Whatever her future plans for dealing with pro-life positions, traditional marriage values, and other religious liberties, Clinton's disdain held for conservative Catholics and Evangelicals is undeniable.
SAN DIEGO, October 12, 2016 — So much information is coming out about Hillary Clinton, (through the courtesy of Wiki Leaks) that few can keep up with it. A myriad of E Mail conversations have pointed a spotlight square at her campaign, her foundation, her tenure as Secretary of State, and her personal history. Some of the information suggests downright criminal activity. Other information proves lies. And still other information is merely embarrassing.
Unfortunately, information overload can cause people to dismiss the plethora of scandals altogether. For this reason, it might be best to concentrate on one revelation at a time, such as an interesting email exchange between Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri, and John Halpin, a senior fellow from the Center for American Progress. While talking about Fox News’ Rupert Murdock’s decision to raise his children in the Catholic Church, conservative Catholics and Evangelicals were described in very unflattering ways.
Halpin said, “It’s an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.”
To which Halpin said, “Excellent point. They can throw around ‘Thomistic’ thought and ‘subsidiarity’ and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they’re talking about.”
In another exchange with Sandy Newman, founder and president of Voices for Progress, Podesta said, “This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage even though 98% of Catholic women (and their conjugal partners) have used contraception has me thinking … There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church.”
Undoubtedly the references to gender equality go beyond contraceptives to include same-sex marriage and abortion. I.E. The Catholic Church does not yet have the “correct, progressive view” of these social issues.
Such snobbery and disdain should come as no surprise. While some have defended Clinton by suggesting that she should not be held responsible for the words of her associates, it is unlikely that Hillary Clinton is surrounding herself with people she does not agree with.
One has only to look at her own words. At a campaign event in August of 2015, Hillary Clinton, while renouncing the pro-life viewpoints of several Republican candidates, said, “Now, extreme views about women, we expect that from some of the terrorist groups, we expect that from people who don’t want to live in the modern world, but it’s a little hard to take from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States.”
That same year, in a speech to the Women in the World Conference, she explained that our existing laws are not enough and that somehow (although she does not explain how) pro-life beliefs must themselves be changed.
“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”
Exactly how does she intend changing religious beliefs and biases? Will it be limited to the inspiration of a civil war within the Catholic Church as suggested by the Wiki Leaks emails? Or will this involve some actual political muscle? Don’t forget, if Hillary Clinton gets into power and appoints even one liberal Supreme Court justice, the balance of power on the court will shift to five liberals, three conservatives and one swing voter who might make his decision based on whether he enjoyed his breakfast that morning. Our country will no longer be a republic and will instead be run by an oligarchy that can deem any law as “unconstitutional” be it a law from Congress, or a law passed through a ballot measure by the people. All we need is a law suit that challenges such laws.
Supposing somebody feels “threatened emotionally” because they are exposed to a pro-life discourse of some kind? Supposing a law suit is waged which makes its way to the Supreme Court? All the court has to do is decide that speaking against a woman’s right to choose is hate speech. Ditto for speaking against same-sex marriage. That is not so far-fetched a possibility when we remember that Hillary Clinton likens pro-life supporters to “terrorists.” And only recently this year, while talking about Trump supporters, Clinton described those who may disagree with a gay lifestyle as “homophobes” a term used in the same sentence as “racist.”
Whatever her future plans for dealing with pro-life positions, traditional marriage values, and other religious liberties, Clinton’s disdain held for conservative Catholics and Evangelicals is undeniable. Just imagine if instead of a series of emails from her campaign staff, a Wiki Leak Email came forth from the Donald Trump campaign making disparaging remarks about Muslims. There would be hell to pay and the media would demand this payment twenty-four seven!
But don’t look to our main stream media for consistency and don’t expect them to analyze the logical suppressive conclusions of leftist ideology. Our country is far more preoccupied with the loose cannon speech of Clinton’s opponent Donald Trump. His track record of insulting comments and lewd braggadocio caught on tape invokes much more of a reaction than any policy that might limit our freedom of religion or freedom of speech.
We have become such a politically correct culture that we react more to somebody’s unfiltered mouth than a candidate who talks about the rights of women but ignores the rights of baby women in the womb, even babies at full term who could survive outside the womb and instead are put to death by “partial birth abortion.” Those who object, those who wish to protect these babies, are likened to terrorists.
That is the heritage of the PC movement. We ignore evil, but we have grown sensitive to words.
This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.
Bob Siegel is a weekend radio talk show host on KCBQ and a columnist. Details of his show can be found at www.bobsiegel.net.
Note from Bob Siegel: This article refers to the controversial speech of Donald Trump and not to recent allegations of sexual harassment. The allegations are too new and at the moment do not supply enough evidence. So far, the women coming forward are women who refrained from making their charges by many years, almost 20 years in one case. There were no criminal charges filed at the time and no witnesses. Finally, the suspicious timing of these allegations coming out weeks before an election during the same days as the Wiki Leak emails, calls much into question. If better evidence is brought forth, I will not ignore it.
Bottom of Form
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Communities Digital News
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.
Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.