There have been times over the last three years when I wondered if we all might have been better off had Hillary Clinton won the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.
Then reality sets in as it did last week when I read about a speech she gave in Geneva to celebrate “International Human Rights Day.”
Now keep in mind, there are some pretty heinous human-rights violations taking place in this world. No doubt about it.
Christians are being slaughtered by Muslims in Africa and elsewhere around the globe by Muslims. In China they force women to have abortions as part of the “one-child” policy. In North Korea millions are starving because the socialist country’s certifiably insane leader maintains one of the biggest armies in the region and is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. Iran threatens a genocidal nuclear war against Israel and sponsors Hezbollah, a terrorist army in Lebanon that will presumably mop up after the radiation cloud dissipates. Saudi Arabia won’t allow women to drive and won’t allow non-Muslims into Mecca.
In fact, right now, with Hillary Clinton’s approval, plans are being made to create a new “Palestinian” state that will, like Nazi Germany, not allow any Jews to live there.
But is Hillary worried about any of that?
Her big issue is with people around the world who haven’t yet been enlightened about the virtues of homosexuality, lesbianism and transgenderism.
But she’s not just promoting the idea that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.” Not by a long shot.
She’s got her sights set on the opposition to this agenda – namely anyone who suggests this kind of sexual behavior is sinful.
She noted that perhaps the “most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens.”
These objections, she said, are “not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation.”
Did you catch that?
People who suggest that God did not grant humans the “right” to shtup members of the same sex or to undergo surgery to change their sex or to dress like members of the opposite sex are the moral equivalents of apologists for “honor killings, widow burning or female genital mutilation.”
I think she’s talking about me – maybe you, too.
She said worldwide “opinions are still evolving” on homosexuality as they did with slavery, and “what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights.”
“In each of these cases, we came to learn that no [religious] practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us,” she said.
Actually, slavery was abolished in all non-Muslim and non-socialist states long ago through the efforts of mostly Christians and Jews inspired by the Bible. And it was the Christian and Jewish holy scriptures that proscribe homosexuality as a sin. It sounds like if Hillary got her way, she would make reading and believing the Bible a hate crime.
She insisted the United Nations, funded largely by the U.S., must oppose all forms of what she called “human-rights violations” against homosexuals and “transgender” people, from execution and banishment to criminalizing LGBT “status or behavior,” denying them free access to “public spaces,” or the “bullying and exclusion” that takes place in America.
“I speak about this subject knowing that my own country’s record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect,” Clinton said. In other words, she doesn’t trust Americans to do the right thing, so the U.N. will have to enlighten us, presumably through international law.
Clinton said notions that “gay people are pedophiles, that homosexuality is a disease that can be caught or cured, or that gays recruit others to become gay” are “simply not true.”
I would like to hear more about how people become homosexuals if it is not through recruitment. Because if it is a genetic condition, clearly it would have been bred out of the gene pool long ago. Homosexual activity, unless coerced, is a chosen behavior, like any other sexual activity. And all sexual activity outside of marriage is considered by Bible-believing Christians and Jews sinful, not a “human right.”
Now, Secretary of State Clinton calls herself a “Democrat,” which suggests she believes the public has some say over the laws of the land. But not on this issue. She says this initiative of hers is so vital and so important that nations must pass LGBT civil-rights laws even if they offend the majority of their citizens.
“Leadership, by definition, means being out in front of your people when it is called for,” she said. “[W]e are each free to believe whatever we choose. … But progress comes from changes in laws.”
This speech by Hillary came the same week the Barack Obama administration announced it was funding homosexual activists around the world and plans to give preferential immigration status to the LGBT crowd. The plan instructs all foreign officers to “combat discrimination, homophobia, and intolerance on the basis of LGBT status or conduct” and establishes a $3 million “Global Equality Fund” to finance homosexual activists worldwide.
Hillary also made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that there is no serious argument against public homosexual behavior – including religious objection. If you try it, you will be equated with supporters of “honor killings, widow burning or female genital mutilation.”
No longer will I ever again daydream about what might have been had Hillary won that nomination.
What was I thinking about?