Ronda Storms: All Your Vulva Are Belong to Us!

Strange title, isn’t it? Stay with us, all will be explained.

If you’ve never heard of our old creationist friend, Buffoon Award Winner — Ronda Storms, then you’re new to The Controversy between evolution and creationism. To remind you of Ronda’s glory days three years ago, see Her Most Rapturous Moment. This is Ronda’s official page at the Florida Senate’s website. There’s a bunch like her in the Florida legislature (see Signs and Portents).

Okay, now you know all about Rapturous Ronda. Why are we writing about her today? She didn’t play an active role — at least not a visible role — in Florida’s creationism bill this year. That duty fell to her creationist comrade, Stephen Wise, whose shabby effort failed as it did the year before (see Florida’s 2011 Creationism Bill: Probably Dead). Make that “definitely” dead, now that the session is over.

So why are we writing about Ronda? An editorial about her in the Tampa Tribune caught our eye this morning: Straight-talking Storms. Straight-talking? Ronda? She did nothing but lie back in 2008 about her creationism bill. See: Ronda Storms Squirms in Florida Senate Session.

The editorial talks about Ronda’s ultrasound anti-abortion legislation that passed both legislative chambers. We don’t blog about abortion, but like forced public school indoctrination about the “science” of Noah’s Ark, abortion is a top agenda item for all the “family values” lobbies, and Ronda has demonstrated that she’s a compliant and effective tool of those people. The editorial says Ronda acknowledged that the abortion issue is contrary to the “less government” mantra usually championed by Republicans.

That acknowledgement surprises us, because we didn’t realize Ronda was capable of recognizing things like that. The editorial quotes her as saying this:

“There’s no question about the contradictory positions that we all take,” she said on the Senate floor last week. “I’m not ashamed of it. I’m not embarrassed by it. … We all (Republicans) say we’re for less government except here. Or we’re (Democrats) for more government, except here.”

That’s amazingly insightful. What does the editorial say about it? They completely miss the real issue, and they actually praise Ronda for her inconsistency. They say, with bold font added by us:

In contrast to the self-serving justifications one frequently hears from legislators, Storms had the courage to concede the contradictions and admit her pro-life beliefs transcended her usual emphasis on less government.

Let’s think about this. Is Ronda really being inconsistent? Well, yes, but only if you believe that her value system is that of an old-style Republican — the Barry Goldwater types who believed in the Constitution, limited government, low taxes, free enterprise, and a strong national defense. Issues like abortion and creationism are clearly not federal issues, and they were never part of the old GOP’s agenda. But it’s a big mistake to imagine that Ronda’s motives are in any way related to that.

Ronda is a theocrat, like all the other “family values” and “social conservative” activists. Theocracy is her primary belief system, with which both her creationism and her anti-abortion legislation are entirely consistent. Don’t doubt for a moment that the goal of theocracy is far superior — in Ronda’s mind — to her oath to preserve the Constitution.

Imagine that the Florida legislature were like the old computer game that was poorly translated from Japanese. At this point, with the theocrats having achieved passage of their anti-abortion bills, your screen would be flashing: All your vulva are belong to us! And now, dear reader, you understand our title.

Control over our private lives is an important first step. The next step will be getting the Florida voters to pass the constitutional amendment which recently sailed through both houses of the legislature (see Florida’s Theocratic Constitutional Amendment, #4). After that pesky wall of separation between church and state is finally torn down, we’ll be on the way back to the good old days.

The Tampa Tribune editorial is dead wrong. Ronda isn’t being inconsistent at all. She’s a remarkably disciplined and dedicated culture warrior. But the culture she admires is the one that gave us the Salem witch trials.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

2 responses to “Ronda Storms: All Your Vulva Are Belong to Us!

  1. In the case of Storms et al., “conservative” means opposed to progress, to the extent that they want to go backwards to a point where, as you indicate, Cotton Mather would not feel out of place.

  2. This just demonstrates the absurdity of our major political parties. Consistency is counterrevolutionary, comrade.