Big Dogs Weblog

Hillary Contradicts Her Husband, and God

by Big Dog on Mar 16, 2007 at 08:00 Uncategorized

Yesterday Hillary Clinton was elusive on the issue of whether homosexuality was immoral and she indicated that she would let others decide that. Evidently “others” have weighed in and told her what her position should be because Hillary released a statement where she said that homosexuality was not immoral (which means that she believes it is moral). She will probably try to say she never said it was moral but you only have two choices and we know which one the “others” have told her to select.

“Well I’ve heard from a number of my friends and I’ve certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with General Pace completely. I do not think homosexuality is immoral. But the point I was trying to make is that this policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is not working. I have been against it for many years because I think it does a grave injustice to patriotic Americans who want to serve their country. And so I have called for its repeal and I’d like to follow the lead of our allies like, Great Britain and Israel and let people who wish to serve their country be able to join and do so. And then let the uniform code of military justice determine if conduct is inappropriate or unbecoming. That’s fine. That’s what we do with everybody. But let’s not be eliminating people because of who they are or who they love.”Hotline On Call

Hillary has trumpeted her co-presidency with husband Bill. Two for the price of one, and all that. She has taken credit for things she views as accomplishments during his tenure so it is only fair to hold her to that standard when looking at this issue. Bill Clinton gave us the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy with which she disagrees so by her logic, she gave it to us as well. This policy was a compromise when the Clintons were unable to force acceptance of openly gay people in the military, a promise they made on the campaign trail.

Interestingly, Hillary thinks that it is OK for openly gay people to serve in the military but she opposes gay marriage. This is nothing more than pandering to all audiences in her egocentric world. She wants the Christian vote, the gay vote and every other vote in between and she will twist herself a million different ways in order to be everything to everyone. In a style that is not uniquely Clinton, she can not take a position and defend it. I imagine that she could be both sides of a debate and that is unfortunate. Leadership involves leading and while leading involves compromise, it does not involve pandering. A true leader takes a position and defends that position. Hillary fails in that regard. She determined that the issue was for others to decide and now she has weighed in which means that she has allowed those “others” to make up her mind for her. Whatever flash poll her people took, or whatever email traffic she received, must have told her that this was the position to take. A true leader would have a position and stick with it. A true leader convinces others, not the other way around.

A commenter to my site (named Mike) wrote this in response to my post about Obama and Clinton and their stand on homosexuality:

Ok first, I am a gay man….second, I don’t give a shit whether you accept me or not…thirdly, its not an issue of homosexuals forcing an agenda onto society as much as it is society waging war against homosexuals. Its a battle that the extreme right is losing by the way….

What is sad is that you have no idea what it means to be a moral person. It’s certainly not sitting on your ass cursing at the TV screen at those who have abortions or homosexuals, and then go to church every sunday.[sic] Being moral means getting off your ass, going out to help those in need, honesty, tolerance, high character, and inclusion. You don’t have any of those traits, your are not moral. That goes for any human being, not just gay or straight.

Mike, like Hillary, is part of the group trying to force an agenda and yes there is an agenda. The gays want society to view their behavior as perfectly normal. They want to change our traditions and our laws to suit their particular beliefs. They want to change the thousands of years old definition of marriage in order to be afforded that which contradicts the values and beliefs held by this country and civilization. Contrary to what Mike says there is no battle being waged by Conservatives against the gays. The battle is being waged by the gays against that which we as a civilization have held to be correct, and moral.

For a guy who preaches tolerance, Mike makes a lot of assumptions about me. You see, I know he is immoral because he told me that he is a gay man. I know that the Bible says that is an abomination (punishable by death) so there is no mystery. Mike has no knowledge of me and my work. He is unaware of the countless hours I have spent taking care of gay people dying from HIV. He is unaware how many women I have talked to about abortion and other options available. He is unaware of the donations my family makes to many organizations and to the Church he chides me about. Mike is intolerant and he, like Hillary, is intent on forcing me and everyone else into believing that what he does is perfectly normal. Well Mike, it is not.

People like Mike have an agenda and they belong to groups that push that agenda in order to take our civilization the way of the Roman Empire. While people like Mike can be harmful, Hillary is a true threat because she wants to be in a position that will have a huge influence in the direction this country takes. With “others” like Mike telling Hillary what is moral, and with people like Hillary listening, this country is in trouble.

It is also interesting that Hillary said it was for others to decide and they weighed in. She, by her own admission, has heard from a number of people who told her what to think. Why is it that she ignores what people like Peter Pace says? Is she saying that when he weighed in he was wrong but those “others” who weighed in were wrong? Why would the person who wants to be the Commander in Chief take the word of “others” as to what should be allowed in the military and ignore the opinion of someone who is actually in the military? Why don’t we take a poll of people in the military and see what those “others” have to say?

Hillary listen to anyone in the military, get real. She has hated the military all her life and her disregard of General Pace’s opinion is in keeping with her deep rooted hate.

Tags: Commentary