The Sexual Harassment Apocalypse... Why Now?

I'm old enough to remember when the progressive left first weaponized sexual harassment. It occurred during the early 90s when they thought they could use it to keep a conservative judge, Clarence Thomas, from SCOTUS.

And it almost worked; the Senate vote was very close.

That was when I first heard assertions such as: women don't lie about sexual harassment, women are always to be believed, and even the mere accusation of such crimes is sufficient to banish someone from public office. I don't remember hearing these assertions even being debated, they were just put forth as settled facts.

Of course, all that suddenly changed during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, but that's another story.

But right now, the left is reeling from one hammer blow after another as women are lining up to claim that this Democratic senator, donor, or media figure tried to grope me, rape me, or ram his tongue down my throat.

So the question is, why now, in 2017, is the house of cards that the left has been building and expanding for over two decades suddenly starting to collapse on them?

(Yes, I know two Republicans have also been caught up in this. But Barton probably didn't do anything illegal, and in fact, may have been the victim of revenge porn, and the case against Moore is looking more shakier each day)

This longish blog post over at Bookworm's site attempts to explain how we got here by starting with the moral collapse of the 1960s. It's an interesting read.

Another good article is Sex, Power, Weakness and Evil on The Other McCain blog, which deals with a number of related images, including this sobering admonition for humility:

“And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,” Jesus taught His disciples to pray. Knowing our own weakness — “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” — Christians ought to be humble, and to fear any situation that might tempt us to sin. Are you a stronger or more virtuous man than Bill Clinton? You ought to hesitate before answering “yes,” lest the Devil decide to prove you wrong.

Me, I think God is just forcing the Democrats to play by their own rules. They've sewn the wind, now they're reaping the whirlwind.

------

I've always believed that Hillary can only be understood in a religious context, i.e. in terms of her religious upbringing. This is what I'm talking about:

"Hillary Clinton is part of the problem."

It is important to remember that she came from a prosperous Republican family. Her father was a successful businessman and in 1964, young Hillary Rodham was a "Goldwater Girl." Unfortunately, she was also a Methodist, and came under the influence of a church youth leader with a "social justice" outlook. She was swept along in the general leftward drift of the Methodist Church (like all WCC denominations) and also internalized the generational narcissism of the Baby Boomers.

Bright young people in the 1950s and '60s were repeatedly told that their generation were the future leaders of America. Their heads were filled with a lot of slogans about "democracy," "freedom" and "equality" and they weren't taught much about skepticism and humility. It would have been better for them if they had been given more good old-fashioned Calvinism, but instead their education turned them into fools, ready to believe in a lot of utopian dreams.

In a society where liberalism prevails among the academic elite, the more education you get, the more of a hopeless fool you become. By the time she went off to Wellesley, Hillary was already on the wrong path, and no one she encountered at college, or later at Yale Law, did anything to correct her path.

You can take the girl out of the religion, but you can't take the religion out of the girl.

Also,

"In a society where liberalism prevails among the academic elite, the more education you get, the more of a hopeless fool you become."

...is a great quote.

And let's not forget:

1997

Feb. 28: After she attended the taping of Clinton's radio show, she had her picture taken with him. He told her to see his secretary Betty Currie because he had something for her. Currie accompanied Lewinsky into the study next to the Oval Office. Then Currie walked into the nearby pantry, where she waited for about 15 minutes while Lewinsky and the president had a sexual encounter -- their first in 11 months...Lewinsky later discovered that the blue dress she had worn that day was stained with his semen.

And if she hadn't kept that blue dress (which was later used as the basis for a DNA test), the Clintons would be lying about Bill's many and various schtuppings TO THIS DAY. In order to get them to admit the truth, the hard evidence of their lying had to be shoved right into their smug, self-righteous faces. No, it's not a vast right-wing conspiracy, Mrs. Clinton, the DNA test results say otherwise.

I am once again reminded how thankful I am that Hillary Clinton will never be president.

posted by OregonMuse at 03:40 PM

| Access Comments