“Garrisonian theories may do for village lyceums, and he-woman and she-man abstractionists, but the people of Illinois—the white men of the prairie state—who deal in facts, and take the world as it is, will never submit to the amalgamation theories which the black republican aspirant for senator bases upon his construction of the declaration of independence—that the negro is the white man’s equal—that he is entitled to political privileges equal with the white man.”
Illinois Register editorial attacking Abraham Lincoln during the 1858 Senate Race in Illinois
Throughout its history the Democrat Party has always used racist appeals and appeals to racial paranoia to gin up votes, especially when it looks as if the election may be close. Therefore it is absolutely no surprise that in the closing weeks of the 2014 campaign Democrat political strategists reach for the race card from the bottom of the deck. John Hinderaker at the Powerline Blog gives us the details:
Faced with major electoral losses this year, the Democratic Party is pulling out all the stops. For them, that means descending, again, into racism. As Glenn Reynolds says:
Democrats used to use racial fearmongering to get white voters to turn out. Now they use racial fearmongering to get black voters to turn out. Not much else has changed….
The Democratic Party is trying to use the shooting of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri to stimulate black turnout. There is zero reason to believe that the Brown incident had anything to do with race. Is there any evidence that Wilson, if attacked by a 6′ 4″, 292 pound white man, would not have shot him? No. Wilson may or may not have overreacted; we may never know for sure. But connecting the incident to race is sheer political opportunism by the Democrats.
In Georgia, the Democratic Party is circulating a despicable flyer, which doesn’t refer to any particular campaign but likely was intended to stimulate turnout on behalf of Michelle Nunn:
Meanwhile, in Ferguson, a cadre of professional protesters continues to stir the pot in order to keep the Michael Brown story in the news. I wrote here about Ferguson protesters who disrupted a performance of the St. Louis Symphony, where they got a predictably genteel reception. I said I would respect them more if they demonstrated at a St. Louis Cardinals game. Which they did, not long thereafter, with not very happy results.
We condemn bigots who inject class, racial and religious prejudice into public and political matters. Bigotry is un-American and a danger to the Republic.
We deplore the duplicity and insincerity of the Party in power in racial and religious matters. Although they have been in office as a Majority Party for many years, they have not kept nor do they intend to keep their promises.
The Republican Party will not mislead, exploit or attempt to confuse minority groups for political purposes. All American citizens are entitled to full, impartial enforcement of Federal laws relating to their civil rights.
We believe that it is the primary responsibility of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions, and this power, reserved to the states, is essential to the maintenance of our Federal Republic. However, we believe that the Federal Government should take supplemental action within its constitutional jurisdiction to oppose discrimination against race, religion or national origin.
We will prove our good faith by:
Appointing qualified persons, without distinction of race, religion or national origin, to responsible positions in the Government.
Federal action toward the elimination of lynching.
Federal action toward the elimination of poll taxes as a prerequisite to voting.
Appropriate action to end segregation in the District of Columbia.
Enacting Federal legislation to further just and equitable treatment in the area of discriminatory employment practices. Federal action should not duplicate state efforts to end such practices; should not set up another huge bureaucracy.
Republican Party Platform on Civil Rights, 1952, when Eisenhower cracked the Solid South
One political party for over a century and a half has routinely used appeals based on race to win elections. The other party, throughout its history, has stood for civil rights for all Americans and denied that government policy should be based on racial discrimination. The first party is the Democrat Party and the second party is the Republican party. To get around this simple fact of American political history, some Democrats, especially in election years when the polls are against them, routinely attempt to portray Republicans as racists, in an Alice in Wonderland inversion of the truth. The latest hilarious example of this mendacious and bold faced attempt to rewrite history is on display at Politico in an article entitled Race and the Modern GOP. This recycles the claim of an evil Republican strategy to appeal to white racists in the South who switched en masse to become Republicans.
