Posts Tagged ‘sex’

“There They Go Again…”

Sunday, December 11th, 2011

Newt's Turn

It seems as though this is the new method for destroying Republican front-runners this year. Once again, we have an The Daily Caller leveling accusations of adulterous conduct, this time against Newt Gingrich.  Once again, it is another “he-said, she-said,” and it’s not even a new allegation.  This is the same website that couldn’t wait to tell us about the ridiculous statements of Mike Tyson on the subject of Sarah Palin earlier this year.  Once again, we are faced with a story that provides no substantiation apart from the fact that the woman first made the allegations nearly two decades ago, a decade-and-one-half after the alleged conduct.  This accuser, Anne Manning, provides that she performed oral sex on Newt Gingrich, then still married to his first wife.  That’s it then!  It’s time for Newt to lose his lead, right?  That’s the formula, isn’t it?  Well, isn’t it?

As my readers know, I have chosen no candidate thus far, since the one I favored has chosen not to run.  To me, this isn’t merely about the election any longer, but about who is going to dominate the choosing.  Will it be the media?  Will it be voters?  This is another instance in which I will suggest to readers that until you have some substantiation, you may wish to discount the woman’s story. Another thing is that this woman’s story resurfaces, when it would be most damaging, to repeat her claims, but through the entirety of the article, nowhere do they seem to question Ms. Manning’s motives or veracity.  More, I have a question, and it’s probably going to get me in a little trouble with some, but let’s imagine this story is true.  Let’s imagine every word Ms. Manning is alleging is the absolute truth.  As we stand in judgment of Gingrich for this alleged transgression, what are we to make of Ms. Manning? She said:

“He always talks about being big on family values but he doesn’t practice what he preaches,” Manning said, according to London’s Daily Mail newspaper. “I wasn’t planning to say a word about him, but voters need to know what sort of man they’re being asked to support.”

Does Ms. Manning believe this will gain her some credibility or celebrity?  If this were true, what does it tell us about her?  She is purported to have been married at the time, as well.  You must forgive me, ladies and gentlemen, as I don’t understand what possible value this woman could offer other than to permit herself to be used to destroy Gingrich.  Maybe she’s lying, and maybe she’s not, but I don’t understand what her motive could be other than a few more moments of fame.

I also don’t understand the Daily Caller or the Daily Mail bringing this story up again.  It’s not new, and it’s not news, but since Gingrich is now the front-runner, I suspect that’s all the reason they needed.  The Daily Caller has certainly done more on less in the past. It’s time to consider not merely the accusations, but the people who are leveling them, or more properly in this case, who are bringing them up[again.]  Gingrich has already spoken to his earlier failings, and this simply looks timed to hit Newt and hit him hard.  I’m certainly not excusing Gingrich’s behavior in any case, but this all seems even more contrived than usual. The Daily Caller article also uses the occasion to take several other slaps at Gingrich, so I suspect this is more a matter of opportunism on their part.

The media is now so thoroughly bankrupt, so biased, and so determined to drive the process that I’ve lost patience for the lot of them.  Sure, I want to know about candidates’ moral failings, but I really don’t need the salacious details, and I particularly don’t understand the necessity of re-introducing a story that’s been floating around the Internet for more than a decade, except for the timing.  I suppose when all else fails to clobber a candidate, what you do is drag out some story of sex and sleaze and hope that it sticks.  I’ve seen this one.  It’s a re-run, same as it ever was.  Can we talk about tax reform?  Sex.  Can we talk about entitlement reform?  Sex.  Can we talk about the weather?  Sex. It’s obviously the answer to every question. It’s not that I don’t want to examine the candidates. It’s not that I don’t want to know their records or their past troubles, because they can tell us things about their future troubles, but let’s be honest: This isn’t about telling us the truth about Newt Gingrich.  Everybody who had any interest in knowing about Ms. Manning’s allegations has had decades to discover them.  If this was about anything other than the politics of personal destruction, this would have been brought out [again] before he was a front-runner.

I’m still considering all of the candidates.  Feel free to watch the latest media circus while Barack Obama continues his campaign to destroy the country.  I’m going to keep track of that.  I just want my country back.  When will the Daily Caller cover that?


So You Want to Spread the Wealth?

Thursday, August 11th, 2011

Spreading the Misery Equally

In a recent discussion with an acquaintance, who was interested in my recent article on the nature of the people who are rioting in London, and elsewhere around the world, the question was posed to me: “How can you expect to convince young people who’ve never really had to struggle for anything that they shouldn’t be handed everything for free?”  This question is about the entitlement mentality that now seems to be spreading in pandemic proportion and threatens the foundations of our constitutional, representative republic.  It’s true that it’s a difficult thing to explain to somebody who has convinced themselves that demands, and not hard work, are the road to personal prosperity.  I was considering the problem on my way home when a thought crossed my mind: One of the reasons I fight so hard against socialism is because I’ve already experienced its oppressive boot on my neck.  I know from personal observations how it cripples the ability of individuals to prosper.

The problem with most of the people who demand more and more at the expense of others is that they have no skin in the game.  Since many of these people have never been on the paying end of the socialist monstrosity, I’m inclined to believe they simply don’t understand it, and won’t, until they’re made to pay, somehow.

