They Hate You, They Really Hate You

Wednesday, July 12, AD 2017


Live by identity politics, die by identity politics.  The Democrat party has always been an exercise in coalition building, as opposed to the Republican party which has usually had a more general ideological orientation, and usually those coalitions, in part, have been exercises in identity politics.  After the Civil War the Democrats thrived in most of the South by not being members of the hated, courtesy of the Civil War, Republican party, and by being dedicated explicity to keeping blacks down and out of any political power.  Beginning with William Jennings Bryan, Democrats would usually explore each election year class hatred, portraying themselves as champions of the poor and the common man against the Republican paladins of the rich.  Since the sixties of the last century the Democrats have been increasingly race obsessed as their electoral fortunes became tied to non-white voters and lily white elite liberal voters, who patted themselves on the back for publicly hating only people with the right complexions.  For generations this consisted of usually white liberal politicians exploiting racial paranoia among non-whites coupled with coded, or not so coded, attacks aimed at blue collar whites.  Hillary’s deplorable remark during the last campaign, in which she decreed that 25% of the country was beyond the pale, was an especially self-destructive example of this type of politics.  Since her loss to Trump a few liberal writers have begun to think. “Son of a gun, how can we get back the votes of those trailer trash whites we demonize every election year, without altering our politics one iota. ” Kay Hymowitz of City Journal takes a look at this exercise of liberals in “Lower Class White People in the Mist” stumbling over the obvious:


What’s missing from this list is the most important—and most challenging—item of all: solving the liberal “deplorable” problem. The white working class that hoisted Donald Trump to an unexpected victory may not always admire the man, but they know that he doesn’t hate “people like me,” in the pollsters’ common formulation. And they have good reason to think that Democrats, particularly coastal and media types, do hate them: consider Frank Rich’s snide and oft-cited article, “No Sympathy for the Hillbilly.” It’s possible that white working-class voters would back a party filled with people who see them as racists and misogynists, with bad values and worse taste, because they all want to raise taxes on Goldman Sachs executives, but it seems a risky bet.

So it’s worth noting that a few prominent liberal writers have been venturing out of the partisan bunker and calling attention to the “deplorable” issue over the past few months. In late May, for instance, progressive stalwart Michael Tomasky, former editor of Guardian America and now of Democracy, published an article frankly titled “Elitism is Liberalism’s Biggest Problem” in the New Republic. The West Virginia native called “the chasm between elite liberals and middle America . . . liberalism’s biggest problem.” The issue “has nothing to do with policy,” Tomasky writes. It’s about different “sensibilities;” “bridging the gulf is on us, not them.” To most conservatives, Tomasky’s depiction of Middle Americans will seem cringingly obvious. The group tends to be churchgoers (“Not temple. Church”), they don’t think and talk politics from morning till night, and, yes, they’re flag-waving patriots. Mother Jones columnist Kevin Drum, an influential though occasionally heterodox liberal, seconded the argument.

A more complex analysis of liberal elitism comes from Joan Williams, a feminist law professor whose best-known previous book is Unbending Gender. In White Working Class: Overcoming Class Cluelessness in America, Williams takes her fellow liberal professionals to the woodshed for their indifference to the hard-knock realities of working-class life and for their blindness to the shortcomings of their own cosmopolitan preferences. Married to the Harvard-educated son of a working-class family, Williams is astute about the wide disparities between liberal and white working-class notions of the meaning of work, family, community, and country. One of her proposals for solving class cluelessness is a conservative favorite: reviving civics education.

A final recent example of deplorable-détente comes from Atlantic columnist Peter Beinart’s “How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration.” Noting that the unofficial open-borders philosophy of the Democratic Party is far more radical than the restrictionist immigration policy it espoused just a few decades ago, the former New Republic editor acknowledges that there is more than nativist bigotry behind white working class immigration concerns. He concedes that mass immigration may have worked to the disadvantage of blue-collar America by lowering wages for low-skilled workers and undermining social cohesion. Beinart concludes by “dusting off a concept that liberals currently hate: assimilation.” Liberals should be “celebrating America’s diversity less, and its unity more,” he writes.

These writers are engaging in healthy critical self-reflection, but in the course of describing the Democrats’ class dilemma, the liberal truth-tellers unwittingly show why a solution lies out of reach. They understate Democrats’ entanglement with the identity-politics Left, a group devoted to a narrative of American iniquity. Identity politics appeals to its core constituents through grievance and resentment, particularly toward white men. Consider some reactions to centrist Democrat John Osoff’s defeat in Georgia’s sixth district. “Maybe instead of trying to convince hateful white people, Dems should convince our base—ppl of color, women—to turn out,” feminist writer and Cosmopolitan political columnist Jill Filopovic tweeted afterward. “At some point we have to be willing to say that yes, lots of conservative voters are hateful and willing to embrace bigots.” Insightful as she is, even Williams assumes that all criticisms of the immigration status quo can be chalked up to “fear of brown people.”

Continue reading...

11 Responses to They Hate You, They Really Hate You

  • “Married to the Harvard-educated son of a working-class family, Williams is astute about the wide disparities between liberal and white working-class notions of the meaning of work, family, community, and country. “

  • Aggressively supporting and advocating for the slaughter of fully innocent living human beings while sheltered in the sanctuary of their own mother’s womb is all I need to know inn order to loathe these corrupted souls.
    Small wonder they loathe God and even dared to boo Him at their convention of hate.

  • I’m waiting to be called a bigot and a hater for not wanting to date a “she-male”. Given the Left’s senseless passion for the next sexual (de)evolution, it’s only a matter of time-

  • I want to be hated by liberals. If I am not so hated, then I have not done my job properly.

  • Liberals are incoherent about politics and about life. They have no rational philosophy to support their “feelings” about things. Their sense of compassion is twisted, their sympathies are an expression of their superiority, and their idea of giving to charity are government programs. Ultimately , they are destroyers of political consensus and utterly UN-American.

  • “They are irredeemable” Hillary Clinton judging mankind and playing God, arrogating to herself the pursuit of Happiness of all men, usurping the free will of man. Real people who are sovereign persons do not do that for it is blasphemy, condemnation of the neighbor and inciting to riot, a violation of peaceable assembly, our First Amendment.

  • The best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party was when affluent urban white liberals took over the Democratic Party. Barack Obama’s personal popularity, especially among black voters, and Republican incompetence in the 2000s hid the fact that the party has been in a tailspin for decades. Hillary Clinton lost to a reality TV star about as badly as John Kerry lost to a sitting President during a war.

    A telling moment was at the DNC when Hillary Clinton lavished praise on New York, which she represented in the Senate, and Illinois, where she grew up, but had not a word for Arkansas, where she was First Lady for 12 years.

  • Pingback: MONDAY SÆCVLARIA EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • Interesting that during the Reagan Year, a bi-partisan immigration law, Simpson-Mazzoli, was passed but now is unsatisfactory because it was not bringing enough voters to the democrat party. The solution under Obama was to simply not enforce the law then complain the system is broken. Sort of like a stubborn child that won’t eat the dinner he is given then complains at bedtime that he’s hungry.

  • I’m a proud deplorable and a proud infidel.
    If I am hated because of this I am proud, real proud.

  • I don’t think it’s going to work. I’m not sure how many times in the last 4 decades that Democratic opinion journalists have had discussions like this.

    The problem is as follows: elite and vociferous elements manifest in purified form the tendencies abroad in their base (something I think you can see in the antics of the purveyors of identity politics, especially the homosexualist variety). See Thomas Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed or Alvin Gouldner’s The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class. They’re not going to develop a non-spurious appreciation of non-exotic wage-earners because their self-concept is crucially dependent on their sense of the contrast between themselves and those same wage-earners (and their self-appointed function as patrons of various mascot groups). It’s likely worse among the younger generation now that certain attitudes have infected the professional-managerial class in general and not just the predictable segments.

    One thing this election revealed to many of us is that the wordsmiths of Conservatism, Inc are not anyone’s friend (Kevin Williamson, Bret Stephens, etc. I’m looking at you).

Leave a Reply

The Devil and Andrew Jackson

Wednesday, May 3, AD 2017


(I originally posted this back in 2009.  Old Hickory is back in the news because of President Trump’s musings upon him.  As a result I decided to repost this.)


I have never liked President’s Day.  Why celebrate loser presidents like Jimmy Carter and James Buchanan, non-entities like Millard Fillmore, bad presidents, like Grant, with great presidents like Washington and Lincoln?  We have had other great presidents, and one of them, although Republican as I am I bridle on bestowing the title upon him, was Andrew Jackson.  No one was ever neutral about Old Hickory.  He is described as the father of the Democrat party.  Actually, both major parties owe their existence to him.   The Whig party, the main ancestor of the modern Republican party, was founded in opposition to Jackson’s policies.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to The Devil and Andrew Jackson

  • Thank you. Very interesting. Even though I spent four years in Knoxville I didn’t know that much about Jackson.
    Now the Democrats want to take Pres. Jackson’s face off the $20 bill; substitute it with a woman as a sop to feminism and minorities. Bad enough that three Navy ships were to be named for G. Giffords (gun control), C. Chavez (Latino vote and farm worker labor) and Harvey Milk (LBGT vote) instead of MOH winners.

  • On long car trips in the 50s my dad would alleviate the boredom by leading us in college fight songs. My brother and I in turn would sing the Battle of New Orleans and other patriotic songs.

  • Wow! Old Hickory, bark and all,.

  • Thank you Donald, for fleshing out the bare bones of my knowledge of Andrew Jackson. I admit to allowing the expulsion of the Cherokees from Georgia to unduly define the man. Many whom we unanimously revere would be considered rough as cobs, were they present among us.

Pro-life Democrats, Unicorns and Other Mythical Creatures

Monday, April 24, AD 2017


Just in case there are still delusional people out there who think it is possible to be both a Democrat and Pro-life:

“Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health,” Perez said in a statement. “That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state.”


“At a time when women’s rights are under assault from the White House, the Republican Congress, and in states across the country,” he added, “we must speak up for this principle as loudly as ever and with one voice.”

Although the Democratic Party’s radically pro-abortion platform was galvanized in 1992, when the Party refused to allow the late Governor Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania to give a speech against abortion at its National Convention, it has continued to harden into a fundamental pillar of the Party.

Yet in his address Friday, DNC leader Tom Perez became the first chairman of the party to demand absolute ideological purity on abortion rights, promising to only back Democratic candidates who embrace a woman’s right to choose.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Pro-life Democrats, Unicorns and Other Mythical Creatures

  • Republicans may be the party of hypocrisy and incompetency, but Democrats are the party of Satan himself.

  • But I have assurances from Catholic luminaries that the Democrats are so much closer to the real doctrine of the Church! 🙄 😉

    Wait, let me check… *google* Nope, no commentary on this moment from those same luminaries. Funny isn’t it how the Republicans can say something along the lines of, “we don’t want to do [X] but we’ll leave open the ability to do [X] in case circumstances force us” is a sign of how wretched, evil and benighted they are, while Democrats’ “abort or GTFO!” never elicits a reaction.

  • LQC: As usual, you are 100% correct.

    The idiot left (redundant) has been touting the latest hoax poll’s 30% Trump favorability rating.

    Two things: One, Trump supporters don’t respond to Democrat polling. Even (unbelievable as it seems) I have caller ID on my (basically unused) land line, and I don’t answer it unless it’s someone I know. Two, The only polls that count are on Election Days. To wit, since 2009, the Dumocrats lost 63 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 14 governorships. President TRUMP will fill 108 Federal judicial and two or three more SCOTUS vacancies. The GOP now controls the White House, both houses of Congress, soon the Judiciary, and nearly two-thirds of the states’ legislatures and governors’ mansions.

    Plus, the same BS polling shows a remarkable democrat weaknesses. “Only 28% of Americans think Democrats are in touch with the concerns of most Americans. And remember, 2014, when the number was 48%, wasn’t exactly a banner year for Democrats.”

    Please dums, keep doing what you’re doing. It’s working great!

  • It was Governor Casey’s principled stand that brought me into the Democrat Party and the addition of a pro-abortion plank to the Libertarian Platform that drove me to the GOP. In the end, I am an unhappy Republican for its hypocrisy and cowardice but it just isn’t true that rank-and-file Republicans and Democrats are all the same.

  • MrsD is currently active in local Democratic politics. Up until about 2 years ago it was possible to be pro-life on the local level. There was no litmus test. People could be elected to the state legislature without compromising their views.

    This has now changed. Our grassroots pro-aborts have become much more militant in the last 2 years. They are now saying the same thing Perez is saying. MrsD is on the verge of quitting.

  • In the last few years under Obama, the federal government gave about $550
    million taxpayer dollars each year to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood
    also receives piles of taxpayer dollars from state and municipal governments.

    Planned Parenthood, in return, funds its PAC, which funnels campaign contributions
    to Democrat politicians, who are then elected and funnel more taxpayer dollars to
    PP in an endless, corrupt circle built on dead babies. Supposedly, no taxpayer
    dollars go to the PP PAC, but since every taxpayer dollar given to that group
    frees up their other dollars to go to the PAC, it’s really just a fig leaf to say that
    tax dollars aren’t going to underwrite the PP PAC’s campaign contributions to

    It’s hard to say whether Planned Parenthood is just the baby-killing arm of the
    DNC, or if the DNC is just the political branch of Planned Parenthood. Defund it.

  • Thank you Clinton.

    This weekend, Friday and Saturday, protest going on.

    In T.C. we are holding holy hour’s begging God to assist us in De-funding Planned Parenthood. Join in.
    Knocking out over a third of their annual budget is a good beginning.

    The redistribution of $470 Million annually away from pp to Federally​ Qualified Health Centers is offering more benefit’s for more women who are financially challenged.

    Fourteen to one FQHC’s v. PP

    One of our local centers offers dentistry.
    Northwest Michigan Health Services.

    Please pray for this on Friday and Saturday.

  • “Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health … That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state.”

    wow- he forgot what the word “democrat” really means

Elections Have Consequences

Friday, March 31, AD 2017


The next time someone tells you there is no difference between the parties on abortion, look them in the eye and call them a liar:


With a rare tie-breaking vote from Vice President Mike Pence, the Senate on Thursday sent a bill to President Donald Trump’s desk giving states permission to withhold federal family planning funds from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

Pence and Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson, who is recovering from back surgery and used a walker inside the chamber, were dramatically summoned to the Capitol to help pass the measure by a razor-thin margin.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Elections Have Consequences

  • “Mark Shea hardest hit.”

    I don’t know how he can now argue that he is not in proximate, material cooperation with evil as a strong supporter of the Democratic Party.

  • There is a difference between the parties on this issue. It’s why, despite everything, I will continue to vote Republican until there is a better choice. However, the party of death will never be the better choice.

  • Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, the nauseating GOP Alaska Senator who claims to be Catholic but is a bought and sold stooge for Planned Parenthood, certainly voted against the measure. Murkowski is almost as bad a Barbara Milkulski, the former Maryland Senator. People with Polish surnames who support Planned Parenthood, whose founder saw Slavs as subhuman, deserve the paddle on the rear end that Foghorn Leghorn gave the barnyard dog in the Looney Tunes cartoons.

  • Here in Texas, Planned Parenthood of Houston opened the largest abortion facility
    in the nation– a 78,000 square-foot behemoth. The Houston Democrats chose
    that venue for their annual Christmas party. I kid you not. I believe that speaks
    volumes about the Democrats. Planned Parenthood is merely the baby-killing arm
    of the Democrat Party.

Abortion and the Catholic Democrat

Tuesday, March 28, AD 2017



“In their directive, ‘Faithful Citizenship,’ our American Catholic bishops make clear that people don’t necessarily need to have their vote determined by a single religious issue. One could say, ‘I don’t like Hillary’s position on abortion but her social services policy should help reduce the number of abortions. I love her position on the environment and immigration reform and so I’ll vote for her.’”

Thomas Groome, Professor of Theology, Boston College

Thomas Groome, Professor of Theology at Boston College, a Jesuit research university, is a former priest and an advocate of jettisoning celibacy, he left the priesthood to get married, and an advocate of ordaining women as priests.  Coming from that perspective, I guess it is praiseworthy that he wrote an article in The New York Times entitled To Win Again Democrats Must Stop Being the Party of Abortion.

When I came to this country from Ireland some 45 years ago, a cousin, here 15 years before, advised me that Catholics vote Democratic. Having grown up in the Irish Republic, I was well disposed to Republican Party principles like local autonomy and limited government. Yet a commitment to social justice, so central to my faith, seemed better represented by the Democratic Party. I followed my cousin’s good counsel.