The problem with this is that it is a liberal fable. It didn’t happen that way. The first breach in the solid South was by Eisenhower who ran on a platform of vigorous support for Civil Rights for blacks. Segregationists retained complete control of the Democrat parties in the South and enjoyed electoral success throughout the period in question. The South changing to Republican had to do with the rise of the cultural issues, an influx of northern Republicans following wide spread use of air conditioning and the rapid economic development of the South, and the anti-military hysteria and isolationism that seized control of the Democrats in the wake of Vietnam.
My co-blogger Paul Zummo had an excellent post on this subject :
Along these same lines, Trende postulates that if any real realignment occurred, it took place during the Eisenhower administration. The Eisenhower coalition, as he puts it, pushed the GOP to decisive victories in seven of nine presidential elections. Moreover, the solid Democratic south began shifting towards the Republican party at this point. In fact the south’s gradual shift towards the GOP had begun as early as the 1920s, but the Depression halted Republican advances here. Once the New Deal had ramped up, the Republicans again began making inroads. Republicans began being truly competitive in presidential elections during the 1950s, then started making inroads in Congressional races in the 1970s and 80s, and are finally now the dominant party on the local level.
Trende’s thesis effectively destroys the notion that Republicans only began being competitive in the south once Nixon deployed the “southern strategy” to woo racist southerners after the Civil Rights Act. As already mentioned, the GOP vote share in the south had been incrementally creeping up in the 1930s, with GOP vote shares moving out of the 15-20% range and inching up towards parity slowly and surely. In fact the GOP vote share in the south did not noticeably increase during the 1960s, but instead crept up in the same incremental 1-2% annual range. Where Republicans really started making dents were with younger southern voters, as older southerners continued to cling to the Democratic party even though the national party’s values no longer matched their own. Considering that younger voters tended to have much more liberal racial views, the transformation of the south into a Republican stronghold has to be explained by something other than racial matters.
Even though Trende doesn’t come right out and say this, if anything the changing electoral map can just as easily be explained by the Democrats pursuing a northern strategy. As the Democrats began appealing to elite northern voters by pushing a more liberal agenda, this drove southerners and midwesterners away from the party. This trend would continue until Bill Clinton pursued a much different strategy, crafting his agenda to appeal to suburbanites and middle income whites. Clinton and the New Democrats were able to rip into Republican strongholds by advancing a more moderate platform. The end of the Cold War, as well as the rise of the Evangelical right, fractured the Eisenhower coalition, allowing the Democrats to win presidential elections. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
As part of their War on Women meme against Republicans, Senate Democrats have begun hearings on the Orwellian entitled Women’s Health Protection Act of 2014. Since 2010 the Republicans have controlled more state legislatures than at any time since the administration of Calvin Coolidge, and as a result much pro-life legislation has been enacted in these states. The Democrat bill seeks to federalize abortion and eliminate virtually every piece of pro-life legislation. The bill seeks to ensure that abortion on demand will be completely unfettered.
Now, the chances of this Act becoming law currently are nil. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.Koch Paranoia) will not even bring this bill to the floor of the Senate for a vote. If it did scrape together a majority vote by some demonic miracle, it would die a swift death in the Republican House.
No, this bill is all about electioneering. The Democrats believe they have a silver bullet to win elections and that is by waving the dead fetus and scaring women that their precious
rite right to slay their kids is under attack. At the very least they assume they can probably incite their more demented feminist voters into a frenzy and thereby get them to the polls. In the latter assumption they are probably correct. Of course, this also demonstrates that any pro-lifer who ever casts a vote for a Democrat is out of his or her mind. Even a pro-life Democrat, I think you can count them on two hands now as members of the House and have fingers to spare, will be part and parcel of supporting a party that has declared open season on the unborn. Here is the text of the proposed bill: →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
The above video is from the Alabama Right to Life website.
In a vain attempt to stop the passage of pro-life legislation in Alabama, Democrat Representative Alvin Holmes, a truly charming individual who earlier this year referred to Justice Clarence Thomas as an Uncle Tom, drew the race card, the first resort of pro-aborts and the Democrat party:
“If you asked the people in here now to raise their hands, of those who are against abortion, 99% of all of the white people in here gonna raise their hand that they are against abortion,” Holmes said Tuesday according to a recording of some of the debate on al.com. “On the other hand, 99% of the whites that are sitting in here now, if they daughter got pregnant by a black man, they gonna make their daughter have an abortion. They ain’t gonna let her have the baby. You know, the truth sometimes hurts … They’re not gonna let that happen. You know that and I know that. You will never admit it.”