I hope you’ll forgive me, my patient readers, as I propose something in order to make a point, because I think we can make the notion of having “skin in the game” as literal as any dare suffer to imagine possible.  Consider now, if you will, my own modest proposal for the ultimate entitlement program, designed to fulfill a basic human need, to promote self-esteem, and otherwise “spread the wealth around,” albeit of another kind.  Before I make my proposal, let me start by saying that money, property and wealth are just extensions of one’s person, so that if any of these are up for grabs to the mob in the name of “the public good,” it is truly an assault on the individual.  For this reason, and in order to demonstrate the immorality of socialism, I therefore propose a new entitlement program aimed at giving every person in our society the chance to feel better about themselves.  It’s predicated on the notion of the “public good,” and will doubtless reduce the incidence of violent crimes and relieve the poverty of spirit with which so many now suffer.  I therefore give you: “S-GROPE“:

Sexual Opportunity Resource Equalization Sponsorship Act of 2011 (SORES)

S-GROPE” is an acronym that stands for “Sexual Gratification and Recreation Of People Everywhere.”  This program will be administered by a new division of the Department of Health and Human Services, to be called “SCROOME.”  (That’s: Sexual Conjugation Resource Office Of Managed Ecstasy”, in case you hadn’t guessed.)

S-GROPE will be enacted to ensure every American equal access to sexual gratification and fulfillment.  We’ve learned through intensive study that this is an important part of human behavior and social development.  Too many people have been forced by the selfishness of others to endure endless long nights alone with no hope of human contact.  In order to ensure fairness, every American will be assigned an S-GROPE account number, and all Americans will be entered into a shared pool.  This will ensure fairness to all, but more importantly, it will be carried out safely within the confines of officially approved SCROOME Centers.

Commencing on the first Monday of the New Year, couples will be selected at random, with notifications sent out to all participants with the name, address, and time of their conjugal visitation.  Upon receipt of said notification, participants shall have not more than five days to schedule and fulfill their obligations under the program. The only exemptions shall be for minors and dependent adults, Congress, and other Federal officers and officials.  This program will be administered in the  most fair and humane manner possible: There will be no discrimination on the basis of age, race, sex, sexual orientation, condition of disability, or other factors.  Pairings will be selected at random, within the 25 mile geographical range of the participant’s home of residence.

When contacted by notification from SCROOME, participants should understand this to be a mandatory activity for the good of society.  Failure to appear, or any attempt to leave the premises after arrival at the officially designated SCROOME Centers will result in strict criminal liability, up to and including not more than 10 years of incarceration at a Federal SCROOME rehabilitation center…

Now, every person who reads my blog knows that this is entirely in jest, and is even now thinking up their own clever acronyms, but I would suggest you ask all those you know who suffer from delusions of redistribution: “If you can demand my wealth, my earnings, and my property at the point of a gun, and threaten me with imprisonment, why not my body too?  Why not yours?  Why should you get a choice about when or if to engage in sex, or with whom?  After all, it can be clearly demonstrated to be in the public interest according to some research clinician’s study.  No?  You don’t want this? What else could be the possible meaning of a federal mandate to purchase health-care insurance?”

“If you don’t want this, then how dare you demand the wallets or bank accounts of others?  If you don’t think this a proper use of Federal power, what makes you think it a proper use of Federal power to force me at gunpoint, under threat of incarceration, to fund the food on your plate or the roof over your head?  Is it because I have a bit more money at the moment than you?  Do you think that justifies it?  Well, the sad fact is that somewhere there is somebody with even less than you, who will eventually look at your wallet as you’ve been looking at mine.”

“If you think the notion is absurd when it is applied as in my offered piece of legislation above, what in the world would make you think it’s any less absurd, in logic or morality, to propose the same notions with respect to my labor?  When you demand my wallet, you’re demanding a share of all the labor that went into filling it with what little it contains.  When you demand that government pay for this or for that, you’re demanding that citizens be strapped to a table in your SCROOME Center for your own pleasure and purpose.”

These are the questions you should ask of anybody who contends they have a right to a full belly at the involuntary expense of others, because that person is morally capable of all of this and more.  You cannot claim the labors of a millionaire or a billionaire, or even a dirt-poor horse farmer without committing the same essential crime:  You’re guilty of demanding that others live for your sake, or else.  You’re demanding they live for your satisfaction, or else.  You’re seizing their work and the means to the attainment of their own dreams and aspirations.

One can pretend this hadn’t been the case, but the truth is much worse than most care to admit: Programs for the redistribution of wealth are merely a form of enslavement, just as the bizarre program I’ve proposed offers the same logic in service to the same preposterous ends.  You cannot claim to want freedom while demanding entitlement to the efforts and wealth of others, just as you cannot claim a right to sexual fulfillment by a spree of government-coerced rapes.  By definition, none of these things can be a right, because they negate the rights of others to their own lives, liberties, and property.  It’s time to stop pretending that socialism isn’t what it so clearly is, and if my vulgar little proposal  assists you to better explain the crass depravity of the entitlement mentality, so much the better, for if the person with whom you’re discussing it refuses to understand, it can be safely said that such a person has abandoned humanity already.