him in order to get a better job.
That would only have been a crime had Clinton been a Republican.
And only then if Clinton had not gone to Church.
Just ask ER.
Tug, blow it on out now. Somebody wipe his chin.
Let's review, 'k?
Clinton did what he did with Monica. It was, in fact, a classic case of sexual harrassment -- no more, since she was willing. Classic case of power using itself. He said it himself: "I did it because I could."
Clinton got fricking IMPEACHED.
That ain't gettin' off -- pardon the exptression -- scott free.
Clinton does wrong, says wrong, thinks wrong, reevaluates, comes back and goes back to work.
All you do, Tug, is whine and cry like a big ol' baby. Hush, child.
And she was 22 not 19. You got 19 from that liar Sean Hannity.
Oh, she was 22, not 19! Well, that's very different, isn't it?
Nevermind.
Come on, Jim. Do you REALLY think that makes that much of a difference?
Post a Comment