During his speech, Holmes asks one white woman, it’s unclear who, if she’d allow her daughter to have a mixed-race baby.
“Yes, I would,” the woman replies.
“Well, I need to commend you then,” Holmes says. “There’s not one in 100,000 that would do that.”
Go here to read the rest. Of course abortion is the dream come true for the Klan, the traditional terrorist wing of the Democrat party in the South. In adjacent Mississippi, for example, we have these statistics:
Based on data published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 39,052 black babies were killed by abortions in Mississippi between 1995 and 2010. During that same time period, 14,529 white babies were aborted in the Magnolia State.
The total number of abortions between 1995 and 2010 in Mississippi was 54,484. In addition to blacks and whites, that number also includes abortions among Hispanics, “Other” (meaning Asian and Native American), and “Unknown,” as published by the CDC.
Whites in Mississippi outnumber blacks by a ratio of 1.6-to-1. Despite that difference, the data show that black abortions comprised, on average, 72% of the total over the last 16 years. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
Hattip to Ace at Ace of Spades. Apparently the New Mexico Supreme Court desperately needs to have a copy of the US Constitution sent to them.
The court said that Elaine Huguenin, the photographer, had discriminated against gay customers for not photographing their weddings, even though she had said she would be happy to take their pictures in different contexts. The court also refused any differentiation whatsoever between homosexual and heterosexual conduct under the law, despite the fact that same-sex marriage is not licensed in the state of New Mexico. Justice Edward Chavez wrote, “The difficulty in distinguishing between status and conduct in the context of sexual orientation discrimination is that people may base their judgment about an individual’s sexual orientation on the individual’s conduct. To allow discrimination based on conduct so closely correlated with sexual orientation would severely undermine the purpose of the NMHRA.” In other words, orientation and conduct are so intertwined that to discriminate against activity would be to discriminate against the person — an odd line of logic, given that it would then follow that discriminating against religious activity would constitute discrimination on the basis of religion, making the court’s logic self-defeating.Justice Richard Bosson wrote, in concurrence, that the Huguenins are “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.” He concluded, “The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.” That “compromise,” he wrote, “is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.” →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
Bishop Thomas Tobin has come to recognize what I hope many Catholic Democrats will come to realize: the Democrat party is now the anti-Catholic party.
Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin, head of the diocese of Providence, R.I., said he recently changed his voter registration from Democrat to Republican, noting that the 2012 Democratic National Convention and the Democrats’ strong support for abortion and homosexual “marriage” was the last straw.
“The a-ha moment for me was the 2012 Democratic National Convention – it was just awful,” said Tobin on Tuesday before a meeting of the Rhody Young Republicans in Providence. Tobin is 65 and has been a registered Democrat since 1969.
“I just said I can’t be associated structurally with that group, in terms of abortion and NARAL and Planned Parenthood and [the] same-sex marriage agenda and cultural destruction I saw going on,” said Tobin, as first reported by Ted Nesi at WPRI.com. “I just couldn’t do it anymore.”
Allah Pundit at Hot Air hits the nail on the head when it comes to the Democrat Party and abortion:
It takes integrity to conduct and then feature a poll that confirms your own readership is wildly out of the American mainstream. It takes less integrity to try to discredit your own results, as HuffPo kinda sorta does, by citing a Democratic pollster who suggests that abortion polling is always unreliable because people’s feelings change when you start talking about exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother, and so on.