But once-solid Catholic support for Democrats has steadily eroded. This was due at least in part to the shift by many American Catholic bishops from emphasizing social issues (peace, the economy) to engaging in the culture wars (abortion, gay marriage). Along the way, many Catholics came to view the Democrats as unconditionally supporting abortion.

Last year’s election was a watershed in this evolution. Hillary Clinton lost the overall Catholic vote by seven points — after President Obama had won it in the previous two elections. She lost the white Catholic vote by 23 points. In heavily Catholic states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, she lost by a hair — the last by less than 1 percent. A handful more of Catholic votes per parish in those states would have won her the election.

Her defeat is all the more remarkable considering that Mrs. Clinton shared many Catholic social values. By contrast, Mr. Trump’s disrespect for women, his racism, sexism and xenophobia should have discouraged conscientious Catholics from voting for him. So why did they? Certainly his promises to rebuild manufacturing and his tough talk on terrorism were factors. But for many traditional Catholic voters, Mrs. Clinton’s unqualified support for abortion rights — and Mr. Trump’s opposition (and promise to nominate anti-abortion Supreme Court justices) — were tipping points.

In its directive, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops make clear that American Catholics do not need to be single-issue voters. The bishops say that while Catholics may not vote for a candidate because that candidate favors abortion, they can vote for a candidate in spite of such a stance, based on the totality of his views. Yet despite that leeway, abortion continues to trigger the deepest moral concern for many traditional Catholics, including me.

Continue reading...

45 Responses to Abortion and the Catholic Democrat

  • I take issue with the energy tone, suggesting to me that we are mistaken in our view that the Democrat Party is unconditionally pro-Choice. The good professor says:

    “Along the way, many Catholics came to view the Democrats as unconditionally supporting abortion.”

    Except that the Democrat Party IS unconditionally pro-Choice. That’s not a mere perception, that is the reality.

    I WAS a Democrat and left specifically because I was repeatedly told that I was a traitor because I did not share every single idiotic notion that the national party pushed. It is a reality that the Republican umbrella is FAR broader than the Democrats can tolerate.

  • “But it is not necessary here to argue whether the other-worldly or the humanistic ideal is ‘higher.’ The point is that they are incompatible. One must choose between God and Man, and all ‘radicals’ and ‘progressives,’ from the mildest liberal to the most extreme anarchist, have in effect chosen Man.”

    The Gospels teach that one cannot serve two masters. Orwell (above) in his essay, Reflections on Gandhi, ratifies that determination.

    The phrase “catholic Democrat” is an oxymoron. The so-called cD is Democrat first, catholic last. They have chosen the party over God and the rewards of eternal life.

    I will not be lectured on virtue by anybody that thinks murdering 57 million babies is a “choice.”

    FYI the US Constitution does not give you a human right. God endows you with unalienable rights. Also, the courts do not have power to amend the Constitution.

    Finally (Thank God!), “social justice” simply is stealing from your neighbor with the government as middleman.” It has nothing to do with charity, the Gospels, or faith. They (cD’s) use it for two main purposes: to “buy” votes/seize power and to dishonestly beat up the opposition.

  • As the years have gone by I too have grown disillusioned and disappointed by the Republican party. However, in that same time I have seen the Democrat party grow even more pro-abortion making my decision easy every time I step into the voting booth.

  • This is supremely bad advice from Professor Groome, and I hope the Democrats take it.

  • This is our Civil War hot button.
    No. I’m not advocating Civil unrest.
    But this issue is far more oppressive than the right to own slaves..For obvious reasons.

    Death in the form of a licence, and via the taxpayers money!!!

    No MORE. That sentence demands all capital letters.

    We, the nation, is hanging on by the absolute ends of our fingers, and we don’t have a toe hold. The next move will allow US to regain a foot hold, or it will cause US to loose the little grip we have.

    April 28th and 29th…. Defund Planned Parenthood prayer rallies nation wide.

    Please help US get a better grip before we slip into oblivion.

  • The sovereign personhood of the newly conceived human being institutes government from the very first moment of existence. The moral and legal innocence of the newly conceived are the standard of Justice for the state and the compelling interest of the state to guard and protect the unborn PERSON. In her own words Hillary Clinton calls the unborn person a “person”. All law and our Constitution are written for the person, born and unborn. Our Constitutional Posterity are acknowledged in our Preamble. “We, the people…” are a community of persons…sovereign persons, created equal and endowed with a right to life; the innate human right to life that becomes our civil right to life. Hillary Clinton does not circumscribe our civil rights nor circumvent our innate human rights.

  • “We, the people…” are created equal, not born equal. “The rights the state gives, the state can take away” Thomas Jefferson. God creates life and sovereign personhood, moral and legal innocence; original innocence, the image of God in man. The state gives man citizenship and a tax bill at birth. WELCOME

  • No one should kill their child. No one should promote the killing of children.

  • Pingback: Canon212 Update: Don’t be a Dubia Dummy and Join the Real Resistance – The Stumbling Block
  • The notion that HRC ‘shares many Catholic social values’ or that DJT is addled by ‘racism, sexism, and xenophobia’ are evaluations so stereotyped and naive that I’d have to conclude Prof. Groome lives entirely within a certain sort of bourgeois subculture. What was that bloody PhD worth?

    It’s doubtful that HRC has consequential motors at this point other than megalomania and the welfare of her camarilla (who cycle between government gigs and slots at the Clinton Foundation). You can refer to Christopher Lasch’s critiques in 1992 of her writings up to that time, especially her notorious article in Harvard Education Review. The woman was an advocate of the social work trade.

    And that’s the Democratic Party: always promoting the interests of various cadres (and the business sectors which finance their campaigns – the media, casino banking, and tech).

  • “…and our Constitution are written for the person, born and unborn. ”

    We should think so. I honestly believe so.

    Unfortunately, the late Justice Scalia, himself a Catholic and a constitution originalist, said the Constitution guarantees personhood only on those “walking around.” That excludes the human fetus.

    Perhaps the problem is the Constitution itself?

  • It is interesting that abortion and so called same sex marriage are part of a “culture war” but peace and the economy are simply “issues”. The language is illustrative of why Catholics tend to start off any debate on the defensive. After all discussing issues is good but going to war is bad, right?

    I think a good way to bring this issue to light is to ask the pro-choice person who claims Catholics who vote first on pro-life are simply one issue voters is to ask them, “If your favored candidate came out as pro-choice for owning a slave would you still vote for that person?” The answer is always no, best follow up is, “Why not?” It gets them to understand the Church teaches all humans deserve legal protection and enlightens them that we are all, at some point, single-issue voters. It just depends on the issue.

  • from an earlier article of mine-summary: “Mortal Sin – Vote Democrat”-

    Guy McClung, San Antonio, Texas

  • These Leftists & those who lean left still cannot get over the fact that they lost the presidential election. And they seem completely incapable of understanding that Hillary list because she lost. She lost because of what a horrible president Obama was & Hillary had promised to continue his policies and strengthen them. She lost because she was a horrible candidate with all kinds of negatives. She lost because her campaign picked a losing game plan. There is nothing mystical about this.

  • “Perhaps the problem is the Constitution itself?”


    The problem most definitely is not the constitution as written. It says that we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. As soon as that egg & sperm unite, a unique human being is created–everything and all that human will ever be is present. The problem is in the recognition of that created human being.

    If man can be so dead/hardened spiritually that they can enslave and murder other full grown human beings and deny those humans the rights due to them through their creation, then they will certainly deny the rights of created humans in the womb.

  • “Unfortunately, the late Justice Scalia, himself a Catholic and a constitution originalist, said the Constitution guarantees personhood only on those ‘walking around.’ That excludes the human fetus.”

    Somehow, I think that your interpretation of what you say Scalia said must include some misunderstanding. For instance, the ability to walk being a limitation on who has rights under our constitution, would exclude a lot more people than just unborn babies. Born babies cannot walk well until they are about 2 years old. Lots of adults can walk and must use a wheel chair or stay in bed. Disease can render us unable to walk at any time in life. A lot of us are temporarily unable to walk due to injuries at times, etc.

  • The Democratic Party is no only pro-choice but opposed to Catholic sexual morality. They are also in favor of open borders, an attitude they share with many bishops. I beige to think they sympathize with the rabidly nationalistic Mexican bishop who opposes Trumps’ proposal for a wall. Given that despite the rhetoric Trump’s policy seems basically to enforce laws that Obama had chosen not to enforce. Reactionary, not radical, at least so far.

  • I believe nearly every aspect of the Democrat Party platform is evil. It is a tarted up version of atheistic Communism.

  • More foolishness from a professor of an alleged Catholic university.. that’s all it is.
    As noted earlier, I, too have become disappointed in the GOP, The Democrats are the Evil Party. Anything they do is to increase their power.


  • Perhaps the problem is the Constitution itself?

    The constitution does not vest Congress with general police power. A legal regime consistent with moral principles is largely the business of state legislatures exercising discretion. The Constitution does not give the courts a warrant to invalidate laws which permit abortions to be performed, and Mr. Justice Scalia recognized that. The business of putting abortion mills out of business is the responsibility of state legislators, not judges.

  • Somehow, I think that your interpretation of what you say Scalia said must include some misunderstanding.

    The Constitution is a piece of political architecture which distributes functions between various and sundry institutions. That’s what it does. There’s an addendum which prohibits state action in certain realms. It’s not some summary of justice or moral teaching. The misunderstanding is incorporated in the notion that it is or should be.

  • “child sacrifice known as abortion”. Abortion IS child sacrifice! The phrase conjures up a picture of the Aztecs’ grisly pagan religious practices. It’s a perfect phrase when writing/speaking on abortion, about pro-choice ( abortion) advocates. The Democrats love to talk about programs for children from one side of their mouths while touting reproductive rights (code word abortion) and its funding out of the other side.

  • “The problem most definitely is not the constitution as written.”
    Christian Teacher, I would not be so sure. As Mary De Voe points out, the Declaration of Independence says we are created, not born. The largest problem we have in our constitutional law is that there is no requirement that the philosophy of the Declaration should carry any weight with any court. Reaching back for constitutional guidance stops at the Constitution. It didn’t when we refused to dispose of slavery, and it didn’t when we decided to dispose of our children. At this late date such references will not happen unless the Constitution is so amended or our judges revolt against their training and precedent and work to add such references.

  • “Abortion IS child sacrifice!”
    Yes it is, CAM, and at least one abortion proponent has said so:

    “The November 1992 issue of Harper’s contained a sort of symposium on the issue of abortion. Most of the contributors were predictably pleased with it, though the editors were fair enough to include the wisdom of Juli Loesch Wiley and Wendell Berry. The last of the dozen or so short pieces was one of the few things I have ever read which literally frightened me. The writer is Frederick Turner, Founders Professor of Arts and Humanities at the University of Texas at Dallas:

    ‘It might help if you think of abortion as a sacrifice—the later the abortion, the heavier and graver the reason had better be, and the more sacred the whole thing is. … But the way I look at it, a sacrifice demands respect. It had better be done in a good cause, or it will come back to haunt us. That’s why we often make a beautiful communal ritual out of sacrifice, even if it’s a highly symbolic one…. What traditional religious ritual tells us is that sacrifice can be enriching, creative, evoking powers and values that can contribute great gifts to human existence. Isn’t it possible that abortion, in the right circumstances, for the right reasons and intentions, could be like that?’
    “There you have it. An intellectual, a sensitive man, an educated and thoughtful man, has suggested that human sacrifice may be, after all, a meaningful—moreover, an effective—part of life. Moloch is stirring in the Department of Humanities.


  • Actually, the essay by Maclin Horton titled Nothing at the Center that is quoted in my last post above, is a very good read. It is tightly argued with only one error: it notes at the beginning that the Constitution began as ‘a piece of political architecture which distributes functions between various and sundry institutions’, as Art Deco put it, but then became the arbitrator of morality once the underlying Christian cultural consensus “cracked”, then at the end the writer assumes that the recovery of limited government is impossible. He seems to assume that we will never again be a virtuous people.

  • Roe v. Wade is a preemptive war against human beings. Roe never bore the burden of proof that the unborn was not a person, a ward of the court, a member of the human species and a person of our constitutional “Posterity” to whom all “Blessings of Liberty” must be afforded because of all innate, unalienable human rights that become our civil rights through the state.
    The UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE UNITED STATES is ratified by each and every state, as is THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES ratified by every state. These are our FOUNDING PRINCIPLES. Any change, in these our FOUNDING PRINCIPLES must be ratified by three fourths of Congress, the voice of the will of the people. Neither, the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution is written to repudiate or to abrogate any one of these principles. They are the whole truth needed in a court of law, as each one gives evidence and testimony to all.
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created (not born) equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” The Declaration of Independence.
    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The Ninth Amendment of our Constitution.
    Abortion is predicated on the erroneous assumption that the newly conceived, morally and legally innocent human being, the standard of Justice, endowed with free will, intellect and sovereign personhood is not a person, a human being composed of body and rational soul. And further, that the unborn cannot will to survive, nor will to be. Having been invited by the marital act, the unborn creates a mother of a woman and a father of a man and institutes the state by his very existence.
    Our Constitutional “Posterity”, all future generations are taxpayers. “We, the people” are being supplanted by invaders, some of whom are inimical to our Founding Principles.
    Politicians who have not read or grasped our Founding Principles need to be “”drained from the swamp.”

  • Democrats are not only pro-abortion, they are anti-God, anti-America, anti-Christian, anti-family, pro-perversion and anti-Constitution to name a few. They are the party of Satan.

  • With the dawn of the secular state, that is, atheistic communism (nothing less), all Christians are disenfranchised. Christians must battle to exercise Christian virtues. Christians must battle to retain any semblance of civil rights. “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” have been disenfranchised as well. God, the Son of Man and the Holy Spirit, common sense for the common good have been disenfranchised and evicted from the public square, the public domain and the public Welfare, all purposes of The Preamble, the institution of the state… America.

  • Professor Turner, the answer is NO. it could never be like that.
    What a stretch…”a beautiful communal ritual out of sacrifice” “traditional religious ritual”…. allusions to the Crucifixion and Resurrection and to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with the Eucharist in the same paragraph with the word abortion. Professor Turner must have even impressed himself with his rationalizing verbiage. Sad thing is there are those so committed to the Cause that they will believe his drivel. He’s a dangerous man.

  • The largest problem we have in our constitutional law is that there is no requirement that the philosophy of the Declaration should carry any weight with any court.

    No, that’s not a problem at all, much less the largest one. We certainly do not need judges making decisions on the basis of half-baked ‘philosophy’. The most salient problem in constitutional law is that it no longer exists. It’s just a set of intellectual games for a collection of haut bourgeois cadres to impose social policy in defiance of the judgments of elected officials.

    There’s a distinction between a problem in public policy and a problem in constitutional law. Constitutional law concerns the architecture of public institutions, not the substance of public policy.

  • There’s a good book with an apt title that refutes this kind of seamless garment sophistry. Besides, like the man said, “Social Justice isn’t what you think it is.”

  • Art Deco wrote “There’s a distinction between a problem in public policy and a problem in constitutional law. Constitutional law concerns the architecture of public institutions, not the substance of public policy.”

    What does that even mean? Would a judicial review of the conviction of a journalist under the Sedition Act of 1798 be constitutional law, or not? Any half-baked philosophy could argue that an individual’s First Amendment rights exist for public policy reasons, or for public institutions (is the “Press” an institution? is it public?). Is it even possible to answer those questions without a philosophy? It seems you are in a position when you are using a philosophical statement about law to eliminate the need for philosophical statements about law.

  • What god is mortal? The god of relativism is mortal. The god of relativism dies every time the moral value changes and imposes a finite truth.
    Human sacrifice was abolished by God on Mount Moriah when Isaac became the first human sacrifice to be physically prevented and outlawed by God. The Chosen People carry the Law of the Triune God from Father Abraham to Moses to the promised Son of Man.
    The Democratic Party named for people, murder as many individual persons as they can and make U. S. citizen pay taxes to enable their treachery against the people. The Democratic Party rejects God, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, The Unanimous Declaration of Independence. The U. S. Constitution, Scientific DNA, ultrasound images of human development and Dr. Seuss, who said that “A person is a person, no matter how small.”
    The Democratic Party rejects that the immortal human soul made in the image of God with free will and unalienable human rights infused at fertilization of the human egg by the human sperm forms the human body to become whoever the human soul is…formed by “their Creator”. The name given us by the Democratic Party is “NAUGHTS”, non-human beings, subhuman taxpayers. If “We, the people” are “NAUGHTS”, then who in heaven’s name are Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party, but non-members of “We, the people…”. The Democratic Party has disenfranchised its members from our Citizenship in the United States of America.

  • “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The Ninth Amendment of our Constitution.
    “We, the people” have the right to acknowledge our Creator in the public square.
    “We, the people” have the right to wisdom, grace, virtue and righteousness.
    “We, the people” have the right to determine our legacy of righteousness to our Constitutional Posterity, all future generations.
    “We, the people” have the right to maintain the truth of man having an immortal, rational soul, thereby rejecting the redefinition of the human being as having no transcendent life in our Creator, nor unalienable human rights endowed.
    “We, the people” have the right to reject the atheistic notion of man’s pursuit of Happiness ending in death.

    “We, the people” have the right to celebrate the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”
    “We, the people” have the right to define marriage according to the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” and to reject the redefinition of addiction to sodomy as a civil right.
    “We, the people” have the right to judge principles and tolerate persons.
    “We, the people” have the right to distinguish between free will choices to pursue transgendering, free will choices to gender identity, free will choices to abortion, free will choices to addiction to sodomy; pornography and between those particular human characteristics that are innate, as color of skin, gender and sexual orientation.
    “We, the people” have the right to refuse the individual citizen’s free will choices against the human being as civil rights.
    “We, the people” have the right to FREEDOM.

  • “Would a judicial review of the conviction of a journalist under the Sedition Act of 1798 be constitutional law, or not?”

    That’s an easy one. The Sedition Act of 1798 clearly violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, as many individuals at the time noted. However, a court would only have the power to strike down the law due to the Constitution, not as a result of philosophical questions as to whether the law was good or bad. Constitutional law in this country is a mess largely because the temptation of judges to play Platonic Guardian is a strong one, rather than the fairly modest one that the Founding Fathers anticipated. In a democracy, courts are the worst sort of place for public policy to be hashed out and the history of the Court amply supports that conclusion.

  • Thank you Don. So I take it that you would agree that constitutional law is not merely about the arrangement of public institutions.

    I agree 99% with what you wrote. That nagging 1% is due to my feeling that, having taken the wrong fork in the road, it is too late to back up. We are stuck with philosophical interpretations of the Constitution. Originalism and textualism are simply attempts to develop philosophies that are less damaging and less subject to abuse (and their existence shows that judicial philosophies are inescapable). I am aware that the idea I floated about the Declaration of Independence is more dicey than those two and would be harder to consistently implement, but it would have its virtues. Chief among those virtues would be that it would be hard to substantially oppose such a philosophy without opposing the very foundation of the country – the Constitution, after all, founded only our government.

  • “Thank you Don. So I take it that you would agree that constitutional law is not merely about the arrangement of public institutions.”

    It should be only about the interpretation of the text of the Constitution and its application. Originalism is the way that lawyers have been interpreting contracts and other agreements since time out of mind. Too many judges have no fidelity to the text of the Constitution and view it as a tabula rasa upon which they may write their political predilections. They have no more right to do this than any other citizen and it is a completely illegitimate assumption of a power that the judiciary does not possess.

  • “We, the people” have the right to our Founding Principles, to the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, that all men are endowed with Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness and to the reliance on the support of divine Providence.
    “We, the people” have the right to be self-determined, to think, to say and to do what the sovereign person believes to be in his best interest to attain his eternal glory.

    “We, the people have the right to our Constitutional “Posterity”. It is important to remember that “We, the people” institute government and that the Supreme Court is part of that government. That when the Constitution says that all states must regard the Court’s decisions as binding upon them, it goes without saying that the Court’s decisions must exclude no one and all men are to be represented by that Court’s decision. The Courts decisions must be based on the TRUTH and for all men, before all states must acquiesce. Those Court decision that exclude the Person of God are not based in the Truth.

  • The traditional Democratic party died with the passing of Jack and Bobby Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey and Scoop Jackson. If the former members, like myself, find that no party represents them properly, then registering as an independent is the honorable thing to do. This is not Europe where slavish obedience to party leaders is mandatory. If enough traditional voters did this, and closed their pocketbooks, it might get some attention. The last election certainly proved that even if the satraps of the left refuse to acknowledge it.

  • “The Constitution is a piece of political architecture which distributes functions between various and sundry institutions. That’s what it does. There’s an addendum which prohibits state action in certain realms. It’s not some summary of justice or moral teaching. The misunderstanding is incorporated in the notion that it is or should be.”

    Bovine feces! There is no amoral law. Just the fact that the constitution limits the federal governments power is a moral decision based on the idea that we are created by God with inalienable rights. Otherwise there is no reason to limit a national government’s power.

  • “Christian Teacher, I would not be so sure. As Mary De Voe points out, the Declaration of Independence says we are created, not born. The largest problem we have in our constitutional law is that there is no requirement that the philosophy of the Declaration should carry any weight with any court. Reaching back for constitutional guidance stops at the Constitution. It didn’t when we refused to dispose of slavery, and it didn’t when we decided to dispose of our children. At this late date such references will not happen unless the Constitution is so amended or our judges revolt against their training and precedent and work to add such references.”

    I’m sure. The problem is the judges on the bench who are forcing their will upon the American populace at large regardless of what the constitution says. Not the constitution, itself.

  • You failed to point out that one of the “NON-NEGOTIABLES” of the Bishops’ directive is support for abortion. A Catholic in good conscience cannot vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion.

  • Bovine feces! There is no amoral law. Just the fact that the constitution limits the federal governments power is a moral decision based on the idea that we are created by God with inalienable rights. Otherwise there is no reason to limit a national government’s power.

    You can argue that constitutional provisions are derivative of a certain moral understanding or conception of justice. That does not mean that the provisions themselves summarize a comprehensive set of understandings of justice or morals. Nor does in mean that the provisions in question have an exclusive one-to-one relationship with a given conception of justice or moral understanding.

    Otherwise there is no reason to limit a national government’s power.

    I suspect there are people who might take exception to that.

  • The traditional Democratic party died with the passing of Jack and Bobby Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey and Scoop Jackson.

    The PM of Britain was asked in 1961 about the new administration in Washington. His reply: “rather like the Borgia brothers have taken over a respectable north Italian town”.

    By and large, the willingness of national Democrats to critique the abortion license dissipated about 25 years ago. As late as 1988, John LaFalce was able to assemble 60 members of the Congressional Democratic caucus in favor of a statement on the subject. Jerry Brown in 1992 was the last Democratic presidential candidate of consequence who was willing to say the legal regime was not legitimate and Jimmy Carter in 1976 was the last to suggest doing anything about it. The last Democratic appointee to the Supreme Court to dissent from the fiction that this mess was constitutionally required was sworn in in 1962. Someone identified Adlai Stevenson was the first in a long line of Democratic presidential aspirants who tended to be critics rather than celebrants of American culture. If you bracket out the buffoons and the snake-oil salesmen, the disposition to sit in judgment of previous generations is pretty much bog standard at that level of Democratic politics, and has been for some time. Perhaps Wesley Clark was an exception, or Bob Kerrey.

One Response to Bird-Dogging Democrats-Part 3

  • It amazes me that there is no private individual who has not filed a court case over this. I know it needs a shitload of money, but here anyone can file a prosecution against anyone, provided they have proper evidence.
    I would have thought that someone over there could have done so – do politicians have immunity – or some such other safety net which makes them immune?
    Frankly, it staggers me that this sort of corruption can go on, and no-one challenges it in the law courts.

Just a Reminder: The Democrats are the Party of Abortion

Wednesday, July 27, AD 2016



Jesus wept:


When talking about abortion, Democratic politicians and activists usually prefer to speak euphemistically: The dismemberment or lethal poisoning of a baby who hasn’t been born yet is almost always referred to as “reproductive health care” or “a woman’s choice.” The group NARAL, once known as the National Abortion Rights Action League, went so far as to change its name to NARAL Pro-Choice America so its supporters and allies could avoid saying the a-word.

But there’s been a growing push on the left to not only defend abortion as a necessary evil that should be “safe, legal, and rare” but to celebrate it as a positive good. (See the #ShoutYourAbortion Twitter campaign of 2015.) And so on Wednesday evening, Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, took the stage at the Democratic National Convention and told the story of the time she aborted her first child because it was an inconvenient time to become a parent.

“To succeed in life, all we need are the tools, the trust, and the chance to chart our own path,” Hogue said during her DNC speech. “I was fortunate enough to have these things when I found out I was pregnant years ago. I wanted a family, but it was the wrong time. I made the decision that was best for me—to have an abortion and get compassionate care at a clinic in my own community.” At this point, applause and cheers could be heard in the crowd. “Now years later, my husband and I are parents to two incredible children,” Hogue continued.

Continue reading...

31 Responses to Just a Reminder: The Democrats are the Party of Abortion

  • He did comment on it. You can tell it must have pained him because that was 1 of 2 posts on that day he did about Ds compared with… 3 about Rs. Oh and he’s already ahead of you, Don about why it’s totes ok to support one party of death but not the other.
    John C Wright said it best: “[Mr. Shea] was once a Catholic apologist. I stopped reading him when he became instead an apologist for Progressivism.”
    Anyway, I see you’ve been having fun with those of similar dispositions on Dave’s site. It’s going to be interesting to see if the next civil war is over that, or immigration.

  • But, as some Catholics such as certain members of the clergy including some bishops and bloggers such as Mark Shea say, there are compelling social justice issues that allow one to vote for a radically pro-murder candidate. Just so long as one is pursuing equity.

    Now, if one supports the Second Amendment, that’s a different matter.

  • They served their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons; they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was polluted with blood.” ~Psalm 106 (105)
    Democrats, Beware the sin of the Amorites. Today the idols have different appearances, but the demons are the same.”

  • “…fanatically dedicated to viewing abortion as a positive good”
    The depth of confusion is almost impossible for us to comprehend.
    These people are literally blinded by what the world reinforces to them over and over again. They have eyes but cannot see, ears but can’t hear.
    They have been formed that way by the culture of the 20th century, when it seems the devil apparently did have more license against us.
    A 3 yr old (just turned 3!) told me today that there is some evil that is good and some that is evil, that there are good witches. I came upon her- 3 years old, in lotus position hands held up to the side with palms up, saying “om” over and over. The older child told me she was meditating like on kung fu panda.
    Oh Lord help us!
    I have heard that the spiritual warfare against us is tactical and strategic- the devil lays plans and traps because he can’t take us against our will. He has to entice us to go on the dark path of our own will..he has to make us accept the lies — not an even handed choice, not a decision after a while of clearly choosing evil over good but to the point that we really believe evil can be good.

  • I we imagine we will be hearing a lot about the “seamless garment” moral approach to justify Catholics voting Democrat. Thus abortion and the death penalty are considered morally equivalent which they are not. To me the Modernistic (relativistic) thinking that drove Vatican II is largely responsible for much of the moral evil we have in the world today. The Catholic Church, and especially the Popes, have much to answer for the present condition of the world by being not only ‘in’ the world but ‘of’ the world. This is not the way of the Lord.

  • “To succeed in life, all we need are the tools, the trust, a the chance to chart our own path.”

    That statement coming from her, in her capacity is downright demonic.

    To succeed in life…( In order to be successful you may have to sacrifice the life of your child.). All we need are the tools..( forceps, vacuum and saline.). The trust…(non-trust. She means the fear. Fear rules in the choice to kill.) A chance to chart our own path..( free will is a gift from God. Charting your own path can be disastrous. The Bible is the chart. Any charting without the help of the Bible is complete destruction, and we have over 60 million examples to prove that!

    Liar’s abound in the camp of the left.

  • BTW…..from today’s Chart; Matthew 13:47-53 ” Jesus said to his disciples the Kingdom of Heaven is like a net thrown into the sea which collects fish of every kind. When it is full they haul it ashore and sit down and put what is good into buckets. What is bad they throw away. Thus it will be at the End of the Age. The angels will go out and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace where they will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

  • Philip. He’s talking about Vatican II’s bad fish, e.g., abortion supporting liberals, etc.

  • Michael Dowd.

  • This link is broken; Go here to read the rest.

  • Thanks for catching that. Fixed.

  • That the CEO of NARAL was a featured speaker at the Democratic convention is appalling. I use the term the CEO vice the president because these abortion groups are Big Business. It’s not compassion or blah, blah, blah; it’s all about money. “compelling social justice issues that allow one to vote for a radically pro-murder candidate” I heard that one from Catholics 8 years ago as the rationale for an Obama vote. Social justice issues? The educated, middle class (maybe married) woman standing up there had her abortion for convenience sake.
    The Democratic Party is the Party of Baby Murders and funding abortions with government money is on their platform.

  • Please let us do a “Stalin” and never ever in any way mention that Mark guy’s name. Even negative and truthful publicity for him is better than none, and undoubtedly will increase his ad revenue. The Party Of Death has progressed from “safe, rare and legal,” to this court-created, court-legislated, not-in-the-Constitution “right” is “absolute”. Their platform says they will abide absolutely no restrictions or limitations on this “right.” Is this the end? Hell no. Now their platform says we are all going to pay for all abortions for every woman (and girl, i.e. a fourteen year old without her parents knowledge standing before a complicit judge with a Planned-Parenthood lawyer paid for with our tax money). Is this use of our tax dollars the end? Hell,. hell no! Next up, and make no mistake about it, is the demonic extension of this “absolute” right to “post-birth abortion.” Yes, the mother and the mother alone will have the right, guaranteed and legislated by the likes of Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan, to kill any baby who happens to survive a grisly gruesome abortion. Only the mother will be allowed to let the baby suffer like Christ on the Cross, screaming bloody murder (pun intended) on a cold stainless steel tray til it dies, alone. The party Of Death’s president has already voted againt saving the lives of such children. Thing this is not possible? Think like the first US troops in WWII walking into Dachau or Auschwitz – and then add in the liberals efforts to lower the age of consent to 10 or even 7, and you dont have America, you have Hell on earth. Guy MCClung, San Antonio, Texas

  • Good comment, Guy. They are going for a lower age of consent. The LBGT activists are in league with the abortion crowd.

  • Wait….it gets better!
    Let’s start up with stricter gun control laws… maybe even getting to the point of restrictions that tyrants dream about. This is the perfect storm for liberal elite’s. Murder, Perverse behavior as normal, open the field of prey to include pre-adolescents and then the gun grab. Not my guns!

    Guy, this hell is alive and well because folks are deciding their respective eternal home.
    This is the decisive action of souls picking their camp. The lukewarm are shrinking in numbers now…and that’s good. Your with Our Lord or his adversary. People are making the choice. Some knowingly, some blindly.
    Conversion isn’t a closed door, so we pray for their hearts to turn to God.

  • The Democrats are the party of abortion. The GOP is not far behind now. They won’t enthusiastically embrace it, but I can see acquiescence. The new GOP has forfeited many social values this cycle as they applaud speakers, including Trump, who chastise them for righteous positions or perceived unfair slights in “fake” culture wars.

  • “The GOP is not far behind now.”

    That is a ludicrous contention considering all the pro-life legislation passed by Republicans at the state level since their victories in 2010 and 2014. Even at the recently concluded Trump Convention the platform is more pro-life than ever. Year after year most Republicans labor to advance the pro-life cause and get only abuse as thanks from far too many pro-lifers.

  • That is a ludicrous contention considering all the pro-life legislation passed by Republicans at the state level since their victories in 2010 and 2014
    Under the old GOP, that’s true. But if Trump’s creation is the beginning of a new GOP, I stand by my statement.
    Year after year most Republicans labor to advance the pro-life cause and get only abuse as thanks from far too many pro-lifers.
    I didn’t say the party is not pro-life. (“Not far behind” doesn’t mean they are there.) But if the culture war surrender trickles down from the top, I think some GOP politicians will see it as license to loosen their position. The well is being poisoned. Its impact remains to be seen. A Trump victory sure won’t help.
    Get only abuse? A bit dramatic. I have defended many Republicans for their pro-life stands. I have marched with some in pro-life marches and thanked them. Ever hear of Ken Paxton? I reserve the right to disagree with Trump’s GOP surrendering the culture war and supporting a man who gives praise to Planned Parenthood.

  • Trump, even if he wins the Presidency, which I think he will, will have minimal long term impact on the Republican Party and will quickly be at war with the Congressional Republican Party. Trump is a product of the economic failure of the Obama years, combined with the failure of the Republican establishment to take seriously voter rage at illegal immigration. Trump is sui generis and is not the founder of a long lasting movement.

  • Once years ago (1970) I purported to do a small study of what difference a party platform made as seen in action once a party or party’s candidate was in power. I didn’t do a good job and would still like to know.

  • You know, about all that applause for questionable things Trumpeted at the convention: I know people can get caught up in the moment – and will be chagrined when they get home and put down their placards hats.

  • “Trump is sui generis and is not the founder of a long lasting movement.” I fully agree with your assessment, Don. It took the Soviet communists seventy years to squander the vast resources of Russia but they eventually went broke. The American quasi-Soviets have in about sixty years caused the middle and working classes to go broke. Trump would not otherwise be the nominee of the Republican Party.

  • Kyle Miller: “The Democrats are the party of abortion. The GOP is not far behind now.”

    The GOP presents itself to the conservative base as the party of life. It is one of its primary attractions. There is no doubt that in many cases that is true; they are for life.

    There is zero life element in the Democrat Party. They love abortion. That is also true.

    Yet that deep distrust for being burned, year after year lingers.

    Where I agree with Kyle, above, is that somehow true success is just never..quite..grasped. It’s always juuuuust out of reach. The best example of this is Supreme Court Nominees. Liberal Democrats install 100% pro abortion, judicial legislators. No shame. Just radicals. Take that! Republicans nominate moderates who go along with the tide. None, save Scalia (RIP), can articulate the centrality of the Right To Life. The entire judicial system is oriented to strike down life laws. And abortion just somehow keeps swimming along just fine.

    Legislation may be passed here or there; but then struck down under review; quietly, it dies because no one is willing to defend it. We have had generally strong Republican majorities for a long time and yet abortion remains the preeminent law of the land.

    I see no one who can coherently, passionately lead on life and stake everything on success.

  • “None, save Scalia (RIP), can articulate the centrality of the Right To Life.”

    You can add to that list Alito and Thomas. Roberts has voted against abortion every time it has come before the court. If Ted Kennedy had not succeeded in defeating Reagan’s nomination of Judge Bork, legalized abortion would just be a bad memory.

  • But who is articulating the conservative case as to why a law is moral or immoral; good or bad for individuals and society?

    Yes, we have 3 votes on the Supreme Court. Good. Scalia was a voice who made the case for WHY. Who else does, or can?

    Liberals always seem to have more votes. Liberals always seem to control narrative. Liberals are always on offense. Conservatives are always on defense, apologizing for their backward ideas. Liberals win. Conservatives lose. Frustrating.

  • Trump, even if he wins the Presidency, which I think he will, will have minimal long term impact on the Republican Party and will quickly be at war with the Congressional Republican Party.
    If Trump wins, it will give a green light to other GOP members to take similar paths and positions. (My point, not Sowell’s thought it might be.) I’m going to agree with Thomas Sowell on this one. It will do harm to the GOP and its brand.
    Trump is a product of the economic failure of the Obama years, combined with the failure of the Republican establishment to take seriously voter rage at illegal immigration
    The conservative wheels on the GOP bus have been coming off for a while. I wrote about it in January 2012. ( I predicted in May of this year what Trump would do, and he’s doing it to a tee. ( As we travel further away from the Reagan revolution, the more GOP politicians soften and the coarser the party becomes. The coarser it becomes, the more unrecognizable it becomes.
    If Trump wins, it won’t be by a wide margin. I’ll be wrong if he continues to go left and pull in more Democrats. He’s doing nothing to win conservative base support. “I’m not Hillary” is an insufficient argument. Of course, Trump has been unconventional, so maybe he will. He has plenty of material to pin Hillary to the mat.

  • Brian-I wish multiple sites would do many articles on your “frustration” point – it just seems to get worse, sometimes daily, for both Church and country. “worse” does not really convey what is happening to our world-nor does “dismal.” I just keep thinking of Ephesians and the phrase “world rulers of this present darkness.” Yes Christ is the light, but I sure would like to see a glimmer shining occasionally amidst all the evil. Guy McClung, San Antonio Texas

  • “If Trump wins, it will give a green light to other GOP members to take similar paths and positions.”

    And they will fall flat on their face if they do. Trump’s rise was very much a product of this year, the failed Obama presidency and his personality. Trump wanna be’s will be few and unsuccessful. Trump routinely does things that would be fatal to any politician not named Donald Trump.

    “It will do harm to the GOP and its brand.”

    Perhaps, although I think a President Trump will quickly establish beyond doubt that declaring himself a Republican was merely a means to gain office. Trump considers himself above petty party politics.

    “The conservative wheels on the GOP bus have been coming off for a while. I wrote about it in January 2012.”

    You were wrong then, you are wrong now. The Republican party, as a party, is more deeply conservative now then at any time in its history.

    “If Trump wins, it won’t be by a wide margin.”

    My guess is he will win by five points or more. Hillary is an appallingly bad candidate and the establishment incarnate. She is the perfect candidate for a populist insurgent like Trump, in this year, to be running against. Unless Trump implodes, and with Trump almost anything you can imagine is possible, it will not be close. As for Trump moving to the left, Trump says whatever he thinks advantageous at the moment. He would say that he isn’t moving anywhere except in for the kill against Hillary.

  • Hillary by 3. With some helpful voter fraud to push her over the top,

    It’s all about the machine.

  • Yep, that Democrat machine and fraud was shown to function well in 2004, 2010 and 2014. When it’s not close they can’t steal it.

  • Pingback: GOD & CAESAR TUESDAY EDITION | Big Pulpit

5 Responses to Review: Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party

  • I see myself purchasing multiple copies of this great Americans work, D’Souza.

    Great review Don.
    I can’t wait to see it.

  • Pingback: GOD & CAESAR MONDAY EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • What is it about the far right that insists on using “democrat” as an adjective? It is and always has been the Democratic Party, not the “democrat party.” I can understand uneducated figures like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity not knowing any better, but the author of this piece purports to legal qaulifications, which presuppose an undergraduate degree as well as law school

  • I do it James because it bugs Democratics. That and the fact that there is nothing democratic about the Democrat Party. Republicans have been referring to the Democrat party as long as there has been a Republican party. Of course Democrats have used the term Democrat party on occasion over the years. As for me being “far right” that is only true if you view Obama as a moderate.

  • Grammar Nazism….always the bellow of frustration that one wanted hidden has been exposed.

The Left Begins to Notice That the Catholic Vote is Slipping Away

Tuesday, March 17, AD 2015



Over at Salon Patricia Miller sounds the alarm bell for her fellow leftists that the Catholic vote is taking a walk:


There’s no “Catholic vote” in terms of Catholics representing an electoral bloc that votes according to what their bishops tell them, or in lockstep with the tenets of their religion. Yet winning Catholic voters has been essential to almost every presidential victory in modern times. And the defection of Catholics voters has played a role in some of the most consequential congressional turnovers in recent history — from 1994 to 2014 — making Catholics the ultimate swing voters. And for Democrats, that could be bad news.

While Catholics have been swing voters since Richard Nixon’s second term, white Catholics are now identifying as Republican by historic margins. According to the most recent polling from the Pew Research Center, 53 percent of white Catholics now favor the GOP, versus 39 percent who favor the Democrats—the largest point spread in the history of the Pew poll. And for the first time, white Catholics are more Republican than the voting group usually considered the ultimate Republicans: white Protestants (a designation that includes both mainline and evangelical Protestants).

These are ominous signs for the Democrats, evincing a new and growing allegiance with the Republican Party that has long-term implications.

Since Miller is a pro-abort Catholic she really does not understand why this is happening as the rest of her post demonstrates.  Allow me to clue her in:

When the Tokugawa shogunate was stamping out Christianity in Japan, it made use of Fumi-e (stepping on pictures).  Regime officials would place pictures of Jesus or Mary before suspected Christians and order them to step on them.  Refusal to do so, if persisted in, would end in execution.  In our own country we are seeing the growth of a movement just as antithetical in theory to Catholicism and traditional Christianity as the Tokugawa shogunate, and it finds its home in the Democrat party.

What we have seen over the past few decades is the evolution of the Democrat party into an overtly anti-Catholic party.  The Obama administration is the culmination of this trend.  This of course is deeply ironic, because the Democrat party is a major party in this country with the help of the votes of tens of millions of purported Catholics.

Continue reading...

39 Responses to The Left Begins to Notice That the Catholic Vote is Slipping Away

  • Democrats Boo inclusion of God. I was going to write that but I feel better knowing that it is written and will be written.

  • Hmmm, we’ll see. Many bishops, clergy, religious, and the entire “social justice” establishment will work hard to keep the sheeple voting Dem.

  • Polls that try to describe the political leanings of Catholics first must define
    who is Catholic. Too many carelessly designed polls simply rely on subjects
    self-description** when many being polled might be nominally Catholic but
    haven’t been to Mass in years and simply claim the description of “Catholic”
    for want of a more accurate description. Studies that examine the relationship
    between the regularity of Mass attendance and political affiliation indicate
    that if one attends Mass at least once a week, one also tends to hold more
    ‘conservative’ political views. Greater participation in the sacramental life
    of the Church, on the whole, appears to go with a greater incidence of
    having one’s head screwed on the right way, at least for those of us in the
    pews. The crazy left-wing priests and Church professionals out there
    seem to be working under a different dynamic.
    ** I make no claim that such people are not, in fact, Catholic. If they were
    baptized into the Church, then there they remain, barring apostasy. We
    should all be grateful that we needn’t be perfect Catholics to be in the Church.

  • I have heard Father Frank Pavone of Priest for Life say that if a Catholic votes for a pro-abortion candidate they have renigged on the right to call themselves Catholic. He says no abortion for any reason is a non-negotiable truth of the Church and you can’t be a Catholic in good standing with the church and support a pro-abortion candidate. How many democrat-voting Catholics know that? I’ll bet not too many. I know many I go to Church with that vote democrat and would argue with you till the cows come home that they are “faithful Catholics” and that the Church tells them they can “vote their conscience”, so they pull the lever for Obama and his Catholic-hating democrats. It would help if priests occasionally gave a homily on the ills of abortion and what is required of Catholics in the voting booth, but most priests never mention abortion or homosexual “marriage”. They avoid it like the plague……and that is the reason so many Catholics vote for democrats.

  • I hope and pray that the walk away of Catholics from the Democratic Party is due to their taking a closer walk with Thee, Lord. We are in danger of losing our country and our souls otherwise. Mere politics will save neither.

  • Donald’s analysis proves that Patricia Miller should have shut her yap after the first sentence. That is, there’s no per se Catholic voting bloc. What we’re seeing in the example Miller provides has at least as much to do with the Democrat party’s war on white working men (and the women who marry them –married women vote Republican more than Democrat while single women do the opposite), and probably more.
    The same thing is at play where commenter Clinton notes “Studies that examine the relationship
    between the regularity of Mass attendance and political affiliation indicate that if one attends Mass at least once a week, one also tends to hold more ‘conservative’ political views.” Studies show the correlation with Protestants who regularly attend church services and Republican voting patterns.
    I’ll have to find the reference again, but the guy who broke the Catholic voting bloc was himself a Catholic –but an advisor to the McGovern campaign and good servant of the Democrat party first.

  • Well, if Fr. Pavone said that he is plainly in error. Voting for a pro-choice candidate is not objectively sinful as such, and certainly is not inimical to being a Catholic. One must distinguish between voting for a candidate because he is pro-choice (impermissible for a Catholic) versus voting for a candidate despite his being pro-choice (permissible). A vote is a prudential calculus, and it is certainly possible to reasonably conclude in good faith that a pro-choice candidate is superior to an opponent, even potentially a pro-life opponent. Now before folks a chime in with the boringly predictable reminders that such prudential decisions are often masks for impermissible abortion support or indifference, well of course.

  • The only thing I have to say is that I shall never ever vote for a sodomy-sanctifying, baby-murdering liberal progressive Democrat. Never. I may despise and hold in contempt RINOs. But I utterly loathe to the depth of my being the liberal progressive Democratic Party.

  • I’m voting with Paul Primavera!

    The C.C.C. #2322 – 2323 is enough for me. It is a very poor choice to continue to think it’s okay to vote for a candidate that has difficulties prioritizing the gravest injustices in our land. If the murder of the innocents is not at the top of the list, well then we will continue to see the destruction of an America not worthy of Gods grace. Our foundations are crumbling because of the blood of the innocents.

  • I never vote for any Democrat. Even if they are pro-life, how can they belong to an organization that is not? It’s like belonging to the Mafia being okay so long as you don’t whack anyone yourself.

  • Further to my previous comment:

    Some commentators [like Miller here] still identify Catholics as an important swing group, but the figures don’t quite show it. According to the Pew Forum, in 2000 Gore got 50 percent of the Catholic vote and Bush 47–while the total for all voters was Gore at 48.4 percent and Bush at 47.9. In 2004 Bush defeated Kerry 52 to 47 percent among Catholics, and 51 to 48 among all voters. In 2008 Obama beat McCain 54 to 45 percent among Catholics, and 53 to 46 in the general population. These differences are small, and they suggest, if anything, that Catholics weren’t swinging elections; they were being swung by elections–moving a fraction more than other groups toward the national choice [bold emphasis added, italics original]. But even that effect disappeared in the 2012 election, when 50 percent of Catholics voted for Obama and 48 percent for Romney, basically matching the nation’s popular vote
    The major role–perhaps the only role– that Catholicism [as distinct from Catholic voters] genuinely played on the American stage is as a source of the vocabulary for phrasing moral issues. Sanctity of life, just war theory, natural law, dignity of the person: It became the single viable vocabulary for expressing moral concepts in a secular space. [….] [I]t was the genius of a handful of writers–laymen mostly, from Michael Novak to Robert George– to take what, circa 1959, was a liberal Catholic idea and turn it into a mainstay of contemporary coservatism. The horrifed fascination of, say, the New York Times with all things Catholic isn’t caused by worry about the religious authority of bishops or some monolithic Catholic voting bloc. It concerns the political Left’s desire to discredit Catholicism as an influence on secular thought[emph. added].
    Catholic voters in 2012 broke the way the rest of the nation broke: Hispanic Catholics in one direction, white ethnic Catholics in another; churchgoing Catholics trending one way, non-churchgoing Catholics a different way. Just drop the word Catholic, and you have areasonable idea where their votes went [bold emph. added] But the vocabulary of Catholocism, that way of bringing religiously grounded moral claims into the public square, and doing so nonreligiously, still somehow remains a force in American public life–incomplete and, I argue, declining, but nonetheless real. (Joseph Bottum (2014) An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America, 191-93.)

  • Dittos PWP

  • but the guy who broke the Catholic voting bloc was himself a Catholic –but an advisor to the McGovern campaign and good servant of the Democrat party first.

    There was no such person. What would have broken any voting bloc was the loss of a sense of distinction between the elements thereof and the rest of the population. You have the abolition of customary devotions (e.g. Friday abstention), the Novus Ordo, Marty Haugen, the priestly rebellion over celibacy and Humanae Vitae, and the implosion of the religious orders (and the knock-on effects of same) to thank for that.

  • And, of course, the teaching authority of bishops has been ruined because those bishops are, taken collectively, no longer trustworthy. Individual bishops may be conscientious, but it is difficult for the layman to see that as anything other than a personal predilection. Also, the better bishops often do little to clean up er the lousy bishops. Manifest investment by Bp. Robert Cunningham in liturgical renewal during his first 40 months in his see = nil.

  • There was no such person

    Then Fred Dutton is a non-Person (article behind a pay-wall, alas).

    link to amazon download if you really want to read the article but don’t want to subscribe to Commonweal

  • Catholic voters are the only reason Obama was elected twice. Catholic Democrats are the only reason Democrats get elected. They will have to answer to Jesus when he returns. The unfortunate thing is those Catholic Democrats don’t realize they are the only reason the murder of unborn babies remains the law of the land after 42 years, contrary to those Catholics saying they believe God is the giver of life. They give the Democratic Party the electoral power to attack God in this life. They will tell Jesus they were helping to care for the poor with their votes, but Jesus never directed his disciples to get Julius Caesar, i.e., government, to care for the poor, he directed them to care for the poor themselves. So, those Catholics who line up with the left in life will find themselves ordered to line up on Jesus’ left side with all the other goats when he returns to “judge the nations’ and they will hear those fateful words, “Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Mt 25; 41)

    They have time to make amends by leaving the Democratic Party and not vote for it again until the party repents and seeks forgiveness, which it will never do. They don’t have to join the opposing party which they detest, just stop endorsing and supporting the Democratic Party which proved its opposition to God in this famous voice vote in the 2012 National Democratic Party convention. It is a classic!

  • Voting for a pro-choice candidate under the belief that you are “voting” for something else may somehow make you feel like you did’nt vote for abortion, but the end result is still the voted to kill Our Lords children.

  • Couldn’t agree more. You either vote for the candidate from the Holocaust promoting party or you vote for someone else. Now, if you can justify a vote for the former on a prudential basis, perhaps your conscience needs to be better formed.

  • Catholic voters are the only reason Obama was elected twice.

    Blacks and unmarried women might disagree with you.

  • It’s interesting to note that many Catholic’s are switching to voting Republican. While the Democrats are often blamed for allowing abortion and homosexuality into the United, it’s worth noting that many Republican politicians have been pro choice. The Republican party are often seen as the party of God and the family, but many Democrat politicians have spoken with the same vision. Perhaps an example of a Christian vision in politics was the setting up of the National Health Service in Britain and was supported by King George.

  • “Perhaps an example of a Christian vision in politics was the setting up of the National Health Service in Britain and was supported by King George.”
    It is NOT the job of govt to dispense health care from the teat of the public treasury. The command to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, care for the sick, visit the imprisoned and welcome the alien is given to us Christians. Every time we evade our responsibility and abdicate our accountability to care for the sick onto Caesar, we sacrifice on the godless altar of political expediency our citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven and our adoption as children of God.
    “…it’s worth noting that many Republican politicians have been pro choice.”
    Some Republicans are pro-choice. Some Republicans are pro-gay marriage. They are called RINOs – Republicans In Name Only. The platform of the GOP is different. Here is what that platform says about marriage:
    “Preserving and Protecting Traditional Marriage: The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.”
    And here is what that platform says about protecting individual conscience opposed to abortion:
    “Protecting Individual Conscience in Healthcare: No healthcare professional or organization should ever be required to perform, provide for, withhold, or refer for a medical service against their conscience. This is especially true of the religious organizations which deliver a major portion of America’s healthcare, a service rooted in the charity of faith communities. We do not believe, however, that healthcare providers should be allowed to withhold services because the healthcare provider believes the patient’s life is not worth living. We support the ability of all organizations to provide, purchase, or enroll in healthcare coverage consistent with their religious, moral or ethical convictions without discrimination or penalty. We likewise support the right of parents to consent to medical treatment for their children, including mental health treatment, drug treatment, and treatment involving pregnancy, contraceptives and abortion. We urge enactment of pending legislation that would require parental consent to transport girls across state lines for abortions.”
    The Democratic Party on the other hand is utterly and completely evil, openly supporting the foul of sexual perversions as marriage, and openly advocating the murder of innocent unborn babies right up to the moment of birth. To be or support the Democrats is to willingly cooperate with grave evil. To support Republicans may involve holding one’s nose against the stench, but at least one’s conscience will be clear.

  • “The Democratic Party on the other hand is utterly and completely evil, openly supporting the foul of sexual perversions as marriage, and openly advocating the murder of innocent unborn babies right up to the moment of birth. To be or support the Democrats is to willingly cooperate with grave evil. To support Republicans may involve holding one’s nose against the stench, but at least one’s conscience will be clear”.

    My good friend you have made a number of valid points and I thank you for the clarity you have written them. The only thing is I feel calling the Democrat’s evil is a little judgmental and I am not a supporter of the Democrat’s. As for the murder of innocent unborn babies right up to the moment of birth, is something I have always had a problem with even when I once considered myself an Anarchist. As someone who has Autism and worked many years caring for individuals with Intellectual Disabilities, I believe all individuals have a right to live on this world. Discovering I was Autistic recently has made my pro life views stronger.
    God bless

  • Then Fred Dutton is a non-Person

    Sorry, Fred Dutton did not and does not move eight-digit populations of voters. No one does.

  • “The only thing is I feel calling the Democrat’s evil is a little judgmental…”
    Correct. 1 Corinthians 6:2-3 states:
    Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!”
    Then just a little later verses 9 and 10 state:
    “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
    And Jesus said in Matthew 7:16-17:
    “You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit.”
    Everyone always seems to remember Matthew 7:1-4 about not judging lest we be judged, but then promptly ignores the rest.

  • James and Paul, you have taken the conversation around an interesting corner, that intersection of Who am I to Judge & Know them by their Works. I find it difficult to pontificate on a matter with which I somewhat struggle to fully understand but here’s my tentative take on it. If I love my neighbor, I place a kind interpretation on the state of the person’s conscience and leave that judgment to Christ. I won’t be called to judge anyone until that last great day in the “hereafter”. Concerning the “here-for” is another matter. Here we need to discern the works and fruits of people and human organizations. We need to be both gentle as doves and wise as serpents.
    So after many years of observing the Democratic Party, I may conclude that it is “effectively” the most evil organization in the country. The Communist Party is effectively less evil due to the miniscule influence it has.
    The Democrats often carry a majority of the electorate down the wide road to destruction. By the same token, I may conclude that the Republican Party is merely mediocre.

  • Voting for a pro -abort republican is just as bad as voting for a pro-abort democrat. I don’t know how remote guilt by remote participation can be, but giving any assent to someone far enough off their nut to be pro abortion is just not prudential.
    But the depths! How low can people go! of both parties. The idea that you can be conservative about economics and that is all. Making the Lie true- “It’s the economy, stupid”
    Common sense is not common enough to form a bloc.

  • Anzlyne,
    You are correct. However, many Katholycks use what you indicated – that there are pro-abortion Republicans – as justification to vote for Democrats under the pretext that Republicans are no better. However, the fact of the matter is that most Republicans are pro-life and pro-sanctity of marriage whereas most Democrats are anti-life and anti-sanctity of marriage. Furthermore, the Platform of the Republican Party is superior to the Platform of the Democratic Party. Yes, far too many Republicans are hypocrites and traitors to the cause of Republicanism. But the overwhelming majority of Democrats are purely evil.
    As for me, I defer to what the Psalmist wrote so long ago:
    “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help.” Psalm 146:3

  • Paul Primavera: ditto and ditto and ditto. The word is getting out-difficult as it is to spread-that it is a mortal sin for a Catholic with a wellformed conscience to vote for any Democrat at any level. This Party Of Death [a la Card. Burke] has not only promoted abortion and tax money payment for abortion, but it is the main purveyor or RETA – racial eugenic targeted abortion. Since Roe, tens of millions dead, but over 55% are minority babies – and it is the Democrats/Deathocrats who have made this national policy. Over 17,000,000 less Black voters; over 12,000,000 less Hispanic voters – this kind of holocaust numbers are no accident. at site:, Check out my Virtuous Citizenship 2014. And this destruction of the family is not lost on Hispanic Americans who love family. The Democrat may be able to hold a goodly number of priests and bishiops in lock step, but the sensus fidelium is beginning to relfect the truth. Guy McClung, San Antonio

  • I agree with you both. I was just warning about pro-abort republicans. We have to be careful of individuals as well as party. Especially at primary time.

  • You’re warning is well said, Anzlyne. People should review the stance of candidates on the issues. Here is a list of Presidential candidates and their position on abortion. Again, most Democrats are pro-death and most Republicans are pro-life:

  • We, a small group at the nursing home, recite the Holy Rosary on Tuesdays.
    Our intention was for St. Patrick to drive the snakes out of those who seek public service positions in 2016.

    Then this reading came to light.

    John xiv 16,17 ; “And I shall ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever. The Spirit of truth, whom ( the world cannot receive,) because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him: because he shall abide with you: and shall be in you.”

    So it’s the complete blindness of the world that knows not the truth, hence the disrespect for human life. You, the ones that abide in truth, must continue to pray fast and offer yourselves as examples of truth so the blind may come to see the truth for themselves.

    Pray for the great conversion. Vote as sons and daughters of God. Lead the blind.

  • Describing Democrat-voting Catholics is a complicated issue.
    Catholic immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries became faithful Democrats. They lived on the East Coast between Boston and Baltimore and in a “belt” that stretched from Buffalo to Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. They were Irish, Italians, Germans and from Slavic parts of Europe that were carved up among Lutheran Prussia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Russia.

    As the Republican Party of the day enacted Blaine Amendments in state after state and wanted immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe shut off, the immigrants of the day saw the GOP as someone who hated them.

    This Democrat Party loyalty passed from generation to generation. Today there are countless lapsed East Coast and Rust Belt Catholics in name only who rarely or never go to Mass but hold that inherited Democrat Party loyalty as if it were their religion. I can’t tell my 74 year old mother anything about politics as she reverts to what she learned in the Monongahela Valley in the 1940s and 1950s.

    Ted Kennedy, more than any other Democrat, was responsible for the Democrats being the abortionist party and he found clergy in Massachusetts who gave him cover for it. You can look it up.

    The USCCB has NEVER taken up the battle to end abortion with the Democrat PARTY. The Dems throw them a few bucks to fund Catholic Charities and this keeps the USCCB quiet.

    Latino Catholics do what most immigrant groups do – gravitate to the Donkey Party. They are usually poor and the Donkeys are right there to give ’em what they want in exchange for votes. The same principle works for the Donkeys and blacks.

    Both American parties have had their disgraceful bunch but the Donkeys have had far more of them. The Donkeys can take their abortion, their homosexuality, their atheism, their class warfare and their suck-up attitudes to Islamic terrorism, Communists and human rights abusers and shove it. I consider the Donkeys not to be a political party in this day and age but organized crime. They rig elections. Their judges overturn elections and make their own laws. Their presidents (as of late) have no regard for the Constitution or middle class taxpayers. Going back 70+ years, FDR was a liar, a habitual adulterer and he sold Poland down the river to placate Stalin. JFK was another who couldn’t keep it in his pants and allowed Castro to consolidate power in Cuba.

    I don’t like Republicans but the Donkeys make me sick.

  • Clinton- I much agree about defining terms being a very important first step. When they say “Catholic,” most people hear it as “people who are observant and practicing,” but when someone is asked, it’s more often “well, my parents are Catholic and when we visited grandma when I was a kid we ate tuna casserole on Friday.”
    When even the observant are offered such sadly lacking teaching– have I complained lately about total strangers in Church asking me when I’ll get sterilized? And not when the kids have been obnoxious?– it’s hardly surprising that those who are more of the world put more focus on the world.
    The Dem’s problem is, they keep picking an smaller and smaller area, and alienating their whole “nice” specialization. (Which means that if they attack someone, they make sure to attack their reputation, too.)

  • @Eric; “Blacks and unmarried women might disagree with you. ”

    Catholics are the largest single group in the Democratic Party. Their votes for Obama were twice his margin of victory. “Blacks and unmarried woman” are not on record as saying they believe God is the giver of life; nor are they praying the Our Father standing in front of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist during Mass, praying the only prayer Jesus ever taught us in which we pray for “God’s will be done on earth….” Is it God’s will that he creates life for it to be aborted? Catholic Democrats are the only group in the Democratic Party that professes to believe in God as the creator of life and prays for his “will to be done on earth” in contradiction to what the Democratic party believes and acts on keeping abortion-on-demand the law-of-the-land.” Therefore, Catholics give the Democratic Party the power to keep abortion legal. Those Catholics, including the clergy will find themselves being told to stand on the left side of Jesus along with all the other “goats” when he returns to judge “the nations.”

  • Catholics do not equal “Catholic Democrats” Obama’s margin among Catholics in ’08 was +9%, 2 points greater than amongst the general population. In ’12 it was +2%, 2 points less than amongst the general population, according to Wikipedia

    According to the same source, Obama’s margin over Romney among unmarried women was 36 points, and among blacks, 87 points. Women were 53% of the electorate, blacks 13%, Catholics 25%.

    I’m still going to agree with Bottum conclusion that there is no longer a voting block that is per se Catholic.

    I’d love to be able to drill down into those exit polls, and find out how the Catholic vote breaks down along racial/ethinic lines, as well as by income and geographic region, but I haven’t done any work along those lines since the Clinton administration (first term).

  • from another comment — >”Catholic voters are the only reason Obama was elected twice.” —

    My comment –> Remember it was Non-White Catholic voters who voted for him. You’ve got to wonder why the hierarchy and the gov’t. is so anti-white Catholic. For some both groups believe the illegal alien is the future of the church and the nation. However the Non-White Catholic voting patterns seem to indicate that the Non-White Catholics may be voting to abort and gay- marriage themselves [and the Church] out of existence in the USA. That being said, and having been a pro-life voter since I was first eligible to vote in 1980, I’m pretty fed and up disgusted with the Republicans’ lack of performance on moral issues. They seem to do just enough to keep the pro-life vote, while hanging onto their country-club pro-choice membership.

  • Pingback: We Are Synthetic Children & Agree with Dolce & Gabbana
  • supporting legal abortion was the first democrat decision that began to alienate catholics from the party. more recently, the democrat party’s decision to use the federal government and some state governments’ monopoly on the use of force against catholics has caused the alienation to grow.

    the democrat party using secular governments’ monopoly on force to condemn and punish catholics who only want to exercise their freedom of religion is becoming more widely known all the time. it is obvious to those who pay attention, but many Americans, catholic and non-Catholic do not take time to stay aware of societal issues and our governments’ responses to those issues.

    for example, the democrat party’s use of the federal government to try to force its faith, there is no evidence, that artificial contraception is good on catholics is becoming more widely known among catholics. the democrat party’s belief in the goodness of sexual perversion and the use of governmental force to punish catholics who do not have that democratic party belief is becoming more widely known.

    the democrat party’s belief that a child’s right to both a mother and a father is another belief that many catholics reject once they learn of it and how real the democrat’s attempt to attack innocent children is.

    finally, the democrat party’s belief that the unique relationship between men and women is prohibited by the law from being recognized by secular government’s will add to the exodus from the democrat party of everyone who is rational and strong.

  • The Left has no substance or Truth upon which to base one’s life and civil rights.


Tuesday, February 3, AD 2015



John Judis  is a man of the Left, but he is an honest man of the Left.  After the election of Obama he predicted an emerging Democrat majority.  In a first rate piece of analysis in The National Journal, here is what he thinks now:


After the 2008 election, I thought Obama could create an enduring Democratic majority by responding aggressively to the Great Recession in the same way that Franklin Roosevelt had responded in 1933 to the Great Depression. Obama, I believed, would finally bury the Reagan Republican majority of 1980 and inaugurate a new period of Democratic domination.

In retrospect, that analogy was clearly flawed. Roosevelt took power after four years of the Great Depression, with Republicans and business thoroughly discredited, and with the public (who lacked any safety net) ready to try virtually anything to revive the economy. Obama’s situation was very different. Business was still powerful enough to threaten him if he went too far in trying to tame it. Much of the middle class and working class were still employed, and they saw Obama’s stimulus program—which was utterly necessary to stem the Great Recession—as an expansion of government at their expense.

In the wake of the dramatic gains Republicans have made during Obama’s presidency, I now read the history of the last 80 years much differently. The period of New Deal Democratic ascendancy from 1933 to about 1968 may well prove to have been what historians Jefferson Cowie and Nick Salvatore have called the “long exception” in American politics. It was a period when Americans, panicked about the Depression, put on hold their historic aversion to aggressive government economic intervention, when the middle and bottom of the American economic pyramid united against the top, and when labor unions could claim the loyalty of a third of American workers. That era suffered fatal fissures in 1968 and finally came to a close with Reagan’s landslide in 1980.

It now appears that, in some form, the Republican era which began in 1980 is still with us. Reagan Republicanism—rooted in the long-standing American distrust of government, but perhaps with its roughest theocratic and insurrectionary edges sanded off for a national audience—is still the default position of many of those Americans who regularly go to the polls. It can be effectively challenged when Republicans become identified with economic mismanagement or with military defeat. But after the memory of such disasters has faded, the GOP coalition has reemerged—surprisingly intact and ready for battle.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Parties

  • The “stimulus” was presented as an exercise in Keynesian economics. In truth it was a political payoff. It wan’t needed.

    I think Judis is not quite that honest. His politics are a failure in their attempt to create utopia. His politics do succeed in destruction.

  • I am not surprised PF that a Leftist like JUdis does not agree with me on policy. What is refreshing is that he had the honesty to pull back a theory about electoral realignment he formulated when the theory did not accord with reality.

  • As always, Mr. McClarey, I defer to your judgment.

    I can live with the fact that there are people with whom I disagree. I leave ’em alone and want no less from them.

    I do see things differently from Mr. Judis in that the Democrat elite is made up of corporate bigshots of all facets of the economy. Obumbler insider Penny Pritzker is a heir to the Hyatt hotel chain. Dick Simon is the biggest owner and operator of malls in the US and is – or was – a big Obumbler supporter. Judis was inferring that he thought Obama would go after corporations. Well, he has gone after those he doesn’t like – coal, for one.

    Mr. Judis overlooked something very important. The Democrats overreach when they get political power. The banking/mortgage/Great Recession fiasco can be laid at the feet of the Democrats. Carter started the political pressure to get banks to loan mortgage money to people who could not afford them. Clinton stepped it up big time. Barney Frank was way too influential in the subsequent mess and the GOP didn’t stop it. Cheap money thanks to Greenspan after 9/11 and banks diving into subprimes along with FNMA precipitated the mess. Most people blamed Bush. It was easier.

    Obumblercare is another overreach. It may go down in flames yet.

  • A “first rate piece of analysis”? Hardly

    “Business was still powerful enough to threaten him if he went too far in trying to tame it.”
    Not true. I’ve worked in two major corporations on the Fortune 50. Believe me, between the IRS, SEC, DoD, DoL, SSA, HIPAA, Sarbanes-Oxkey, Dodd-Frank, etc., etc., they are very tame.

    “Obama’s stimulus program—which was utterly necessary to stem the Great Recession”
    Necessary? Not by any realistic metric. Reagan’s policies would have stopped it in six months – and I write that as a very late comer to his outlook.

    “Reagan Republicanism—rooted in the long-standing American distrust of government, but perhaps with its roughest theocratic and insurrectionary edges sanded off for a national audience”
    What theocratic edges? There hasn’t been an attempt at a theocracy in this country since the Massachusetts Bay colony. Americans who vote their religiously informed consciences support pluralism as much as those who have none, perhaps more so. It is an act of stereotyping to maintain otherwise.

    OK, the paragraph on the ‘Great Exception’ in American politics is on the mark. The core argument is correct. But the writer in his need to maintain his liberal bona fides throws so much slop to his liberal audience that he brings into question his basic analytical and observational skills.

  • “The core argument is correct.”

    Which is what I was addressing. His theory about electoral alignment in favor of the Democrats is what he was taking back, and such a public admission of being wrong takes some fortitude to do. It is more impressive in that his admission is obviously not a result of any ideological conversion but rather through new facts coming forward that countered what he thought would happen based on his theory.

  • “It is more impressive in that his admission is obviously not a result of any ideological conversion but rather through new facts coming forward that countered what he thought would happen based on his theory.”
    True. I wonder what other new facts are needed to counter the rest of his slop? Uh, wait, they are already out there in the public domain. He just has to look.

  • I’ve said for years to the ignorant that will listen ….. Obama’s biggest mistake … and he continues to do so (economically) …. was to create such confusion and unpredictability into the market (mostly via obamacare) … that this paralyzed companies into not investing in their business and people due to a lack in the ability to forecast and plan. They sat on funds and earnings, waiting … waiting for the dust to settle. The recession would have been over far sooner given a more stable, predictable future.

  • “enduring Democratic majority” “a new period of Democratic domination”
    Since the democratic party now seems to be about constantly progressing— on the rapid trajectory to human utopia, it makes me wonder what governmental/social innovations would have awaited us had he been correct. 🙁 How far left could a society actually go and endure with any identifiable structure?

Surprise! The Democrat Party Plays the Race Card!

Wednesday, October 22, AD 2014




“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.


Continue reading...

4 Responses to Surprise! The Democrat Party Plays the Race Card!

Democrats and the Race Card

Tuesday, September 30, AD 2014


Civil Rights

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.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Democrats and the Race Card

  • I do believe it was Lyndon Baines Johnson who said, “I’ll have these niggers voting Democratic for 200 years.”

  • Rahm Emanuel Eric Holder and Badrock Obama have shown Americans what the “Chicago Way” is all about. They are the biggest meanest racist that have ever entered into politics.

    Lyndon was a prophet.

  • The differences in the parties is becoming less over time. Both spend beyond their means and refuse to protect life. A third party is not the answer either. For now, it is a game to see how long the American people will remain duped. Meanwhile, our sons and daughters will have less opportunity except for military service. Some who choose this path will be sent to a strange land in the middle east and may never return. The machine grinds on focused on taxes and soldiers. This was the state of Rome before the fall.

  • “and refuse to protect life”

    Untrue. But for the Democrat party legal abortion in this country would be a thing of the past.
    As for Rome, the Republic fought far greater wars than the Empire and imposed far heavier burdens on the Roman cititzens due to the wars, both in taxes and military service. In the later Empire the military forces were numerically less, but they were staffed by barbarian mercenaries, expensive and unreliable, the citizens of Rome long having lost their taste for military service. When people forget how to fight, or lose their willingness to do so to protect their countries, then they are headed for foreign conquest.

  • Don, if you are waiting for republicans to reverse abortion on demand, good luck. The neo-conservative movement in the party has other priorities. Lip service is all that is given to the protection of life. Many voters have been hoping in vain for decades now. Reagan even promised change and swung a block of catholic voters over. The promises were evidently empty. Hoodwinked again!

  • Rubbish Rick. I assume you are bone ignorant of the hundreds of pro-life laws passed by state legislatures since the Republicans took control of them in 2010.

    It is the Democrats who view abortion as a sacrament and who fight tooth and nail for it. Next time you comment here, actually research a subject before you bother typing worthless tripe in the comboxes.

  • Pacem, Don and Rick,
    The battleground of the US abortion horror is the federal judiciary. It must be filled with pro-life appointees. Enter peace and justice dem caths (democrat first, catholic somewhere down the deceit chart). As long as US Senate Dems have sufficient votes (What 34 or ?), they have blocked each and every GOP pro-ilfe (extremist!, women’s health!) judiciary appointment. And, when (far too long) the murderous dems controlled the WH and senate, they filled the courts with baby-murderers.
    You twice elected a man as president who had no experience at anything. Here are Obama’s methods: Claim ignorance. Blame subordinates. You are a racist!

    Your half-baked ( you tip your hand with buzz words like “neo-con”) contentions are no more logical than the race card. It appears as if you are one of those that believes: throw against the “wall” a suffiecient number of clots of spucatum tauri and some of it will stick.
    Bless your heart. and thanks for helping to wreck America!

  • Pacem indeed!

    When Newt had control of the House of Representatives, he had a chance to promote pro-life causes. These causes took a back seat to other priorities, specifically those of the neoconservative movement.
    Reagan promised catholic voters action on the abortion issue. This evaporated after he was elected. Look at who he appointed to the supreme court if you need more proof of the points I am making. I am happy to supply you with sound research on the topic.
    I admire your zeal for the pro-life cause but you need to see the truth of the matter before real progress can be made. Both parties care a whit about this issue. One is promoting total moral chaos and the other is promoting total war in the middle east with your tax dollars and more debt. Both usurers and sodomites are in the same circle of Dante’s inferno. This describes the political parties aptly I believe.

  • “When Newt had control of the House of Representatives, he had a chance to promote pro-life causes.”
    Which the Republicans did, and which Bill Clinton vetoed:

    “Reagan promised catholic voters action on the abortion issue.”

    And he kept that promise. Reagan constantly pushed pro-life legislation despite the fact that he never had a Congress controlled by the Republican. In 1984 he wrote abortion and the conscience of the nation:

    “I am happy to supply you with sound research on the topic.”

    If you were a faithful reader of this blog you would realize just how laughable that offer is. Reagan made three Supreme Court appointments: the first was Sandra Day O’Connor who voted pro-life as long as Reagan was in office; Antonin Scalia who has led the fight against Roe on the Supreme Court; his third pick was Judge Robert Bork, who would have supplied the fifth vote to over turn Roe. His nomination was defeated in the Senate by the Democrats led by Ted Kennedy. His second nominee Douglas H. Ginsburg swiftly withdrew due to questions about marijuana use. The third nominee Anthony Kennedy got through the Senate. His voting record on abortion has been mixed. Upholding Roe but also upholding various restrictions on abortion, including the partial birth abortion ban.

    Your argument that there is no difference between the parties on abortion is rubbish.

  • Rick, I think you are largely right about Newt, but wrong about Reagan. He did everything in his power to assist the pro-life cause, including appointing federal judges who due diligence suggested would be faithful to the constitution and therefore hostile to Roe. That is not a predictable process, but he did well overall but disappointed at the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, conservative jurists tend to give greater weight to the doctrine of stare decisis than their liberal counterparts, making reversals of decided cases more difficult, and Reagan appointees O’Connor and Kennedy were influenced by that. That was not true of Scalia and would not have been true of Bork, both of whom were already on record as being critical of Roe (O’Connor and Kennedy were more circumspect in their opinions, which is common among judges). Just a lazy effort at examining Reagan’s actual actions on abortion (see executive orders and foreign policy decisions, the two areas he actually had power over) demonstrates that his opposition to abortion was genuine.
    And your description of political parties is the same tiresome claptrap that one hears from the pure and uninvolved. The truth is that political parties are by nature big tents composed of uneasy coalitions. The GOP includes many who are passionately pro-life and even more who are uneasy about abortion but view it as a secondary issue to the economy and national security. The Dems include many who view abortion as akin to a Sacrament and even more who are uneasy but want to preserve the option. As Don had pointed out in the past, the abolitionists of Lincoln’s era formed similar imperfect alliances within the GOP, but those alliances were not evidence of a lack of passion or sincerity. Even Lincoln, as much as he abhorred slavery, would have tolerated it indefinitely in necessary to preserve the union.
    Yes, some Republican candidates are indifferent to abortion but simply check the right boxes to win primaries; some are sincerely pro-life and even lose elections because if it. The bottom line is that for the most part the party does a pretty good job given the legal and political constraints (have you even followed what’s going on in Texas?). But because the Supreme Court cheated in Roe, we’re all stuck at playing small ball. It is exceedingly difficult to get a reliably anti-Roe judge appointed to the High Court, and gauging such reliability is perilous given that it is widely understood to be inappropriate for judges to signal in advance how they’ll rule on matters likely to come before them.

  • Like I said in the beginning, America will remain duped for a long time to come. It is by design so do not feel bad about it. The machine grinds on seeking only taxes and soldiers. Consider Rick Santorum who works for the American Enterprise Institute now. He is supposed to be a solid catholic. He gave a speech at ND after he left office that had one theme – bomb Iran. He could have focused on the holocaust here in the USA – infanticide. But he new gets his $ from the AEI. Connect the dots and it should start becoming clear. These virtuous republicans are puppets of the movement mentioned earlier.

    To be fair, you might see significant pro-life legislation in our lifetimes. This is simply due to the opposition not reproducing. It has little to do with the republican party.

  • “He is supposed to be a solid catholic. He gave a speech at ND after he left office that had one theme – bomb Iran. He could have focused on the holocaust here in the USA – infanticide.”

    You don’t know much about Santorum do you? When he was in the Senate his major focuses were the fight against abortion and the threat posed by Iran. The video below is from 2006:

The Party of Abortion Waves the Dead Fetus For 2014

Wednesday, July 16, AD 2014

Official-Seal-of-the-Democrat-Party 2


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:

Continue reading...

8 Responses to The Party of Abortion Waves the Dead Fetus For 2014

  • Israel and Judah suffered grievously for sacrificing their children to Molech. Sadly, when God allowed Assyria and Babylon to deport the Israelites and Judahites respectively, He made no differentiation on who was to be deported: Jews faithful to the Mosaic Law or Jews worshipping Molech. The punishment was as indiscriminate as the murder of babies had been.

  • So many young women do not know that hormonal contraceptives and abortion cause breast cancer. They remain unaware of the findings in 2005 of the World Health Organization and those in 2006 of the Mayo Clinic which unequivocally confirm the cancer risk.
    Educating young women is the best way to defeat this reprehensible piece of legislation which, if passed, would irreparably injure women.

  • I sincerely believe that if the Chinese suddenly took control and abolished every protection of right to liberty and property, but declared that any and all sex is legal, with free and on-demand contraception and abortion, at least half of the Democrat party would be OK with it.

  • Why is the Democrat party targeting women?

  • Bear with me. I must exhibit how the government is usurping, taking over and removing citizen heirs to America.
    Of the 923 Executive Orders written by Obama, (Did you believe Obama was vacationing in Hawaii?) this one, 11921 actually disables Congress. Who will enable Congress once Obama has shut Congress down?
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.
    In addition, June 9, 2011, Executive Order 13575 Rural Councils allows the government agents to come onto private farms and confiscate them if the agent does not like the way the farm is being run, or the government may not like the owner of the farm.
    The Fifth Amendment, the takings clause allows eminent domain, the taking of private property for public use with just compensation. Public use became public purposes without the change having been ratified by three quarters of the states. Public purposes has now become complete usurpation of private property at the whim of government without just compensation. Very few people knew of this because of Weinergate.
    Obama took control of all other executive orders, including Clinton’s Executive Order taking of all public lands and waterways. Very few people knew this because of Monicagate. It was adultery strategically placed to allay the people’s fear of totalitarianism.
    Government lands (Alaska, Louisiana, Lewis and Clark) are bought and paid for and regulated with tax dollars. All free lands and waterways are owned in joint and common tenancy by each and every citizen. You own it all and I own it all.
    See INDWELLERS , Pacific Justice Institute won the case for the indwellers when the government began evicting people living in government parks. Clive Bundy is another victim of government takeover.
    The Democratic Party and Planned Parenthood has never proved that the newly begotten human being does not, cannot, or will not think when brought into existence. This health law does not argue that the human being is not our constitutional posterity, the natural and rightful heir to the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
    The law argues that anyone can abort the heir without due process of law. Due process of law is the constitutional right of every human being. Abortion must be free, safe and legal only after “due process of law” for each individual substance of a rational nature, the human being in existence, duty bound of each and every citizen. The mother’s death must be imminent to inflict the death penalty upon our heir, our constitutional posterity to whom “due process of law” is due.
    “Due process of law” is the creative expression of Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice. Vision to America is also a contributor. Read the other 922 Executive Orders.
    Abort the Democratic Party.

  • That seal is so perfect! It appears to be inspired by a Frank Frazetta painting of Conan the Barbarian.

  • GH: That raises a personal sore point.

    One of the notorious injustices in my lifetime is that Schwarzenegger did not win an Oscar for the movie, “Conan the Barbarian.”

  • At least, in the UK and France, Pro-Life campaigners can insist that here is no “right to an abortion,” enshrined in law and can point to abuses of the existing law as grounds for incremental reform.

    Thus, in France, the first article of the Veil Law ((Law No. 75-17 of January 1975, concerning the Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy) declares, “The law guarantees respect for every human being from the outset of life. There shall be no derogation from this principle except in cases of necessity and under the conditions laid down by this Law.” Here we have the right to life clearly affirmed, however qualified.

    In Scotland, in the absence of judicial precedents, the common law position had been laid down by the text-book writers. Macdonald (1867) says “The act must be done with a special felonious intent, for it is in some cases necessary to cause abortion.” As to when it might be “necessary,” the learned author does not specify. Anderson (1892) says that a medical practitioner who procures an abortion, “in good faith, for therapeutic reasons, according to reputable medical practice” does not act feloniously. Again, Anderson does not discuss the “therapeutic reasons” that would justify an abortion.

    The practice of the Crown Office (the prosecuting authority) was (1) an unqualified abortionist was always prosecuted (2) the Crown Office would not challenge the clinical judgment of a salaried consultant or registrar in a public hospital performing an abortion on an NHS patient; gratuity was seen as a sufficient guarantee of good faith (3) an abortion performed by a doctor in private practice would be referred to two medical referees, one of whom was always the Regius Professor of Midwifery at one of the university teaching hospitals. The Abortion Act 1967 can be seen as simply placing the existing Scottish law on a statutory basis.

    However the law may be applied in practice, it provides a clear legal justification for those combating its abuse.

Pro-aborts and the Race Card

Friday, March 7, AD 2014

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 “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:

Although whites outnumber blacks in Mississippi by nearly 2-to-1, 71.67% of the babies aborted in Mississippi are black, while 26.6% are white.

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.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Pro-aborts and the Race Card

  • “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
    Our Creator creates a rational, immortal soul at the beginning of life for each and every human being. The state gives the person citizenship and a tax bill at birth, an horrendous tax bill at that, at birth. Our Creator endows civil rights and sovereign personhood at conception, virginity and legal and moral innocence, the standard of Justice for all nations to each and every newly begotten child.
    My questions to Alvin Holmes are: Did our Creator create a white man’s soul more innocent than a black man’s soul? Is the white man’s soul created more equal than a black man’s soul? By what Justice is a black man’s soul aborted? By what Justice are the white men’s souls accused of prejudice? By what right does Alvin Holmes take tax money for only representing his own opinion?

  • Oh, Holmes. You claim white people would abort a mixed race baby. What’s your point? Are you saying whites sometimes do it too so it s all right? Lame. Look at the numbers! Young black women and children are being attacked and not by the people trying to stop legal abortions.

  • Pingback: Disney Ends Boy Scout Money Due 2 Homosexual Policy - God & Caesar
  • From Chapter I of “Pivot of Civiliztion” by Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood:
    “But even when most under the spell of the new vision [ . . . a new world, of a proletarian world emancipated, a Utopian world . . .,] the sight of the overburdened wives of the strikers, with their puny babies and their broods of under-fed children, made us stop and think of a neglected factor in the march toward our earthly paradise. It was well enough to ask the poor men workers to carry on the battle against economic injustice. But what results could be expected when they were forced in addition to carry the burden of their ever-growing families? This question loomed large to those of us who came into intimate contact with the women and children. We saw that in the final analysis the real burden of economic and industrial warfare was thrust upon the frail, all-too-frail shoulders of the children, the very babies—the coming generation. In their wan faces, in their undernourished bodies, would be indelibly written the bitter defeat of their parents.”
    “The lack of balance between the birth-rate of the “unfit” and the “fit,” admittedly the greatest present menace to the civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. The example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit, and therefore less fertile, parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem to-day is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon American society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupid, cruel sentimentalism.
    To effect the salvation of the generations of the future—nay, of the generations of to-day—our greatest need, first of all, is the ability to face the situation without flinching; to cooperate in the formation of a code of sexual ethics based upon a thorough biological and psychological understanding of human nature; and then to answer the questions and the needs of the people with all the intelligence and honesty at our command. If we can summon the bravery to do this, we shall best be serving the pivotal interests of civilization.
    To conclude this introduction: my initiation, as I have confessed, was primarily an emotional one. My interest in Birth Control was awakened by experience. Research and investigation have followed. Our effort has been to raise our program from the plane of the emotional to the plane of the scientific. Any social progress, it is my belief, must purge itself of sentimentalism and pass through the crucible of science. We are willing to submit Birth Control to this test. It is part of the purpose of this book to appeal to the scientist for aid, to arouse that interest which will result in widespread research and investigation. I believe that my personal experience with this idea must be that of the race at large. We must temper our emotion and enthusiasm with the impersonal determination of science. We must unite in the task of creating an instrument of steel, strong but supple, if we are to triumph finally in the war for human emancipation.”
    That’s just the first chapter; the words find echo in Hitler, Stalin, Mao and every other “social engineer” that has brought genocide and misery to millions in the name of “advancement.”
    If you can stomach it, read the rest. It defines the Fascist Left’s insistence on eugenics as policy and that core selfishness that seems to defy comprehension.

  • Let me get the argument of Alabama State Representative Alvin Holmes (D) straight. He’s saying he’s pro-abortion and racists should be pro-abortion too. He also has a secondary argument that all white people are racist (claiming p=0.0001). This exposes Holmes himself as a racist.

    Not much has changed since Margaret Sanger spoke before the Klan about racial hygiene and the Democrats in attendance applauded.

  • I live in Alabama and believe me, this guy (I won’t call him a representative because he only represents himself and very few others) does not speak for Alabama voters. We are very active in the pro-life movement. A person like this makes the entire state look horrible. However, if his hate mongering speeches can get more involved in protesting the abortion industry, he may serve some purpose after all.

  • A few years ago, I had a conversation about abortion with a woman who I had always considered one of my closest friends, since we were 14 (we are now in our mid-50’s). She’s biracial, which had never seemed to be a factor in our relationship. Boy, was I wrong.

    I had just stated my opposition to ANY abortion, and she retorted with, “Yes, you’re so concerned about babies, as long as they’re WHITE babies.”

    It stung me like a slap in the face. I had honestly never thought of the unborn as belonging to any particular race or culture…the issue is about life, not ethnicity. Never in a million years would it have occurred to me that race would be a factor among abortion supporters.

    I did not have the statistics to counter-argue, except to deny her charge.

    But her attack remains one of the most hurtful things anyone has ever said to me. We had known each other and each other’s family for decades, we have maintained a relationship over a great geographic distance, we have been each other’s emotional support over many crises through the years. She probably considers me her best friend.

    Being reduced to nothing more than a “racist white lady” after all that time still hurts. My trust in her was completely destroyed by that remark.

    So, this story coming out of Alabama is not at all surprising. But it is still sickeningly offensive.

  • “Yes, you’re so concerned about babies, as long as they’re WHITE babies.”

    Tell her if that were the case you certainly would not be against abortion in general as blacks per capita have by far the highest abortion rate in the country. Of course telling that simple truth to her would have confirmed you in her eyes as a racist, which in pro-abort speak usually translates: I can think of nothing to defend my embrace of abortion, so I will call pro-lifers racist to end the discussion. If you are still talking to her, you might wish to ask her if she has had an abortion in her past. I wouldn’t be surprised if that is the case and her defense mechanism to justify her decision is to falsely claim that pro-lifers are racists.

  • You are right, Don. The pro-abort crowd does not want to hear logic, reason, or measure. Same for racist libs. They are far too addicted to the high they get from their misguided self-righteous anger.

First Amendment? Hello? First Amendment?

Thursday, August 22, AD 2013


Elaine Huguenin




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.

New Mexico’s Supreme Court rules that people must set aside their religion in order to avoid creating the slightest inconvenience for gay people.  It calls this “the price of citizenship.”

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.”

Continue reading...

33 Responses to First Amendment? Hello? First Amendment?

  • This is going to continue. Corporations – especially heavily regulated ones like banking, airlines, medical, nuclear, etc. – will require employees to sign statements supporting gay marriage / gay rights under penalty of loss of employment, and this will be a part of the tolerance and non-discrimination policies and programs that will be federally mandated.

    This is the start of persecution. Incarceration, torture and execution usually follow, sometimes in decades, sometimes less. Yes, I know I am a pessimist. Yes, I know that I should look forward to the 2014 mid-term elections, but frankly, I think we are over the crest and have now started an irreversible slide.


    I pray I am wrong, and it won’t hurt my feelings one bit to be wrong.

  • My comments do not come from an agreement with this injustice against Elaine Huguenin, who has my prayers, but from a desire to point out the big picture which all too often gets ignored.

    “Yeah, they could compromise their religious beliefs, or, you know, the gay couple could simply find another photographer.”

    You’re absolutely right. Unfortunately, that’s democracy for you. Once people get it into their heads that their choice is their “right”, they tend to stick it out until they get what they want–or else have made the person who wouldn’t give it to them suffer for failing to.

    It doesn’t help that the above quote, while completely true and just, can seem to such people like a flippant attitude. “You don’t like it? Tough!”

    I’m still praying, and I still have faith in the Lord to see us through whatever happens, but I have very little faith in democracy–democracy is what got Barabbas free and our Lord crucified, let us never forget that. Jesus is our King of Kings, not President of Presidents.

    To be honest, I think the “freedom of religion” ship sailed with the establishment clause–that stifles the religious freedom of the Congress, after all.

  • “To be honest, I think the “freedom of religion” ship sailed with the establishment clause–that stifles the religious freedom of the Congress, after all.”

    It most certainly does not, unless you think that religious freedom includes establishing a state church which I think is absurd.

  • “This is the start of persecution. Incarceration, torture and execution usually follow,”

    Not if faithful Catholics “man up” Paul and stop conceding the field to the enemy before the battle begins.

  • While thinking of forms of insanity, I conclude that the following response of Ace is healthy, sane, logical, reasonable, and economical (these cases cost money which is in a sense non-existent). The opinion of the court isn’t.

    The response of Ace to the supercilious and asinine statement of Justice Bosson is priceless: Yeah, they could compromise their religious beliefs, or, you know, the gay couple could simply find another photographer. No, by all means, let’s use the power of the state to reach as deeply as possible into people’s lives instead of just telling the gay couple to “Look online for ten minutes and find someone else.”

  • Agreed, Donald: “Not if faithful Catholics ‘man up’ Paul and stop conceding the field to the enemy before the battle begins.”

    I will concede nothing. Furthermore, I oppose mistreating or demeaning homosexual persons. Everyone should be treated with the dignity inherent in being a human being creating in the Image and Likeness of God. But while I won’t shove my beliefs down anyone else’s throat, I won’t on the other hand sign on any dotted or solid line saying that I agree with “gay rights” or “gay marriage”. (Well, it’s all electronic signature now.) And that, my friend, in a corporation regulated by the Federal government may one day cost someone his only means of employment, and to lose it for “intolerance” and “discrimination” is to be black-balled forever. 🙁

  • For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For some reason the militant gay agenda believes that persecuting believers for their faith will endear them to all people. Even in Hilter’s Germany there was an undeground resistance to the nazis. The catacombs prove that there was a resistance to religious persecution in the early days of the church. Marriage under duress is no marriage. A contract made under duress is no contract. It is not potographs the gays want. The gays want to own persons and the court just gave the gays the power to own people, body, soul and Faith. Belief in God is the virtue of Faith. The court cannot decide how an individual will exercise his virtues. The court is to decide how to enforce laws against vice. If and when the court redefines our exercise of virtues, the exercise of Faith, the court violates the principles of separation of church and state.

  • Should the worm turn, the legal profession will have much occasion for regret.

  • “It most certainly does not, unless you think that religious freedom includes establishing a state church which I think is absurd.”

    Treating blasphemy and idolatry as though they were comparable to the Way, the Truth, and the Life is hardly kosher. We’re Americans, but we must be Catholic first–or else we’re Catholics not at all.

  • The pendulum always swings back. There is going to be some harsh backlash when the 97% get fed up with the tantrums of the 3%.

  • “Treating blasphemy and idolatry as though they were comparable to the Way, the Truth, and the Life is hardly kosher.”

    Freedom of religion means that people get to practice the religion they choose and not what we would choose for them. I shudder to think what religion the politicians in Washington would ultimately impose upon the country if part of their duties was to establish a state church. No doubt one of its sacraments would be large cash payments to incumbents. Politicians should be kept far away from having any control over religion, which is the genius of what the Founding Fathers sought to establish for the Federal government.

  • What part of “free exercise thereof” is confusing to these people?

  • Secret minutes of a February 2009 WH meeting among Obama, Biden, Holder, et al, “We have buried the putrid corpse of liberty. Our MSM cheerleaders will ignore it. The rubes won’t see it until it’s too late.”

  • This is just one more example of something that goes back to Eden, which is the desire to have what one knows in the depths of his soul – illuminated by the scintilla conscietiae – affirmed by others in the foolish – nay, the insane – belief that if you can get enough people to agree that it is not a sin it will not be such. The first thing Eve did after tasting the fruit was to share it with Adam, who, abdicating his role of God’s viceroy for creation and choosing a lesser good (his relationship with Eve) over a greater (his relationship to God), cravenly ate some himself.

    The problem is, of course, that what is intrinsically wrong can never be made right, no matter how many laws are passed or how many hearts and minds won (and thereby corrupted).

    I have often wanted to ask these in-your-face pansexualists why it is that, if they believe what they are doing is good and right in the face of God (or Whatever), they need anyone’s approval for it. The fact that they seem to require it is an evidence of just how weak-kneed they really are. Which should be no surprise when one considers that lack of virtue is, by philological derivation, lack of strength. In the end, they are nothing but bullies, and all bullies, being cowards at heart, will collapse if opposed with sufficient courage.

  • What intellect could conceive this tyranny to be “the price of citizenship”?

    It’s a price I refuse to pay. It wasn’t in the social contract I “signed.”

    Try silent, dogged resistence at every opportunity.

    No, it is the yoke of serfdom.

    Who will pay the price of freedom?

  • Should they be forced to go through with the session, it will be interesting to see how finely the pictures and the behavior of the photographers while on-site will be scrutinized. Can the NMSC rule on artistic capacity? Or how “happy” they were while there?

    What if, during the photo shoot after the “wedding,” the photographers are hassled or abused because of their moral stance? is that a hate crime? Are their civil rights being violated?

    This judge is an insult. Please, Lord, let sanity work just once in the next election and have him ousted in as undignified a way as possible.

  • When the matter of abusive legislation and practice in Canada, Britain, and Sweden is raised, you get these responses along the lines of ‘well, they do not have the 1st Amendment’. When the legal elites are great manufactories of humbug, the protections of the 1st Amendment have no more durability than the constitutional allocation of discretion to state legislatures re the protection of the unborn. What matters is salable excuses. They only have to sell the excuses to each other, and since the circles in which they run are culturally uniform, this is not difficult.

    One feature you see in liberal fora is the pro forma obeisance to ‘free speech’ conjoined to vitriolic language directed against fairly innocuous and obscure characters – like a photographer in New Mexico or the owner of a Chicken dinner franchise or an evangelical pastor with a congregation numbered in two digits. They are down with this, in spite of their denials, and do not expect to be injured by it.

    The legal profession may discover one day that there are rough men who will deal with them lawlessly, because said shysters have ruined what law there was.

  • “One feature you see in liberal fora is the pro forma obeisance to ‘free speech’ conjoined to vitriolic language directed against fairly innocuous and obscure characters – like a photographer in New Mexico or the owner of a Chicken dinner franchise or an evangelical pastor with a congregation numbered in two digits.”

    They will defend to the death Art our right to agree with them. Liberals have a let’s pretend view of the world and language. To most of them, with certain honorable exceptions, Nat Hentoff is a glorious one, words like freedom and liberty are without content except what they give to such concepts on a purely ad hoc basis. That is why liberal jurists love a “living constitution” which transforms the constitution into a tabula rasa on which they write their will. It is a fun game as long as their adversaries do not adopt their practices and adhere to such old fashioned rules as one law for all, and strict adherence to the Constitution. That is my position and it is a great handicap in battling what these people are doing. Eventually they will face adversaries who will adopt their methods to checkmate them, and the country will be the worse for such methods being universally accepted as the proper way to treat laws and constitutions: as mere props in ongoing political warfare.

  • Pingback: Benedictines of Norcia Celebrate Year of Their Brewery -
  • I would like to see this issue discussed with reference to the idea of “forced speech.” For example, if a Jewish signpainter refused service to a Muslim who orders a banner saying “Happy Birthday,” that might be discrimination; but what if he ordered a sign saying “Down with Israel”? Should the signmaker be forced to comply (as part of the “glue that holds us together” etc.)? This is how I see the photographer’s refusal.

  • Good point Smitty. The original purpose of these anti-discrimination laws in regard to public vendors was the old Jim Crow situation where blacks simply were shut out of most of the market place in some states. Now these laws have been twisted to allow certain protected groups to harass people who do not agree with their agendas. Another example would be to force a Muslim caterer to serve pork at a meal, or an observant Jew to provide professional services on a Saturday. These anti-discrimination laws now serve no purpose except to allow activists to harass people by compelling them to violate their consciences.

  • You have Hentoff, and Jeralyn Merritt, and Harold Pollack, and Alan Dershowitz, and KC Johnson who are advocates of particular policy perspectives and adhere to the idea that political society and social organisms have to adhere to procedural rules which are not simply the rubrics of power games.

    They are no longer the norm in liberal political discourse. “Liberals” now constitute a self-aggrandizing social subculture – a bunch of Byzantine Blues telling the world how much they despise the Greens.

    One interesting aspect of the contemporary liberal worldview is how much it appears derived from high school social relations. Liberals seem to conceive of themselves as, at different times, occupying each side of the social transaction between adolescent and school administrator. On the one hand, we see the celebration of the expressive malcontent. On the other, we see a concept of political society which looks upon elected institutions as if they were student governments – toy telephones subject to the limits placed on them by school administrators. Principal Anthony Kennedy makes the rules.

  • Every human being comes into existence through one man and one woman. The newly begotten human being invents one father and one mother. The Supreme Court for the United States of America interprets the U.S. Constitution according to the Ten Commandments engraved in stone in their chamber. The atheist cannot remove the Ten Commandments from the Supreme Court without perjuring himself and contradicting himself using God’s Name: “I AM” (an atheist) in vain. “Honor thy mother and thy father”, the Fourth Commandment decidedly prevents any celebration of same-sex action. No court can order a person to “celebrate” same sex action, in thought, word or deed, indeed. If the photographer cannot, in good conscience, celebrate same sex action, the person who has constituted our nation with his sovereign personhood and who is a citizen by virtue of his belonging to our people, cannot be forced, bullied or coerced into celebrating, not for love or for money. If the citizen must submit to a cruel and wrongful law, let him not take any compensation or partake of the fruits of such evil or become an accomplice to the violation of truth, Justice and the American way. Let the damnation of the violation of the Supreme law of the land through perjury, that is, lying to the court about honoring his parents, or consummating the marital act, and further violating the Fourth Commandment and the community who has brought him into citizenship be the perjurer’s alone. Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights.
    Citizenship must meet the test of the human existence. If the same sex practitioner came into existence other than through a man and a woman, I, for one, want to know.

  • By the way, even those five named are probably content with misfeasance by appellate judges if it suits their objects. Raoul Berger was a critic of appellate judge nonsense as has been Michael Kinsley (intermittently) and R.M. Kaus. Kaus would be considered an apostate by most liberals who have heard of him and are familiar with his writings.

  • Not helpful in the broader sense but I suggest the couple go do the photo shoot (as they are being forced to do) and take the absolute. worst. photos. ever. Consider it a day wasted/a dollar wasted, as they would surely be fought tooth and nail to actually get paid for terrible “pretend wedding” pictures. Spiteful, yes. But I’d do it anyway.

  • There is merit in Elizabeth’s suggestion. Every time a Christian photographer is asked to do a photo shoot of a gay “marriage”, let him just muck up the pictures and say, “So sorry, so sad – technical difficulties. Here’s your money back.” Repeating this a few times will sink into the heads of these sexual idolaters that their forcing the rest of us to accept their sexual perversions isn’t going to work. Let’s beat them at their own game.

    PS, I have nothing against gays arranging their own “ceremonies” in private with their own photographers, and being un-harassed, unmolested in so doing. Just don’t force Christians to accept this nonsense, and if you do, then you’ll get precisely what you deserve.

  • I disagree. To do that is to “spit in the water cup” before serving; any willful loss of dignity only serves the purposes of the instigators.

    Instead, I would do my best work, audibly praising God for the gifts my talents and openly conversing about my marriage and my family. I would give nobody any cause to further pursue the farce, which is precisely what it is. By not bowing down, by being uncowed and unshaken in my faith by this derisible display, I would defeat them more handily.

    “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

  • “gifts ofmy talents” – oh, for an edit option . . .

  • I concur with the dire attack on freedom of religion this case involves. But perhaps more disturbing is the plain naked emperor illogic accepted in order to advance the cause.

    This case, probably like all others similar to it, has nothing to do with the orientation of the plaintiffs. If either of the women returned and tried to order flowers for their wedding with a man, it would have gone down just fine. Now the women would argue they would never do that, but that misses the point, that their orientation is irrelevant. So there was no conflict with the law.

    Similarly, if I and my buddy (both straight) sauntered down and tried to buy flowers for our wedding (say we wanted a tax break…), we would be refused as well.

    This is stone cold logic 101. Yet it is flatly ignored, proving the case/law is not about equality but rather about tyranny and thoughtcrime.

  • From the indomitable Jonah Goldberg at National Review Online:

    “Judge Bosson insists that the Huguenins must take the business of a gay couple as part of the price of citizenship. Well, what if the situation was reversed? What if it was the gay couple that refused to hire the Huguenins? After all, that would make more sense than the fact pattern of the actual case. Who wants to have their wedding photographed by someone who rejects its legitimacy? I married a Catholic girl. I looked for rabbis who’d officiate. They refused because they didn’t condone a mixed marriage. I completely understood their reluctance. It didn’t offend me in the slightest. But you can be sure I wouldn’t hire a photographer who passionately felt that what we were doing was disgusting or evil or wrong. So anyway, suppose the gay couple made the utterly reasonable decision not to hire a wedding photographer who passionately rejects the whole idea of gay marriage? Now imagine that the poor Hugenins really need the work. Should a judge march in and tell the gay couple you’ve got to give these people money to photograph a ceremony that disgusts them? The logic of Bosson’s decision would say yes. Everyone has to compromise. It’s the price of citizenship! In fact, as support for gay marriage grows and religious orthodoxy declines, it’s easy to imagine a world where the Huguenins are the minority — if they aren’t already. Do they suddenly merit intervention by a thumb-sucking judge simply because their views have become minority views? “

  • “it is the price of citizenship.” Good will is the price of citizenship. Neither the judge, nor the same-sex couple, have good will towards the citizenship and the civil rights of the photographer. With good will, the same-sex couple might have found a willing photographer. Of course, the pictures will not be the best. Force makes a sorry contract. Peace on earth to men of good will.

  • Donald,
    “Freedom of religion means that people get to practice [AND LIVE] the religion they choose and not what we would choose for them.”

    Had to add those two important words because too many, including our Dear Leader, believe freedom of religion means you can attend and worship on Sunday without being hassled by the government. For them, freedom of religion ends when the weekend is over. Trying to live your faith 7 days a week at home and at work is a foreign concept to them.

    So, I try avoid using the phrase “practice their religion” and opt for “living their faith” or “living their religion.”

  • Pingback: Weariness and Current Events : Catholic Stand

Better Late Than Never

Monday, August 19, AD 2013

28 Responses to Better Late Than Never

  • The Democrats have Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Patrick Leahy, etc. The Republicans have Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, etc. The difference is ???????????????????????????

    John 18:33-38

    33 Then Pilate entered the headquarters again, summoned Jesus, and asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” 34 Jesus answered, “Do you ask this on your own, or did others tell you about me?” 35 Pilate replied, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me. What have you done?” 36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.” 37 Pilate asked him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate asked him, “What is truth?”

  • “The difference is ???????????????????????????”

    You can find that Paul in the horde of pro-life legislation passed in the States since the Republicans took control of a majority of state legislatures in 2010. Even Christie has led efforts in New Jersey to defund Planned Parenthood. As for Pataki and Giuliani, they help explain how New York, in effect, became a one party state.

  • I know you are correct, Donald, for which reason I vote Republican when given a choice between only Democrat and Republican. In fact, I always encourage everyone to vote against the Democrats. But Psalms 146:3 comes to mind: “Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help.”

  • That is correct Paul. Politicians are almost always, at best, the lesser of two evils. The only exceptions that come to mind readily for me during my lifetime are Ronald Reagan and Henry Hyde.

  • Politics are essentially coersion and deceit.

    The so-called blue model promotes abortion and feeds on class envy/hatred.

    Is the bishop signalling that one cannot be a good Catholic and a democrat?

    Next on the bishop’s to-go list should be: shame the despicable democrats.

  • The CNS article links to more extended excerpts from WPRI. They’re definitely worth reading. To Paul’s comment, the bishop held up his baptismal certificate and Republican registration and said that he believed that they were complementary, but he knew which one he would want on-hand at the Judgement.

  • I do not know that it is necessary for Bishops to announce their party registration (or register in the first place).

    I had somehow missed it that Cdl. O’Malley had dirtied himself with the Kennedy requiem. Clerics generally have a talent for evasion and passive-aggressive behavior; you wonder why they could not put some of that to work to avoid appearing at another ceremony of the Kennedy cargo cult. (Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment…).

  • Pingback: Egypt Nuns Marched Thru Streets Like Prisoners of War -
  • “Catholicism, at most, is a cultural affinity for bells and smells when they bother to show up for mass.”

    When was the last time you were at a Catholic religious service that featured bells and incense?

  • “The only exceptions that come to mind readily for me during my lifetime are Ronald Reagan and Henry Hyde. ”
    Christopher Henry Smith (RNJ) changed to Republican some 40 years ago. Andy Harris (RMD). Paul Ryan.

  • I think that Catholic bishops should not be registered in any political party. I remember the late Cardinal O’Connor of New York stated that he had always been registered as a “blank” (a term of art in New York).

  • I too, don’t think it is prudent for a bishop to reveal his political affiliation. But now that His Excellency has let the cat out of the bag, I have to ask, what the hell took him so long.

    I mean the Democrats have supported abortion and other moral decay for more than forty years. If it took until 2012 for Bp. Tobin to have an “a ha”, he’s in serious need of a brain cell implant. And he is supposed to be one of the “better bishops” in the American Hierarchy.

    Knowing the Church belongs to the Lord and not these guys fills me with confidence.

  • I haven’t seen any Dems at Traditional Masses (bells and smells). They are typically fully of deeply conservative people (both religiously and politically). Not sure why anyone shows up for Mass where there are no bells or incense because where they are lacking both reverence and devout worship appear to be lacking as well. Maybe Bishop Tobin will note the same thing many other Bishops are noticing…that for every Modernist seminarian there are four Traditionals.

  • The real question is how any Catholic, especially a priest, could have ever supported the Democratic (sic) Party. But it’s better late than never that the bishop saw the light. The Democratic (sic) Party has, for decades, served the agenda of the devil. Its members have worked against every Christian value, principle and tenet. It’s ideology has served to enslave more people to an ever greater tyrannical state which has taken over the rights and responsibilities of the individual and parent and has served to keep minorities in perpetual poverty. It continues to instigate class, sex, econmical and generational warfare and considers its members a class of self-appointed aristocrats who demand allegiance to their ideology of hypocrisy, double standards, hatred of truth, virtue, and responsibility.

  • It’s a tough road to walk, being a devout Catholic in the Democratic Party. I’ve known some. You have to believe in the party’s approach to caring for the poor, and be willing to speak up against abortion. As the years go by – check that, as the generation who were adults in the 1970’s (when Roe was decided, and both parties were feeling their way around the issue) leaves the limelight and a younger generation who has seen D=abortion and R=life all of their lives come of age – the pro-life Democrat vanishes from the conversation. Also, as happened with this bishop, whatever personal pro/con list you’ve come up with to remain a Catholic Democrat has got to have had a few additions in the con column in the last few years.

  • Media Headlines if Romney Were President: “Hunger and Poverty Continue To Expand To Unprecedented Levels”

    From Drudge: More Catholic than . . .

    “In a video featuring Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson, the TV star – in what appears to be a religious sermon – declares his pro-life stance on the issue of abortion. When discussing the ethics of, and that there’s even a debate on, the issue, he asks, ‘What in the world happened to us?’

    “‘Listen, from the time you started inside your mother’s womb, Thomas Jefferson had it right, you have the God-given right to life for crying out loud. You’re this long (pointing to his finger). You’re a week old inside your mother. They suck you out of there when you’re about like that (point to finger again). You wouldn’t be here tonight!'”

    How can one be a democrat and a Catholic?

    PS: Voting for charlatons that promise to confiscate more money from people whom you envy and hate is not a corporal work of mercy. Matt. 25 (it’s nowehere else, and misinterpreted: least of My brothers – Christ defines his brothers = he who does my Father’s will: it ain’t democrat constituencies) has been subverted by deceitful pols for evil purposes.

    No kumbaya for you!

    On dem party helping the poor:

    Instapundit: “I think a lot of leftists like to believe there’s a fixed pot of goodies, and then arrogate to themselves the power to distribute its contents. Declinism fits their preferences better than growth.”

    Salena Zito, “Washington’s media class spends much of its energy inciting political divisions or writing about them, dedicating great gobs of print, airtime and social media to chopping up Americans by race, political party, culture or religion.”

    Gotta love poor people, and make more poor people!

    In 2000, 64% of working-age Americans held a job. Today, 58.7% of working-age Americans has a job.

    In 2000, there were 17 million Americans on food stamps. Today, there are more than 47 million.

    In 2000, the ratio of social welfare benefits to salaries and wages was approximately 21%. Today, the ratio of social welfare benefits to salaries and wages is approximately 35%.

    Since Barack Obama entered the White House, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States has risen from $1.85 to $3.89.

    7/9/2013: CNS News reports: “The number of Americans receiving subsidized food assistance from the federal government has risen to 101 million, representing roughly a third of the U.S. population.

    Stop me . . .

  • It is wrong to make so blanket an assertion. The Republicans have have as much blood on their as hands by the way that stand in opposition to things that the the USCCB clearly supports such as immigration reform. Yes, the Democrats are clearly wrong and promote things that go against Catholic teaching on matters such as abortion, contraception and same-sex marriage.

    The Republicans, however oppose so many things that Catholic teaching does support, gun control, health care reform, immigration reform, and yes, even treating same sex attracted people with dignity as human beings. On need only listen to the vitriol spouted by people, Catholics!, like Pat Buchannan, Bill O’Reilly, and Laura Ingraham as proof of this.

  • Rubbish. Being in favor of gun control is not part of the dogma of the Catholic Church, ditto the endless boondoggle known as ObamaCare, attempted legalization of illegal aliens and efforts to pretend that homosexuality is perfectly normal and right, the political stances of some silly clerics notwithstanding. Your attempt to claim that Republicans have blood on their hands is rich when one considers the million unborn who will be put to death this year in the US thanks to the unwavering support for abortion uber alles of almost all elected Democrats.

  • Zippity,
    Admit it. To your mind, to oppose the normalization of homosexual conduct is spouting vitriol.

  • @ Zippity_Do_Daddy: “The Republicans have have as much blood on their as hands by the way that stand in opposition to things that the the USCCB clearly supports such as immigration reform.” Really ? Perhaps you don’t live in a border state like I do, but FYI enforcing illegals’ behavior with a nonexistent fence and deporting illegal aliens isn’t the same as killing them. If it is, then their countries of origin are the killers. They get tons of free health care — so no killing in the medical field. They get all kinds of help with crisis pregnancies — and with normal pregnancies — note millions of anchor babies born in public hospitals at public expense. YOU AMERICAN MOTHERS — NO FREE BABIES FOR YOU. YOU AREN’T AS GOOD AS THE MIGRANTES BECAUSE YOU WON’T HAVE AS MANY BABIES (I wonder why…). All kinds of free food, education, you name it — from church AND state. All kinds of jobs taken from Americans because with all the supplemental help and income, they can afford to accept lower wages and undercut EVIL GRINGOES.

  • Zippity_Do_Daddy is the reason why I do not dialogue with liberals. I may dislike the Republicans, but I will always vote for them if only to vote against the Democrats.

    The USCCB needs to focus on the Gospel of conversion and repentance, NOT on boon-doggle social justice programs that enrich and empower Caesar while emasculating our liberty.

    Gun Control: there are three things the enemy may have only once I am dead: my Bible, my Rosary and my mini-14.

    Immigration Reform: why should it take 2 years for a hard-working, dedicated and extremely bright nuclear engineer from Nigeria whom I know to receive citizenship, but illegals with nothing to contribute but crime and drug addiction sneaking over the border can get amnesty?

    There is a place where the USCCB can shove its social justice idiocy.

  • Catholic Democrats have done more to destroy America than the Communist Party ever hoped to do. And the Catholic Bishops and clergy in America are going to have a lot of explaining to God about why so many of them remained giving their name identification and support to the only worldly organization responsible in the U.S. for keeping the murder of the unborn – legal.

    Catholics are the largest single group of people that endorse with their names, and support with their time, money and votes the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, anti-freedom of religion, anti-God Democratic Party. That support gives the Democrat Party the ELECTORAL POWER to continue their attack against God’s greatest gifts – life, marriage, and liberty.

  • The Republicans, however oppose so many things that Catholic teaching does support, gun control, –

    You have confounded Catholic teaching with the output of the position-paper graphomaniacs on the staff of the bishops’ conference and various diocesan chanceries.

    Catholic World Report used to have a mordantly amusing feature wherein they would begin with a hypothetical – asking what if you were in charge of [insert philanthropic apostolate] and you had $500 to spare, what would you do with it? They would list three or four options (e.g. “give it to the Missionaries of Charity”). The punchline would be, “well, if you are [insert the name of mid-level Church-o-crat] of the [list name of diocese, order, or apostolate], you give it to the John Kerry for President campaign”. Appended would be a link to the entry in the Federal Election Commission database showing the contributor, listed occupation, and the value of the contribution (largish if it makes it into a public database).

    These characters have generated a great deal of confusion.

  • Does anyone recall the “Catholics for Kerry” blog? Crisis published a brief note about the moderator, then on the staff of the U.S. Catholic Conference. Thus exposed, he was dismissed, much to the consternation of the National Catholic Reporter. In the intervening years, he landed on his feet:

  • Both parties have the same agenda. Oppression of the poor and marginalized militarism and eugenics through abortion and disease escalation against the poor. We need to eliminate the 1% control over our government.

  • Rubbish. “Disease escalation against the poor” is a fitting coda to this congealed rubbish.

  • John S, just compare two Administrations, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, in terms of employment, average household incomes, extent of taxation on workers’ pay, revenue to the Federal treasury from taxes, national debt, and American security and see if there is no difference between the two agendas.

The Party of Abortion Fanatics

Friday, July 12, AD 2013


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 seems … fairly straightforward:


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–

AIDE TO CECILE RICHARDS: I know you’re in a rush, so I can follow up to get you some more information.

    TWS: Are there any legal limits you do support on abortion, Ms. Richards?

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.

Continue reading...

One Response to The Party of Abortion Fanatics