Sunday, April 14, 2013

Senate Democrats Dishonor Female Head of State

Rumors have it that Hilary Clinton will run for office in 2016. She likely will, seeing as she did not attend the 2012 Democratic Party Convention, and has resigned as Secretary of State, leaving the blame for any chaos that happens in the intervening period to fall squarely on the incompetent shoulders of John Kerry. She has distanced herself from the Obama administration, in preparation to run for office again. As if two terms under Obama was not punishment enough.

But while Democrats are salivating over the political ammunition of saying that they were the first to put a woman into office as Head of State, across the Atlantic, Britain has beaten America to the mark by several decades.

Margaret Thatcher. She was a powerful woman and one would imagine she should be honored and praised by those who claim to promote women's rights and suchlike things. But she hasn't been. The major media have played lip service to her, because she's too big to ignore, but a simple internet search will reveal people on the opposite side of the political spectrum rejoicing over her passing.

Bruce Thornton, writing at Front Page, points out the inconsistency.

In any morally coherent and intellectually honest world, Thatcher would be a major feminist hero. She was not born to upper-class Ox-Bridge privilege, but had to make her way in a man’s world and succeed not by dint of family or school connections, or by special consideration or reserved slots based on her sex, but by brains, drive, and hard work. Compared to her, feminist hero Hillary Clinton is a rebooted version of a Mad-Men haute bourgeois housewife whose success comes not from her own achievements, but from her connection to and dependence on a politically talented man who ended up President, a man who humiliated her publicly with his juvenile, sordid philandering that reinforced every stereotype of the loyal mate who sacrifices herself on the altar of her husband’s career.

Caption: "What difference does it make?"
Why is this the case?

Bottom line: Margaret Thatcher was a conservative woman. Her tour of duty in the halls of English politics was concurrent with Ronald Reagan, and they're both hated for essentially the same reason -- they proved that socialist economic policies don't work, and, most unforgivably of all, showed that capitalism and a Christian conservative ethic of personal responsibility was more successful. People hate when you disagree with them. But when you prove them wrong, expect that hate to intensify.

Consequently, when a woman who nearly-singlehandedly fixed Britain's economy passed away recently, do you think the Democratic-majority US Senate would choose to honor her memory?

Take a wild guess.

The source for the following short article, copied in full, is Katherine Rosario, at Heritage:
One would naturally think it impossible that anyone would hesitate – even for an instant – to honor the woman who tackled communism head on as prime minister of Great Britain. Lady Margaret Thatcher was a principled politician who helped to foster the special relationship between Great Britain and the United States that we all benefit from today.
A Senate resolution to honor Lady Thatcher was supposed to pass last night.  However, per well placed sources on the Hill, Democrats have a hold on the resolution.
To refuse to honor a woman of such great historical and political significance, who was deeply loyal to the United States, is petty and shameful.  One truly has to wonder, what is it about Lady Thatcher that gives them pause?  Her unfaltering commitment to freedom?  Or perhaps the way she fought for individual liberty and limited government?
The House used traditional bereavement procedures, the same model they used for John F. Kennedy.  It’s a simple, solemn means of honoring the individual by passing a resolution and immediately adjourning.  Similarly, Great Britain’s House of Commons was recalled, bringing members of Parliament back from vacation to honor Lady Thatcher.
Those actions were a fitting response to the death of one of the world’s greatest post-World War II leaders.
I'm disgusted. I immediately thought of the beginning of Psalm 2:

Why do the nations rage,And the people plot a vain thing?

The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying,
3 “Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.
4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.

If you don't know or remember how the Psalm ends, I encourage you to look it up, for a nice surprise. It is one of the many Old Testament references to Jesus Christ, and the Psalm ends with a prophecy that says what the Anointed One will do to the kingdoms of the earth: "rule (alternatively, break, depending on the source text) them with a rod of iron, and dash them to pieces like a potter's vessel." (Psalm 2:9)

When the governments of the earth behave so dishonorably, simply to avoid recognizing God's authority (because that's ultimately why they hated Reagan and Thatcher so much; they reminded them that God is in charge), much less submitting to Him, then the idea of God destroying them is a pleasant thought that brings me comfort. Maranatha!

~ Rak Chazak

1 comment:

  1. Could someone offer me feedback on which font size is better? This is "normal," but what I've been writing with has been "small."

    My computer's zoom is different from the default, due to my messing with it, so I don't know quite how it will show up for others.

    If you're reading on an iPad or a phone, especially, but also if you're reading on a computer, please let me know which is easier to read.