This result is right in line with a recent poll of Texans, which found 62 percent support for banning abortions after 20 weeks. Turns out, when it comes to late-term abortion, America is a red state. (So is Europe, for that matter. Really red.) It’s certainly true that Americans are conflicted on abortion regs more broadly — 63 percent in HuffPo’s poll, for instance, say that abortion decisions generally should be left to a woman and her doctor, and lots of national polls show support for abortion rights during the first trimester — but no one outside of the most hardcore abortion warriors supports the practice at every stage of pregnancy. In fact, 49 percent in HuffPo’s poll said they personally consider abortion morally wrong versus 12 percent who said it’s morally acceptable and 24 percent who said it’s, er, not a moral issue.
Anyway, note the number of strong opponents in the table above relative to the other categories, just for easy reference the next time a liberal claims that it’s the GOP that’s been captured by the fanatics in its base. And speaking of fanatics, here’s the latest example of a prominent pro-choice advocate, crowned by the Democratic mainstream with official truth-to-power hero status, pointedly refusing to oppose abortion at any point during gestation:
THE WEEKLY STANDARD: [Supporters of late-term abortion bans] say there’s not much of a difference between what Kermit Gosnell did outside the womb to a baby at 23 weeks and a legal late-term abortion [performed] at 23 weeks on that same baby. What is the difference between those two?
CECILE RICHARDS [President of Planned Parenthood]: I mean he was a criminal. And he’s now going to jail. As I think you heard Senator Franken say and many women who have written about their own personal stories, it is very rare for a woman to need to terminate a pregnancy after 20 weeks. And quite often it’s stories like one we heard today where there is the decision of the doctor that this is the best way, the best for a woman. And the problem is when you have politicians begin to play doctor and make decisions about women’s medical care. They aren’t in that woman’s situation.
TWS: But there has been research out of, I think, University of California-San Francisco about non-medical late-term abortions. These things do happen, even if they’re a small number. I’m talking about that specific area. I mean if there were broader exceptions, would you–
She wouldn’t answer. That’s from John McCormack of the Standard, by the way, who’s well-practiced in asking national Democrats questions simple yes-or-no questions on whether there should be any limits whatsoever on killing babies in the womb and getting either semi-coherent evasions or stony silence in response. It’s the surest thing in journalism. The party’s run by abortion fanatics, so much so that they’d rather cop to their fanaticism through tacit acknowledgment than lie about it to look “mainstream.” He’ll be asking this question of other Dems for years to come. I’d bet cash money that he’ll never get a straight answer. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
The modern travesty of Thomas Jefferson’s political organization to which you have attached yourself like a barnacle has the effrontery to call itself The Democratic Party. You are a Dem-o-crat. What’s the matter with you? Are you wicked?
Congressman Thaddeus Stevens (R. Pa.) to Congressman Alexander Coffroth (D. Pa.) in Lincoln.
Jefferson-Jackson dinners have long been a fixture of the Democrat party, although Jefferson had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the Democrat party which was the handiwork of Old Hickory. Steve Yoder at Salon has a post, here, where he urges Democrats to dump their creator. I oppose this move. Although there are obvious differences between Jackson and the modern Democrat party, he established certain themes that have resonated in his party ever since:
1. Political Spoils-Andrew Jackson certainly did not invent the concept of firing workers in the Federal government and replacing them with members of his party, but he greatly expanded the concept and made it a fixture of American political life. The phrase political spoils was first used in reference to the wholesale firing of Federal workers by the newly elected Jackson. Government employees have ever since been one of the foundation stones of the Democrat party, only slowed a bit by the largely Republican initiated Civil Service reforms of the late nineteenth century.
2. Economic Ignorance-Andrew Jackson’s war on the Second Bank of the United States is a classic example of how politics can have a large negative impact on the economic life of the nation. With the Second Bank of the United States dead, state banks stepped into the breach to take over the lending throughout the nation on large private projects that had mainly been the responsibility of the Second Bank. Jackson’s policies led directly to the irresponsible printing of paper “money” by state banks, so-called “wild cat money”, and an orgy of speculation and unsound loans. This was ironic because Jackson always hated paper money, believing that the only sound money was coin in gold and silver. When the economic bubble caused by the creation of this new “money” collapsed, the panic of 1837 ensued, and the economy would not recover until 1843. It was the first great depression in American history. Economic illiteracy and the Presidency are always a bad combination, and the Democrats have a long history of placing in the White House men with economic ideas that run the gamut from bad to loony.
3. Class Hatred-In his veto of the bill by Congress rechartering the Second Bank of the United States, Jackson skillfully painted supporters as being a pack of Eastern and foreign investors and appealed to class prejudice against the rich:
It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.
Daniel Webster in his speeach on the veto in the Senate noted the political purpose of Jackson’s message: It manifestly seeks to inflame the poor against the rich. It wantonly attacks whole classes of the people, for the purpose of turning against them the prejudices and the resentments of other classes.
The appeals to class divisions have been part of Democrat standard political tactics ever since. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
Ever wonder why Democrats push early voting and absentee ballots so hard? The above video gives you all the explanation you need!
As John Fund notes at National Review Online:
Critics of voter ID and other laws cracking down on voter fraud claim they’re unnecessary because fraud is nonexistent. For instance, Brennan Center attorneys Michael Waldman and Justin Levitt claimed last year: “A person casting two votes risks jail time and a fine for minimal gain. Proven voter fraud, statistically, happens about as often as death by lightning strike.”
Well, lightning is suddenly all over Cincinnati, Ohio. The Hamilton County Board of Elections is investigating 19 possible cases of alleged voter fraud that occurred when Ohio was a focal point of the 2012 presidential election. A total of 19 voters and nine witnesses are part of the probe.
Democrat Melowese Richardson has been an official poll worker for the last quarter century and registered thousands of people to vote last year. She candidly admitted to Cincinnati’s Channel 9 this week that she voted twice in the last election. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
After their abysmal recent performance in the Presidential election I don’t know how much credence to give a Gallup poll, but these findings have the ring of truth. 53% of the Dems have a positive view of the term “Socialism” and 75% of Dems have a positive view of the Federal government. Under Obama is there much difference in practice? The Democrats are on a rapid path to morphing into a European style socialist party. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
Democrats have been stealing elections for a very long time, but lately they have been working a new angle: exploiting the mentally handicapped for votes. David Horowitz relates what he learned at a Thanksgiving dinner:
But even knowing this, I was not prepared for a conversation I had at Thanksgiving dinner today with my brother-in-law, Henry, who has lived most of his life in a home for the mentally disabled, and though now in his forties has the intelligence level of a six-year-old.
I was taken aback by these words, since Henry had no idea who Obama was, or what a president might be, and would be unable to fill out a registration form let alone get to the polling place by himself. So I asked him how he knew that and how he had registered and cast his vote. In halting, impeded speech he told me that the people who take care of him at the home filled out “the papers” to register him to vote, told him how Obama cared for him, even taught him the Obama chants, and then took him to the polling place to vote. They did the same for all of the mentally disabled patients in their care, approximately sixty in all.
This is so appalling in its contempt for the voting process, which is the very foundation of our democracy, and in its cynical exploitation of my brother-in-law and the other patients in the home, many of whose mental capacities are even more limited than his that I am at a loss for words to express it. I hope poll-watching groups like “True the Vote” will comb the rolls of residents at other homes for the mentally disabled, and attempt to stop this particular abuse. I hope that people who care about our country will make electoral fraud a focus of their political efforts, and work to protect the integrity of the voting process. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
Democrats producing fraudulent votes in inner city Philadelphia:
Across Philadelphia, GOP poll inspectors were forcibly (and illegally) removed from polling locations. Coincidentally (or not), Mr. Obama received “astronomical” numbers in those very same regions, including locations where he received “over 99%” of the vote.
Is it odd that a county that expelled GOP inspectors and had people openly campaigning for Obama ended with 99.5% for Obama and 9955 votes for him? It’s up to you to decide. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
As he unveiled his Lincoln biopic that is being released next month, director Steven Spielberg proclaimed that he did not want the film to be a political football and then promptly made it into one with this remark:
“Because it’s kind of confusing. The parties traded political places over the last 150 years. That in itself is a great story, how the Republican Party went from a progressive party in 1865, and how the Democrats were represented in the picture, to the way it’s just the opposite today. But that’s a whole other story.”
This would be funny if the historical ignorance were not so vast. The Republican party, from its inception, has held that the government may not discriminate on the basis of race.
From the 1856 Republican platform, the first Republican platform:
Resolved: That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in the Federal Constitution are essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions, and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and the union of the States, must and shall be preserved.
Resolved: That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction; that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislation, of any individual, or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained.
Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism — Polygamy, and Slavery.
The Republican party has been true to this position throughout its history. From the Republican platform of 1932:
For seventy years the Republican Party has been the friend of the American Negro. Vindication of the rights of the Negro citizen to enjoy the full benefits of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is traditional in the Republican Party, and our party stands pledged to maintain equal opportunity and rights for Negro citizens. We do not propose to depart from that tradition nor to alter the spirit or letter of that pledge.
From the 1944 Republican platform:
We pledge an immediate Congressional inquiry to ascertain the extent to which mistreatment, segregation and discrimination against Negroes who are in our armed forces are impairing morale and efficiency, and the adoption of corrective legislation.
Two events from last night stand out. First, Timothy Cardinal Dolan praying for the unborn at the Democrat Convention in his closing prayer. Just such an eventuality is why the Democrat powers that be didn’t want the Cardinal to be there to begin with. Good for the Cardinal.
Second, Jennifer Granholm, former Democrat governor of Michigan, doing the best Howard Dean parody I have ever seen. ( The impact is somewhat blemished when one recalls that GM is facing bankruptcy again. Oh well.)
And that was that, nothing else of note. Bye Democrats. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
Mark Alan Siegel, the Palm Beach County Party Chairman for the Democrat Party, forgets one of the fundamental rules of life: If you are going to say something stupid and bigoted make sure you are not on video!
Here is his apology after he realized his words were going viral on the net:
“I apologize to all Democrats and Floridians for my ill chosen words last night. After watching the interview I realize that what I said did not accurately make the point I was trying to establish. More importantly I apologize to all Christians, Jews and other people of faith for any embarrassment or anger my remarks may have caused. Throughout my life I have practiced religious tolerance among all people of faith. I am sincerely sorry for any remarks I made that may have diminished that record. I alone am responsible for my remarks and I pray that they are not taken as the position of the Palm Beach County Democratic Party.”
Here is the statement of Yael Hershfield, interim director of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League in Florida:
“The Anti-Defamation League is glad to see that Mr. Siegel has issued a sincere apology for his offensive comments about Christians, and that he made it clear he was solely responsible for them. Religious bigotry has no place in politics and civil society.” →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
Over the protests of their delegates, the Democrat powers that be have reinserted God and pro Israel language back into their platform. The voice votes in the video above clearly indicate that the Democrats did not get the two-thirds votes necessary to amend their platform. An example of why I refer to the Democrat Party and not the Democratic Party. Interesting that the top Dems thought it necessary to make these changes. No doubt they feared that they were being killed in the blogs and the new media over this, and they could just see the GOP ads talking about the Godless Democrat platform and the Democrats taking an anti-Israeli stance. The fact that they did not have the two-thirds vote necessary to amend their platform was of small moment. Simply keep voting and then finally just declare that your side won! Democracy Democrat style in action. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
Hattip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. William H. Seward, Secretary of State under Abraham Lincoln, once described a series of sermons he attended as “Hell, More Hell, Yet More Hell”. Sustitute Abortion for Hell, and how fitting that is, and it is an apt description for the Democrat convention yesterday, prior to the convention reaching the prime time viewing hours of 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Central Time. The affection for slaying kids in the womb was so extreme that even the pro-abort David Brooks of The New York Times noticed it:
“The one cavil I will have … is this speech has — [it] reinforces something we’ve heard all night, which was how much the crowd goes crazy and how passionate they are about abortion and gay marriage and the social issues. And tonight has been about that.
“And to me it should have been a lot more about economics, growth, and debt. And that better be the job of day two and day three because they did not do it here.” →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading