Beneath Contempt

Monday, November 26, AD 2012



Democrats have been stealing elections for a very long time, but lately they have been working a new angle:  exploiting the mentally handicapped for votes.  David Horowitz relates what he learned at a Thanksgiving dinner:

But even knowing this, I was not prepared for a conversation I had at Thanksgiving dinner today with my brother-in-law, Henry, who has lived most of his life in a home for the mentally disabled, and though now in his forties has the intelligence level of a six-year-old.

“Obama saved me,” he said to me out of the blue.

“What do you mean?”

“I voted for him for president and now he’s saving me.”

I was taken aback by these words, since Henry had no idea who Obama was, or what a president might be, and would be unable to fill out a registration form let alone get to the polling place by himself. So I asked him how he knew that and how he had registered and cast his vote. In halting, impeded speech he told me that the people who take care of him at the home filled out “the papers” to register him to vote, told him how Obama cared for him, even taught him the Obama chants, and then took him to the polling place to vote. They did the same for all of the mentally disabled patients in their care, approximately sixty in all.

This is so appalling in its contempt for the voting process, which is the very foundation of our democracy, and in its cynical exploitation of my brother-in-law and the other patients in the home, many of whose mental capacities are even more limited than his that I am at a loss for words to express it. I hope poll-watching groups like “True the Vote” will comb the rolls of residents at other homes for the mentally disabled, and attempt to stop this particular abuse. I hope that people who care about our country will make electoral fraud a focus of their political efforts, and work to protect the integrity of the voting process.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Beneath Contempt

  • The looters and tyrants need to experience the righteous antipathy of millions of producers and taxpayers.

  • There are a mess of dubious characters in the helping professions.

  • The National Association of Scholars published a report a few years back on how social workers are educated; in a word: scandalously. Now take a look at this from Washington University in St. Louis, which has a purportedly highly rated program:

    Examining their course lists, can you figure what these dames are being trained to do that would not and could not be covered in programs in public administration or clinical psychology?

    One project the starboard side might get cracking on on the state level is euthanizing this ideologized pseudo-profession.

  • “The National Association of Scholars published a report a few years back on how social workers are educated; in a word: scandalously.”

    Agreed! I have written about this:

    One of the main problems with academia is that too many areas of study on too many campuses are basically leftist politics with a patina of academic gibberish.

  • (Don’s wife Cathy here) Art, our daughter is applying for admission to college, and has been indicating that long-term, she’d like to become a school counselor. (No comment on whether we think that’s the best career option for her.) Don & I insisted that she had to think shorter-term as well, and pick an undergrad major which would make her employable, so she’s going with elementary education.
    Anyway, the Children, Youth & Families concentration in that Wash U MSW program description you linked to sounds an awful lot like the M.S. programs in educational psychology and developmental psychology I looked up when investigating what additional coursework our daughter would need after teacher certification to qualify as a school counselor. The main difference I can spot is that the MSW program sounds “squishier” and more advocacy/policy/agenda-oriented, even in the direct practice tracks that I looked at. It looks like the MSW program at Wash U wants to turn out social workers who not only have a certain set of skills, but also all fit a certain ideological mold.

  • Mr Horowitz of all people should know the Left’s playbook – what you pro-lifers want to deny votes to the mentally different? The chance to reach for significance, for revenge. What would Jesus say? And a whole swathe of Christians will then fold as a pack of cards.

  • Mrs. McClarey:

    A good reason to major in education is that trade associations, teacher training faculty, and unions have buffaloed state legislatures into making it a requirement for employment in the public schools. Critics of these programs (e.g. Thomas Sowell) say their value-added is undetectable.

    I do hope your daughter has

    1. mastered algebra;

    2. writes grammatical English;

    3. knows the basics of American history, geography, and civics;

    4. selects a school of education which has as its focus courses in practical teaching strategies and not in promoting rancid social ideology (Stanford University and LeMoyne College have been the focus of scandals in this regard, as has NCATE, the accrediting association for teacher-training programs).

    5. selects a decent 2d major and/or is very careful in her selection of courses to fulfill distribution requirements; courses in accounting, statistics, insurance foreign languages, economics, and mathematics are good; art history might be, if it stops at 1918; philosophy might be; social sciences should be avoided unless they are grounded in quantitative methods (or are studying work by Gabriel Almond, Dankwart Rustow, et al).

    6. If you can work in a business major, perhaps a five-year plan is worth it.

    7. Every family should have an engineer. Tell your son or one of your nephews to get cracking.

    Now I will stop being overbearing (which is the moderator’s job in any case).

  • Mr Horowitz of all people should know the Left’s playbook – what you pro-lifers want to deny votes to the mentally different? The chance to reach for significance, for revenge. What would Jesus say? And a whole swathe of Christians will then fold as a pack of cards.

    Martinis for breakfast is a bad habit.

  • (Don’s wife Cathy again) Art, we’ve been trying to talk her into a business-oriented major (f.ex. Computer Information Systems or Accounting), but she hasn’t bitten yet. There are a couple of small Midwestern colleges where our daughter’s test scores & class rank make her overqualified compared to their average freshmen (with decent U.S. News & World Report rankings, and decent results in their Net Price Calculators) where she has a shot at good merit scholarships, and has already been accepted; hopefully they aren’t as P.C.-nuts as larger schools. I’ll be driving her to their merit scholarship interviews myself, so I’ll be able to get an in-person feel for what those colleges are like.

  • I do not know why I was assuming elementary school. If she aims to be a high school teacher, she would need to be subject trained (whether the board of regents requires it or not). Of course, you could persuade her she wants to teach vocational business classes.

    I suspect with accounting there is enough temp work around that she might be able to get out of painting houses in the summer time.

  • Don’t write off an entire career path because of a bad trend among teachers. If you feel called to a particular career, and it’s something that’s marketable and you have an aptitude for, don’t let a few lousy professors push you around. I got a bachelor’s and master’s degree in economics – definitely not a hard science – and didn’t get brainwashed along the way.

    First off, the average teacher doesn’t do a lot of work. He assigns texts and homework, and blathers in front of the class for a set period of time. The student regurgitates all over a midterm and a final, and maybe has to write a paper. The paper can be unorthodox as anything, but if it’s about one of the foundational texts or theories in the field, the teacher will usually accept it – and every field has some decent thought within it. Even if the teacher doesn’t like the student (and you’d have to be pretty obnoxious to get noticed in a classroom of 500 kids), with grade inflation being what it is, the student might get a B- instead of an A. Big deal. The student will still end up graduating with a 3.2 GPA.

    You might be able to find a school that has a reputation for not contaminating the students, although each teacher is different, and in a lot of cases it’s the TA who’s doing the teaching. But once you get out of the classroom, there will be a wide range of thinkers in the field. And most employers don’t care about a particular person’s ideology as long as they don’t make anyone’s life difficult and fill out the paperwork correctly. So don’t fret over a particular major.

    Actually, if I could offer one piece of advice to beginning college students, it’d be to take a minor as well as a major.

  • Pinky,

    As a student or professors my wife and I have been associated with six colleges/universities (a large state school, a large Catholic University and four small liberal arts schools). The experience you describe (professor who does little work, TAs grading, large classes, etc.) only really exist at research universities. At small colleges, professors teach 4-6 lectures per school year, do most of the grading, and, in many cases, even teach science labs. At those schools it is really difficult to ‘hide’ from the professors. My wife is currently a tenure track professor in biology at a college in the Northwest and she knows every student in the ‘large’ lecture of sixty – the largest lecture of any class at the school.

  • (Don’s wife Cathy again) The 2 colleges which have already accepted our daughter for admission are both tiny, as colleges go ( <1,500 students each) so, if she attended one of them, the profs would certainly get to know her. On the other hand, the other schools she's waiting to hear back from on admission decisions range from 2,000-35,000 students each, so there's certainly a chance she'd end up at a "Mega-U".
    As to majors/minors, our daughter is definitely interested in at least a minor in addition to a major. The way she's changed her mind each year during high school on what she'd like to major in, though, she may well change her mind again by the time she has to officially declare a major. It had better be something which will make her employable with just a BA/BS, though!

  • I got a bachelor’s and master’s degree in economics – definitely not a hard science – and didn’t get brainwashed along the way.

    Economics is not sociology. It is a social science in actuality, not in aspiration. I think the same deal applies in demography, but undergraduate courses in demography are rare. One might hope a future generation will return American history, anthropology, sociology, and social psychology to a state where practicing them is not functionally dependent upon signing on to a Marxist, feminist, or multi-culti catechism.

    By the way, I did most of my undergraduate study at research universities. There was a minor kerfuffle at the engineering school at one place when students were assigned a TA who spoke only some odd dialect of Chinese. Otherwise, I do not recall much trouble with professors sloughing off. TAs graded exercises in large survey courses with scores of students enrolled, but the faculty did all their own lectures and relied on TAs only for end-of-the-week discussion sessions which amounted to about 25% of class time. Professors did the whole shebang for seminars and lecture courses of ordinary enrollment. I’ve a family member on the faculty of George Mason, a large research university. He usually teaches a 2-2 schedule because he commonly has important administrative responsibilities in addition to bringing in masses of grant money and having published several dozen papers in recent decades. He puts his all into his teaching as well, and would have been overqualified at the small college I attended (which makes a point of being a redoubt of ‘scholar/teachers’).

  • It had better be something which will make her employable with just a BA/BS, though!

    I hope that little college has an accounting department.

  • Maybe Pravda (Russian for “truth”) needs to update its Obama re-election coverage.


    ‘Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society . . . .”


  • (Don’s wife Cathy again)
    “I hope that little college has an accounting department.”
    Both of them do, Art, and they both emphasize internship opportunities – especially the one that’s outside our own state, and approx. a 1/2-hour drive away from a major Midwestern city.

  • Pingback: Quick Quote-And… « Head Noises
  • Don, to get back to the topic of using the mentally handicapped as vote generating tools for the democrats. I too have an autistic son who will likely end up in a group home when my husband and I are no longer physically up to caring for him. I have also worked as a county caseworker for intellectually disabled individuals who live in group homes. As a caseworker I was required to ask each individual on my caseload every year whether they wished to register to vote. If yes, I was required to see that they got registered. If they said no, I had to have them sign a paper stating their disinterest in registering, and turn these in to my supervisor who would presumably turn a record in to the state. As you say, there is no competency criteria. So long as the individual nods or gives some other sign that means yes, he can register to vote. He can sign with an X or other mark if he can not write his name, as long as there is a witness.
    In theory this law protects an individual who has a mild degree of mental retardation but functions with a fair degree of independence. Some of these individuals hold jobs, follow the news on tv and yes, have as much a right and ability to cast a vote as any “normal” person with a high school degree and the same susceptibility to persuasion by the media, by relatives, etc.
    In practice, the abuses mentioned in the post are widespread. I live in a conservative rural county, and so my impression is that mentally disabled individuals from groups homes are as likely to be persuaded by caregivers to vote republican as democrat. But yes, it’s a terrible situation. It would be a rare poll watcher who could get up the nerve to be seen as “supressing” the vote of a disabled person.
    If your autistic son does not advance beyond a child’s intellectual capacity by adulthood, I recommend that you obtain legal guardianship when he turns 18. Guardianship does not accrue to you automatically just because you are the parent. Your son is considered a legally competent person once he turns 18 no matter how severely handicapped. If you do not get yourself named as guardian, there is nothing to stop a caregiver from manipulating him into voting for whomever the caregiver determines is the best candidate for “disabilities rights”
    At least this is the case here in Pennsylvania, and I suspect it is the same elsewhere.

  • “If your autistic son does not advance beyond a child’s intellectual capacity by adulthood, I recommend that you obtain legal guardianship when he turns 18. Guardianship does not accrue to you automatically just because you are the parent. Your son is considered a legally competent person once he turns 18 no matter how severely handicapped. If you do not get yourself named as guardian, there is nothing to stop a caregiver from manipulating him into voting for whomever the caregiver determines is the best candidate for “disabilities rights”
    At least this is the case here in Pennsylvania, and I suspect it is the same elsewhere.”

    I had my wife, myself and my autistic son’s twin brother appointed by the court as guardians shortly after his 18th birthday. After my wife and I are gone, the plan is for him to live with his brother who is planning to join me in my law firm after he graduates from law school. From what I have seen of state institutions and group homes I will do whatever it takes to make certain, as far as I am able, that my autistic son will always live with family.

  • (Don’s wife Cathy again) “If your autistic son does not advance beyond a child’s intellectual capacity by adulthood, I recommend that you obtain legal guardianship when he turns 18.”
    That’s just what we did, Daria. In fact, we just had to file our first 3-year report on the guardianship, and we’ll all be appearing at a hearing on that report during Christmas break (when our son’s twin & co-guardian will be home from college).

  • One other thing you did not ask for:

    Your daughter should lay off any vocational discipline with high rates of innovation until her children are of such an age that she expects not to be departing the labor force until retirement. A lady IT tech of my acquaintance once lamented that things she had learned just three years earlier were now useless. You cannot come and go with IT.

I Am Shocked, Shocked!

Thursday, November 8, AD 2012

10 Responses to I Am Shocked, Shocked!

  • So,

    Who’s the governor and who controls the legislature? The sad thing is they didn’t need to cheat. I don’t think the Dems had 300k phony ballots although you never know. Do Nothing Casey won by a huge margin. He had the magic letter D by his name. The GOP Senate hopefuls across the country ran far behind Romney. They were about as popular as ants at a picnic.

  • My gut tells me that this election was rigged. If that makes me sound like a nut, that’s ok, I’ll take the hit. I refuse to believe that Romney got less votes than John McCain who was a weak candidate who ran a weak campaign. His votes either went down a rabbit’s hole or they flipped enough votes for Obama to “win.”

  • Siobhan,

    I think many Repubs stayed home. The Dems made many phone calls and mailings calls I believe concerning religious affiliaition and anyway many Repubs were not going to vote for another RINO as they saw it. This was known as a potential issue from last year. It happened. Not discounting massive cheating but a 2.5 million ballot difference is quite a lot.

  • “2.5 million ballot difference is quite a lot.”

    they think big don’t they! I agree with Siobahn. I don’t know how exactly, but that is my gut feeling too.

    Also I have always wondered why the Repub officials in Iowa couldn’t bring themselves to come to a Santorum victory count– what was up with that? I think the R muckety mucks always wanted Romney

  • Folks,

    Sorry but this is just evasion to not grapple with what happened. There is 10% unemployment (really) with another 10% underemployed. There is declining income, a shrinking workforce, an unpopular healthcare bill, EPA attacks on coal and oil, an impending debt crisis and a northeastern Repub moderate can’t obliterate the incumbent in PA, NH, OH, MI, WI and MN?? It should have been a wipeout but not a single poll ever indicated that, even Rasmussen and Gallup. Also how do you explain the even more miserable performance of the Senate candidates? If the national vote difference was a couple hundred thousand I would agree it was stolen. Here in VA I saw how efficient the Dems were in getting out their vote. They were a sullen and morose bunch but they went and pushed the D. The Repubs voter efforts were a joke by comparison.

  • I agree with you Rozin, with Mr McClarey, with the idea that a significant part of the electorate is seriously deficient in critical thinking skills, and with 50 years of liberal media suasion– and with Siobahn. I’m voting “all of the above”.

  • 1. The ‘new MS’ electronic machines that needed rebooting to begin etc.
    2. Where were those machines discovered that wouldn’t read R votes, only D?
    3. The vehement opposition to Voters showing ID’s. (Galls me)
    4. Murals of O in some polling place, I saw a report.
    5. How could the great numbers of people at Mitt Romney rallies compared to the numbers at O rallies have not voted?
    6. The popular vote is not so far off, considering the relationship of the admin to numbers, greed, and honesty.
    7. The admin’s overexercise of influence on media probably happened with areas of voting and incompetent workers.
    8. Nothing honorable or trustworthy about admin as precedent to believe this operation of 11/6 was properly done.
    9. Why aren’t the results more widely published for we the people?

  • Rozin, I hear what you’re saying, but I can’t get pass the fact that Romney and Ryan appeared so confident of victory to the point that Romney didn’t even prepare a concession speech. Maybe they were just good actors and maybe Romney was done in by hubris, but what about Michael Barone – the best analyst in the business. How could he be so off? The polls all showed a tight race, but they also showed that the enthusiasm was clearly with the people who wanted Obama gone. I know it can never be proven, but it just doesn’t add up.

    Here’s something interesting from The Ulsterman Report. Yes, I’m aware that we have to be careful with sites like this, but he does make some interesting points.

  • Siobhan

    Go look at the Drudge Report and the “Romney shellshocked” link. They got the polls saying that Dem turnout would be high but they didn’t believe them. I said that the Dems I saw voting looked totally depressed but they had been pushed to the polls. The Dems didn’t bother pushing them to the rallies. Very smart.

  • Pennsylvania and Ohio have GOP governors. PA Governor Corbett – when he was attorney sought and convicted a LOT of Democrat state legislators. He could have done something about Philly voter fraud. Kasich, the Ohio governor, and a native of the Pittsburgh area (McKees Rocks) could have done something about the Cleveland fraud.

    What did they do? Nothing much.

Historical Ignorance Thy Name is Spielberg

Wednesday, October 10, AD 2012



As he unveiled his Lincoln biopic that is being released next month, director Steven Spielberg proclaimed that he did not want the film to be a political football and then promptly made it into one with this remark:

“Because it’s kind of confusing. The parties traded political places over the last 150 years. That in itself is a great story, how the Republican Party went from a progressive party in 1865, and how the Democrats were represented in the picture, to the way it’s just the opposite today. But that’s a whole other story.”

This would be funny if the historical ignorance were not so vast.  The Republican party, from its inception, has held that the government may not discriminate on the basis of race.

From the 1856 Republican platform, the first Republican platform:

Resolved: That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in the Federal Constitution are essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions, and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and the union of the States, must and shall be preserved.

Resolved: That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction; that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislation, of any individual, or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained.

Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism — Polygamy, and Slavery.

The Republican party has been true to this position throughout its history.  From the Republican platform of 1932:

The Negro

For seventy years the Republican Party has been the friend of the American Negro. Vindication of the rights of the Negro citizen to enjoy the full benefits of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is traditional in the Republican Party, and our party stands pledged to maintain equal opportunity and rights for Negro citizens. We do not propose to depart from that tradition nor to alter the spirit or letter of that pledge.

From the 1944 Republican platform:

Racial and Religious Intolerance

We unreservedly condemn the injection into American life of appeals to racial or religious prejudice.

We pledge an immediate Congressional inquiry to ascertain the extent to which mistreatment, segregation and discrimination against Negroes who are in our armed forces are impairing morale and efficiency, and the adoption of corrective legislation.

We pledge the establishment by Federal legislation of a permanent Fair Employment Practice Commission.

Anti-Poll Tax

The payment of any poll tax should not be a condition of voting in Federal elections and we favor immediate submission of a Constitutional amendment for its abolition.


We favor legislation against lynching and pledge our sincere efforts in behalf of its early enactment.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Historical Ignorance Thy Name is Spielberg

  • 160 years ago the majority of Democrats considered an entire class of people to be sub-human and undeserving of basic civil rights. Some Democrats didn’t consider themselves to be pro-slavery per se, but certainly didn’t want government interfering with that choice. The Republicans, meanwhile, fought to defend the dignity of all humans.

    Doesn’t sound like the parties have switched to me.

  • What I find so painful with lefties like Spielberg and Hanks is that they do such good work with WWII miniserieses like Band of Brothers and The Pacific. For Spielberg to say stuff like this and Hanks, on the occasion of his endorsement of Obama in 2008, prattle on about how blacks were once defined as 3/5 of a person.

    Now this betrays not only historical ignorance but downright stupidity. Since I will assume that readers will know what the 3/5 compromise was all about (those who don’t can look it up on their own), I won’t explain it here. But think about it: if you wanted to degrade someone you would call 3/5 of a person. You would say something more demeaning. One could rightly assert that blacks were treated far worse that 3/5 of a person for almost 200 years of our history. How the obvious escapes those who think they are smarter than the rest of us will never cease to amaze me.

  • The problem has been the lassitude of Republicans and conservatives to fight against the wholesale deception and rewriting of the historical record by the Left. The Left has always been practiced in photo “retouching” but conservatives until very recently couldn’t be bothered to produce the original photo. Woodrow Wilson was a horrible racist and Harding and Coolidge tried to ameliorate the damage. But Wilson is praised and Harding and Coolidge ridiculed. Repubs still don’t mention this. Look at the silly lie that the Bush tax cuts and Iraq war caused the financial panic. Did Bush, the Repubs or Romney ever come out with a detailed rebuttal over the past 4 years? The public views silence as consent.

  • i find it worthless to compare parties from radically different eras, whether in Spielberg’s simplistic view or the whole “Democrats used to have a Dixiecrat wing” deal. well OK “worthless” might be strong but when coalitions and ideologies realign it’s not always easy to draw a straight line in history.

    i mean a bunch the South switched its vote on the national level to the GOP in the ’60s. some people probably had certain prejudices. i think that can be acknowledged while pointing out that a) having certain prejudices, mild or not, does not necessarily discredit someone’s views on absolutely everything and b) the “GOP won because of the Southern strategy” is an extremely reductionist view that liberals use to try to cast GOP victories as illegitimate. Southern Democrats were not cultural liberals so it is not surprising that they would not find a McGovernized national Democratic Party appealing.

  • “Democrats used to have a Dixiecrat wing” deal”

    The problem with the Democrats is throughout the history of their party they have been comfortable using the power of the State to discriminate among Americans on the basis of race. In regard to the South converting to Republicanism it had virtually nothing to do with race and much to do with the national Democrat party hurtling to the Left following the capture of the party by the McGovern faction in 1972. Jimmy Carter in 1976 helped delay this process, but did not stop it as he was also a man of the Left in a Southern wrapping.

  • “160 years ago the majority of Democrats considered an entire class of people to be sub-human and undeserving of basic civil rights. Some Democrats didn’t consider themselves to be pro-slavery per se, but certainly didn’t want government interfering with that choice. The Republicans, meanwhile, fought to defend the dignity of all humans.

    Doesn’t sound like the parties have switched to me.”

    True Paul. One can imagine a modern day Democrat convention booing these sentiments because of their obvious applicability to the abortion debate and because of their reference to God:

    “These communities, by their representatives in old Independence Hall, said to the whole world of men: “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.” This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to His creatures. [Applause.] Yes, gentlemen, to all His creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on, and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows.”

    That is, until they realized that the speaker was quoting Abraham Lincoln:;cc=lincoln;type=simple;rgn=div1;q1=Speech%20at%20Lewistown;view=text;subview=detail;sort=occur;idno=lincoln2;node=lincoln2%3A567

  • Don, I just wanted to let you know that since finding TAC, and reading your homages and references to Mr. Lincoln, I have downloaded the entire library of Lincoln’s writings and speeches to my Kindle, and am pursuing a concentrated effort to add their essences to my intellectual aresenal. This will undoubtedly necessitate some mental remodeling, if not outright expansion if such is possible, as the volume is ponderous. Nor are they ‘quick reads;’ indeed, the tankard is large, but each sip is so rich and delectable that it will be a very long time before I can consider a refill.

    Coupled with the Papal encyclicals (so far) Rerum Novarum, Humanae Vitae and Caritas in Veritate I am finding an amazing recharging of the basic, commonsense tenets that life has beaten out of me over the past few decades. It’s like returning home in a way that might have made Thomas Wolfe rethink a few things.

    The wonderful dichotomy of simplicity and elegance contained in the wisdom of these works has also brought home the truly loathsome nature of the sin of selfishness; I would beat the drum and blare the trumpet to call attention, but for how far I have yet to go before I can even begin to think myself a worthy example. Perhaps someday.

    Thank you for the tremendous efforts. You truly are a City on a Hill.

  • “have downloaded the entire library of Lincoln’s writings and speeches to my Kindle”

    Enjoy WK. Mr. Lincoln is a master stylist and could pack more thought in fewer words than any other writer of the English tongue.

    “Thank you for the tremendous efforts. You truly are a City on a Hill.”

    I would blush WK if it were still possible for me to do so after three decades at the bar! 🙂

  • “The problem with the Democrats is throughout the history of their party they have been comfortable using the power of the State to discriminate among Americans on the basis of race.”

    yes but, for example, if the George Wallace of 1968 was here today he wouldn’t be for affirmative action.

    calling affirmative action racist, regardless of its truth, isn’t going to gain a lot of traction with people who aren’t already against it IMO. what’s needed is to point out that it perpetuates this idea that black people cannot succeed without it/that all their current problems can be blamed on white racism, it promotes skepticism even for blacks who didn’t get a boost from it, and it isn’t just — also that it screws over working-class whites who aren’t “privileged” in any sense of the term.

    Jim Webb i thought wrote a good piece against it a while back, obviously benefiting from some leeway since he’s a Democrat

  • “calling affirmative action racist, regardless of its truth,”

    Always best to stick with the truth in determining government policy. The racial spoils system celebrated by the Democrats has had an evil impact on the nation as a whole, and, in particular, in regard to the supposed beneficiaries.

    “yes but, for example, if the George Wallace of 1968 was here today he wouldn’t be for affirmative action.”

    The Wallace of 1968 was for affirmative action, for whites. By the end of his life he was still embracing affirmative action with the colors shifted.

    “Jim Webb”

    I can think of few political positions that Jim Webb hasn’t betrayed, sometimes more than once.

  • “Enjoy WK. Mr. Lincoln is a master stylist and could pack more thought in fewer words than any other writer of the English tongue.”

    Reagan was much this way as well. If you get the book “Reagan in His Own Hand”, you will see, especailly in the radio spots he did from about 1976 to when he stsrted gearing up for the 1980 run, he could pack more information in a few minute sound bite than anybody I ever knew. This affrims my belief that the most profound truths are elementary and take few words to demonstrate and the most pernicious errors take few words to expose. Unfortunately, few understand that.

  • Pingback: Review of the Lincoln Trailer | The American Catholic

Two Memorable Events From Last Night

Friday, September 7, AD 2012


Two events from last night stand out.  First, Timothy Cardinal Dolan praying for the unborn at the Democrat Convention in his closing prayer.  Just such an eventuality is why the Democrat powers that be didn’t want the Cardinal to be there to begin with.  Good for the Cardinal.

Second, Jennifer Granholm, former Democrat governor of Michigan, doing the best Howard Dean parody I have ever seen.  ( The impact is somewhat blemished when one recalls that GM is facing bankruptcy again.  Oh well.)

And that was that, nothing else of note.  Bye Democrats.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Two Memorable Events From Last Night

  • One, “Honey Boo Boo”, her sisters, and her mother went swimming.

    Two, “Honey Boo Boo”, her sisters, and her mother ate (lots of) barbecue.


    No, wait!

    Three, “Honey Maa Maa” weighted herself. She’s down to 308 lbs.

    That was more memorable than anything that occurred in Charlotte.

  • I watched none of it.

    Courageous bloggers felt duty-bound . . .

    Legal Insurrection/Prof. Jacobson had some tweets:

    “Playing the class warfare really hard, the only war he doesn’t want to end . . . ”

    “The strawman cometh – false choices from a demagogue . . . “

  • Never underestimate your opponent. Obama’scontempt for the intelligence of his constituents has led him to underestimate the will of the people to have good and just government.

    You were right, Donald, Obama does not make a second rate senator.

  • The DNC is in full panic mode. At least last time they had the lackluster Bush to point at. Now the Left is disintegrating before our eyes. If the GOP loses this one, it will be a dimension of suckitude no one has ever seen before.

  • Cardinal Dolan’s prayer was wonderful…” those waiting to be born”. I suspect he wasn’t invited out for drinks afterward.

  • Dick Morris’ analysis was also good. Don’t know if one can find it on

  • This morning Bill Bennett was saying that the speech exhibited a bit of “sympathy” rather than confidence.

    Woe is me, look at what I inherited. I’ve tried my best, give me a bit more time. Etc., etc.

    I think Bill Bennett is right.

    Those listening to the speech came away feeling sorry for Obama and want to help. Not exactly inspiring confidence in the man.

    Contrast that with Paul Ryan saying, “Yes, We Can Do This” to “Woe is me”.

    Love it.

  • I am very proud of the Cardinal. He went straight at them and didn’t flinch.

  • Anybody conversant with the catch-phrases and mots-du-jour of the current election cycle would have to admit that he got 3 or 4 good jabs in, even if they were wrapped in a down pillow. Nicely done, Cardinal Dolan. You spoke to more than just the crowd assembled there, and we heard you.

Democrat Party Chairman for Palm Beach Hates Christians.

Thursday, September 6, AD 2012


Mark Alan Siegel, the Palm Beach County Party Chairman for the Democrat Party, forgets one of the fundamental rules of life:  If you are going to say something stupid and bigoted make sure you are not on video!

Here is his apology after he realized his words were going viral on the net:

“I apologize to all Democrats and Floridians for my ill chosen words last night.  After watching the interview I realize that what I said did not accurately make  the point I was trying to establish. More importantly I apologize to all  Christians, Jews and other people of faith for any embarrassment or anger my  remarks may have caused. Throughout my life I have practiced religious tolerance  among all people of faith. I am sincerely sorry for any remarks I made that may  have diminished that record. I alone am responsible for my remarks and I pray  that they are not taken as the position of the Palm Beach County Democratic  Party.”
Here is the statement of Yael Hershfield, interim director of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League in Florida:

“The Anti-Defamation League is glad to see that  Mr. Siegel has issued a  sincere apology for his offensive  comments about Christians, and that he  made it clear he was solely responsible for them.  Religious bigotry has no  place in politics and civil society.”

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Democrat Party Chairman for Palm Beach Hates Christians.

  • Isn’t snatching defeat from the jaws of victory the GOP’s patented m.o.?!?

  • i’m not entirely sure but that this guy (who obviously believes what he said if you read it,) in tune with the “why are Jews liberals?” stuff i’ve read about, sort of typifies it: they think the GOP, being the designated White Anglo-Saxon Christian Male party demographically, has this covert anti-Semitism that’s just waiting to be unleashed. even their pro-Israeli stance is secretly anti-Semitic (really…does anyone think that Romney says the things he does about Israel cuz he wants to hasten the end times)

    ‘course i don’t wanna stereotype all Jews, but that seems to be part of it.

  • wouldn’t it be great to hear Netanyahu’s response to what Siegal said!

  • I suspect it would involve the term meshugana! He understands that Christian evangelicals are the most pro-Israel section of the US population outside of most Orthodox Jews.

  • Imagine the hue and cry; the demands for high level resignations; the cries for the Presidential candidate to repudiate his positions; the pitchforks, tar and feathers . . . if a GOP volunteer handing out leaflets in a Boise parking lot had said such a thing about abortionsists.

  • WOW, I can’t believe he said that on camera….

  • He said they want ‘us’ to die and convert. Just drastic shock value to claw the listener’s heart. Can’t convert after death; as far as I understand it, one converts to live. And live on the base of Mosaic law to boot.

    Some of these drastic statements (bigotry, extreme hate speech, and racism accusations) are from the school of “It takes one to know one.” These cause severe injury to souls as would a vulture’s beak or talon to prey. So irresponsible, cruel, and vicious. The reponse of the first lady to the religion off then on is an example. ‘Oh – it’s a non-issue.’ Almost a year after she was recorded at 9/11 10th memorial saying ‘all this for a damn flag’.

    DNC speeches are no fun. We’re right (yay), they’re wrong (yay) every other sentence.
    Reality (huh?), buzzwords (forward). Was there anyone well-balanced? I have no appetite for popcorn. I need bandaids and an old movie.

  • Sure he’s Jewish,
    Sounds more like a muslim, 😉

  • Wait. I thought fundamentalists supported Israel wholeheartedly because Our Lord will not return until the Temple is rebuilt. Oi vey I can’t keep up.

  • This guy actually told the truth about Christian Fundamentalists and their relationship to Jews. Fundamentalists don’t like Jews. They like their own phony eschatologies.

  • Exposition, please, Dr. Elton.

  • This guy actually told the truth about Christian Fundamentalists and their relationship to Jews. Fundamentalists don’t like Jews. They like their own phony eschatologies.

    It is–at best–a broadbrush, more like laying it on with a trowel.

    Christian fundamentalism isn’t some undifferentiated Borg phenomenon, after all. John Hagee certainly doesn’t fit your stereotype.

    Frankly, you really need to define your terms. I have heard the “fundamentalist!” scare term brandished against Catholics, after all.

  • “This guy actually told the truth about Christian Fundamentalists and their relationship to Jews. Fundamentalists don’t like Jews. They like their own phony eschatologies.”

    Let’s see. Christians who vigorously support the first Jewish state in 2000 years battling against those who wish to see every Jew in Israel dead or in exile. If this is called “not liking”, may we Catholics have such “not liking” in our hour of peril.

  • I think he said what he did because a number of fundamentalists and evangelicals believe that when the Jews are gathered from the nations to Israel they will in a sense be “ripe for the slaughter” and many will be slaughtered because of the Battle of Armageddon. So while a number of fundamentalists and evangelicals do support the state of Israel and the gathering in of Jews to Israel, their eschatology includes a mass slaughter of Jews at the battle of Armageddon.

  • If he believes that Brennan than he is truly an idiot, but I suspect that fundamental misunderstanding of almost all Christian support for Israel is merely an excuse for him to spew fairly standard leftist hatred of Christians. I see that after initially resisting calls for his resignation as head of the Democrat Party in Palm Beach he has now resigned:

    More’s the pity. I think he is a perfect symbol of what the modern Democrat party has become.

  • Brennan and Elton:

    This man is like a number of liberals: “dotty totalitarians”, “anti-Christian” bigots. I have discussed their views with a number of liberals. A number of these progressive savants believe that the 65 million Chairman Mao murdered (in the “cultural revolution”) was “okay.” It was only a percent or two more than would have starved to death, anyhow. And, the two million Cambodians Pol Pot murdered: they were capitalist exploiters. And, . . .

    That’s what they believe. You think you are right to damn a whole class of people: Christians. Seems you are consistent with most liberals.

  • [Speaking of “phony eschatologies,” here’s what I discovered on the net.]

    Christians Don’t Want Jewish Death

    Democrat leader Mark Siegel stated at the DNC that “fundamentalist Christians…want Jews to die and convert so they can bring on the second coming of their Lord.”
    It wasn’t Glenn Beck, John Hagee, Hal Lindsey or any other Christian who first talked about the predicted massive slaughter of Jews during what Christians call the “end times.”
    It was the ancient Hebrew prophet Zechariah who as long ago as 487 B.C. predicted that two-thirds of Jewry in the “last days” will be killed (Zech. 13:8).
    All true Christian leaders view this scripture with horror and sympathy and NOT with glee!
    Fundamentalist Christians are actually waiting for an “any-moment rapture” to Heaven (several years before the second coming) and do not believe that any event, including this final Jewish holocaust, has to happen before their escapist rapture happens.
    More shocks. Fundamentalists have recently been learning that their rapture belief was first taught in Britain in 1830 and that it wasn’t widely adopted by Americans until the early 1900s. The documentation on all this is in “The Rapture Plot” (carried by online bookstores) which also reveals for the first time that, amazingly enough, this British theory has an anti-Jewish foundation! (For more info Google “Pretrib Rapture Politics.”)
    Although no one is perfect, evangelical Christians (including fundamentalists) are still the best friends of Jewish persons and Israel.

God Returns to Democrat Platform Chicago Style

Wednesday, September 5, AD 2012


Over the protests of their delegates, the Democrat powers that be have reinserted God and pro Israel language back into their platform.  The voice votes in the video above clearly indicate that the Democrats did not get the two-thirds votes necessary to amend their platform.  An example of why I refer to the Democrat Party and not the Democratic Party.  Interesting that the top Dems thought it necessary to make these changes.  No doubt they feared that they were being killed in the blogs and the new media over this, and they could just see the GOP ads talking about the Godless Democrat platform and the Democrats taking an anti-Israeli stance.  The fact that they did not have the two-thirds vote necessary to amend their platform was of small moment.  Simply keep voting and then finally just declare that your side won!   Democracy Democrat style in action.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to God Returns to Democrat Platform Chicago Style

  • i don’t split hairs with the Democrat(ic) thing, it’s capitalized after all. they’ve always been a liberal party, post-1972 they’re just more hellbent on taking that liberalism to new and more “interesting” conclusions.

  • I am sure that God WHO created all men equal and endowed all with unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness appreciates being acknowledged even by one Democratic Democrat person.

  • It was amazing to hear them actually yell “nay” when asked if the reinsertions should pass, not once, not twice but three times!

  • Note that these are the people that the Republican leaders want to sit down and compromise with.

  • Excellent comment, Rozin.

    At the 2:38 mark, a woman tells the Chairman, “You’ve got to rule. and then you’ve got to let them do what they’re gonna do.”

    To me, that’s proof that the fix was in. The amendments were getting in no matter what. Make the ruling we told you to make, she’s saying; and simply let the crowd get mad, let them boo. Who cares.

  • “God” – or at least the Democrat version thereof – was ALWAYS in the Democrat Platform.

    Obama is mentioned 100+ times.

  • Perhaps a new name for the Demorcrat Party should be Democrat? Party.

  • That’s the Chicago way you just witnessed. Did God get put back in the Democrat Platform and did Jerusalem get support for its rightful place to be the capital of Israel according to the delegates to the Democrat Convention? When the voice of the people didn’t match the will of the party bosses after three attempts, the bosses just ruled the way they wanted, the people be damn.

    How Catholics can still be giving their name identification and votes to that despicable party, I’ll never know. No, I take that back. I do know. Those Catholics think they are better than the people in the other party because they “care” for the “little people.” What I can’t get over is discovering over half the Catholic clergy are Democrats and vote for the pro-abortion party, including bishops!!!

  • The will of the party bosses yesterday was identical to the will of the floor today. The will of the leaders changed only because of the PR fiasco, not because of any error or change of heart. The leaders will not permit votes next time on anything. Pre-printed ballots only.

  • Reverence – of public relations or perception for a couple of months then the boot by 11/7.
    Transparency indeed.

  • on a related note i am not looking forward to the inevitable “blame it on the fundies (and by extension conservative Catholics)” if Romney loses.

    take this for example, i live in California. the GOP’s last gubernatorial nominee was Meg Whitman, not exactly a culture-war firebreather. she lost, and while i can’t exactly recall how close it was i don’t think it was that close. why do “concerned conservatives” in mainstream outlets think the “out-of-touch plutocrat” card played by the Dems is any less effective than the “anti-women” BS?

    of course that’s one state, not the whole country, but if anything the swing vote in this country at least historically has been from cultural conservatives, not economic ones. think Reagan Democrats, who saw their party becoming a “rainbow” collection of multicultural grievance politics and didn’t like it.

  • Pingback: Democratic National Convention God Nancy Pelosi Canon 915 | Big Pulpit
  • Reminds me of the crowd when Pilot asked “Who do you want, Jesus or Barabus?”

  • The DEMONcrats have one foot in Hell and they want to drag the rest of us into it.

  • Glad they managed to get the third denial in before the cock crowed.

Abortion, More Abortion, Yet More Abortion

Wednesday, September 5, AD 2012



Hattip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.  William H. Seward, Secretary of State under Abraham Lincoln, once described a series of sermons he attended as “Hell, More Hell, Yet More Hell”.  Sustitute Abortion for Hell, and how fitting that is, and it is an apt description for the Democrat convention yesterday, prior to the convention reaching the prime time viewing hours of 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Central Time.  The affection for slaying kids in the womb was so extreme that even the pro-abort David Brooks of The New York Times noticed it:

“You know, you’re electing someone — we’re going to spend four more years with these people — and after this speech, I think a lot of people will say, ‘Yeah, I think I kind of do,’” Brooks said.

“The one cavil I will have … is this speech has — [it] reinforces something we’ve heard all night, which was how much the crowd goes crazy and how passionate they are about abortion and gay marriage and the social issues. And tonight has been about that.

“And to me it should have been a lot more about economics, growth, and debt. And that better be the job of day two and day three because they did not do it here.”

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Abortion, More Abortion, Yet More Abortion

  • They are so one-sided and seriously out of focus. Clinton told them “it is the economy stupid” when he ran. Now “it is your vagina sisters” and that seems to be as their heads get in looking at the entire election drama.

  • The party of slavery.

    The party of the infanticide of the unborn.

    The party of homosexual filth.

    What has changed, really, in 160 years?

  • It’s just because they can’t talk about a number of bankrupted cities, the economy, food and fuel prices, depressed housing construction, or tragically high unemployment.

    Matt Welch: “In this idyllic landscape of Democratic magical thinking, there is no state and local budget crises, no unaffordable and underfunded defined-benefit public pension obligations, nothing at all standing in the way of ‘investing’ in our public safety, except (in ex-Republican Stern’s words) ‘right-wing extremists.’ Vallejo, California is not bankrupt because of public employee pensions, and the rest of the state is not following suit. It’s a hell of a place, this Democrat-land. Wish I could live there. . . . One of the great ironies of this convention already is that speaker after speaker denounces Republicans for being unable to tell the truth or get their facts straight. Meanwhile, one of the most important truths of modern governance—we are well and truly out of money—sits neglected in the corner.”

  • The men have lost their private property rights to their own seed and offspring and have been emasculated. The tight-lipped women had glee but nary a joyful face at the DNC.

  • Wish they’d fact check the price of groceries as related to the price of fuel to transport them since Jan. 2009.

    Or, fact check the historic, unparalled upward movement in the amount of the national debt in that timeframe. And, why the historic mark of $16,000,000,000,000.00 being reached right during the DNC wasn’t someone’s speech.

    Or, fact check how the President will budget some money for the people counting on him to pay their benefits with the economy gone.

    Or, fact check whether the Republican are more concerned about continuing to afford the benefits for the poor by controlling spending than the President who keeps giving big amounts to certain business corporations.

    Or, why he gives to such as Solyndra and what they do with their big checks.

    Or, fact check who is lying to their diehard voters.

    Or, fact check what Roe v. Wade legalizes already and has for forty years.

  • It’s difficult to know whether most of the liberal democrats lack real intelligence or they just don’t care at all about God and what’s right and what He wants!?!

    The liberal democrats (a number of them in my family) can’t compare what Obama SAYS to what Obama DOES, which are usually opposite one another. The liberal democrats are lacking in morality and awareness that we are creations of a loving God – who loves us GREATLY and only wants what’s best for us, and that we should LISTEN to what HE wants!

    I pray, among other things, for the conversion of sinners, especially those dying with mortal sin – throughout all of time. I pray “throughout all of time” because God is not limited by time as we are. It’s possible that someone was saved from hell in the 700’s or the 1500’s because of such a prayer said in the 2000’s.

    These people DO need prayer. They are so obnoxious and harmful that it is HARD to pray for them. If they have their way, and Obama is elected, the United States will lose all the beauty, freedom and strength it has had for the past 200 years. It will stop being a beacon of hope for all those throughout the world – and those within the country as well.

    The truth is, as Ann Coulter indicated once, that the Democratic party is Godless.

    They really are the party of satan. I don’t say that lightly or glibly. It seems that most of their goals would be shared by satan also.

    It must be REALLY SAD to be living life without a “compass”. That compass is Jesus Christ and the Church that He left on earth for our guidance and nuturance in this DIFFICULT, HARROWING journey called life.

    It was hard to believe that SO MANY PEOPLE don’t care about the rights of pre-born babies. Even liberal democrats were once pre-born babies but that doesn’t matter to them because they are enormously self-centered. This is also the group that three times ROARED their DEFIANCE of reinstating the term “God-given” before the word “potential” in the Democratic platform. How SAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is tragic that not only are they speeding on their way to hell by giving God the middle finger – but that their precious lives, the short timespan that they have on earth is being WASTED on evil and filth.

    We have to pray arduously, especially before the election, that the eyes of the American people will be OPENED to see that Obama has been a very bad president, who has consistently acted AGAINST THE BEST INTERESTS of the United States for 3-1/2 years. He HATES this country. He is also a compulsive liar, as are Biden and Pelosi. (Well, with Biden, maybe he simply can’t remember what he said 15 seconds ago.)

    What’s the difference between present day America and Sodom and Gomorrah? I think the difference is that percentage-wise we have more good people than they did.

    We can’t let ourselves be filled with hate (as tempting as it is). We HAVE to keep strong. We have to keep working and praying for the causes of our dear Father in Heaven, our beloved Savior, Jesus Christ, and the wonderful, loving Holy Spirit. Let us pray that the Holy Spirit will powerfully convert our nation to becoming a truly Christian nation again.

    We are at a CRITICAL turning point now. It is a turning point for the destiny of our nation and the destiny of the world because we have been the world leader and a world hope. It is a titanic battle between God’s side and the devil’s side. We KNOW which side which political party is on.

    KEEP PRAYING, KEEP WORKING FOR THE RIGHT END, EVEN PRAY FOR THE POOR SLOBS WHO PERSECUTE YOU AND PERSECUTE THIS COUNTRY AND PERSECUTE HELPLESS PRE-BORN BABIES AND THE ELDERLY. They are so evil and out-of-touch. They don’t even know it. I DON’T understand how these people can “make God irrelevant” in their lives. He created us. He saved us. He loves us. HE WILL JUDGE US WHEN WE DIE!!! These people are absolutely clueless. We MUST pray for them whether we want to or not. They are SO PATHETIC and TRAGIC and MISLED. If we are truly God’s childern – WE MUST PRAY FOR THEM for their sakes, also to bless God, and for the sake our nation NOW and IN THE FUTURE.



Compare and Contrast, or Reason Number One Why I Am A Republican

Tuesday, September 4, AD 2012



The Democrat platform on abortion:

The President and the Democratic Party believe that women have a right to control their reproductive choices. Democrats support access to affordable family planning services, and President Obama and Democrats will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers. The Affordable Care Act ensures that women have access to contraception in their health insurance plans, and the President has respected the principle of religious liberty. Democrats support evidence-based and age-appropriate sex education.

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.

President Obama and the Democratic Party are committed to supporting family planning around the globe to help women care for their families, support their communities, and lead their countries to be healthier and more productive. That’s why, in his first month in office, President Obama overturned the “global gag rule,” a ban on federal funds to foreign family planning organizations that provided information about, counseling on, or offered abortions. And that is why the administration has supported lifesaving family planning health information and services.

The Republican party platform on abortion:

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Compare and Contrast, or Reason Number One Why I Am A Republican

  • The choice could not be more stark. i am continually stunned that American Catholics could support such an organisation – and of course, in other countries as well; but it seems to be more pronounced in the US.
    Surely, Don, that seal for the Democrats has been doctored -“mors vincet omnia” ?

  • Death conquers all. I am continually stunned also Don that any Catholic could support the Democrats but many do. We might have one or two show up in the comboxes to argue that it is really the Democrats who are pro-life! The human capacity for believing what we want to believe, evidence be hanged, is infinite.

  • But Don, of course death doesn’t conquer all – Jesus’ victory over death tells us so. 🙂

  • I think the Democrat Party, leaving aside individual Democrats, and Jesus aren’t on speaking terms right now!

    The Democrats have removed any reference to God in their platform. They do mention the Southside Messiah over one hundred times.

  • Ha!

    It just proves once again that men who don’t worship God will worship something, or someone else instead.

  • since I have many family members who are democrats, I find reason to pray very hard for them..It seems that there is nothing else left to do…reason does not work!

  • Pingback: We Belong to the Government | The American Catholic
  • What I find interesting is that the Democratic platform completely dances around the issue of human life. At no point do they come out and say “We don’t believe an unborn child is a human person.” nor do they say “We believe an unborn child is a human person, but we should kill them if they are inconvenient.” They leave that question alone, and for very good reason. If they answer that it is not a human person, then they must defeat the mountain of scientific and medical evidence that says otherwise, not to mention the philosophical questions. If they answer that it is a human person, then they must admit that they are murderers. Either way, they look bad, so they pull a Wizard of Oz: “Pay no attention to the baby behind the belly button, oops, I mean the man behind the curtain.” They avoid any language which might suggest that is an issue. They have to do that, because they have no good response.

  • Don stated it best. “The choice could not be more stark.” I’m always dumbfounded by people who say there is no difference between the parties.

    I wish the Democrats would move in the pro-life direction. I have a sort of moderate, non-political friend who always says “I have high hopes for the Democratic Party,” meaning he thinks that at some point they’ll get over the far leftist infection and return to what they were like in the early part of last century. But he feels that way because he doesn’t follow politics; there is no evidence that they are doing anything of the sort. On the contrary, national Dem candidates are getting progressively worse on the issue.

    But if they did move toward Life it would push the Republicans in a pro-life direction. The country as a whole has been moving in that direction as the horror stories about the evil of abortion pile up in the hearts and minds of Americans. The people know it’s wrong. But the Dems rely on the monetary proceeds from it. It will take a miracle for them to shake that monkey off.

  • To clarify, when I said “.., would move Republicans in a pro-life direction” I meant in an even more pro-life direction and would give them more boldness and bipartisan clout to the movement rather than just the same old expectation of being obstructed on every pro-life initiative.

  • @Pauli, I’m sure your friend is a lovely person, but you might consider getting him a history book. The Democrat party wasn’t a very kind and gentle group of folks in the early 20th century.

    And with that in mind, I have to say how impressive (and depressing) it is that the Democrat party seems to have set out in the last quarter century to ignore their reprehensible past and proclaim themselves the party of civil rights and so many people actually buy it. Slavery, segregation, the KKK, Jim Crow, why do I feel like I’m the only one left who remembers those were all pushed by the Democrats? And now they’ve got the honor of being the party of envy and death. Lovely folks, they are.

  • the “Democrats are the party of slavery and Jim Crow” is silly because it ignores that politics used to be much more coalitional. before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 where Goldwater opposed it on constitutional grounds, civil rights were basically bipartisan, it’s just that the Democrats tolerated Southern segregationists to hold electoral votes in the South from people who were nothing like future McGovern Democrats on other issues. once that coalition broke those people gravitated toward the GOP in national elections because they didn’t have anything in common with the increasingly left-wing nature of the Democratic Party.

    note that this isn’t a “GOP won the South because of racism” argument. Nixon did try to get votes from Wallace people but you could argue they regardless of segregationist views they might’ve held in the past, they were more in tune with the GOP on other issues anyway.

  • i basically view the Dixiecrats:today’s Democrats analogy as flawed in the same way as if you tried to compare Rockefeller Republicans to today’s Republicans. demographics and ideology have shifted over time.

    if anything is wrong with the modern Democratic Party on the race issue it’s that they’re too ANTI-racist. by which i don’t mean that racism is acceptable, but that it has consumed them to the point where they’re blissfully ignorant of any potential cultural problems that could arise from unchecked immigration, and they buy into all the multicultural slush.

  • “i am continually stunned that American Catholics could support such an organisation”

    As Lord Macauley observed, “We know through what strange loopholes the human mind contrives to escape, when it wishes to avoid a disagreeable inference from an admitted proposition. We know how long the Jansenists contrived to believe the Pope infallible in matters of doctrine, and at the same time to believe doctrines which he pronounced to be heretical.”

  • “if anything is wrong with the modern Democratic Party on the race issue it’s that they’re too ANTI-racist. ”

    If twere only true! Actually the Democrat Party has always been fine with government discriminating against people based on their race. The colors have shifted over time, but the principle has remained the same. The Republicans on the other hand have remained remarkably true to the principle that government must not discriminate against Americans on the basis of race.

  • Thanks for the Reagan clip! He certainly has a way of telling a punch line.

  • As for the Democrat Platform – so called “social justice” has won out. Thank you Cardinal Bernardin – and the U.S. bishops and half the clergy who remain registered in the pro-abortion party even still today.

  • well even affirmative action, which obviously does not treat individuals equally, is based on the Dems’ “equality of outcome” philosophy. it’s in keeping with their idea that blacks are still horribly oppressed in this country and the government must give them a leg up. AKA, an overcorrection to past racism.

    it’s also why for all the optimistic talk about how blacks are more socially conservative than whites, the Dems’ combination of affirmative action and successfully painting the GOP as the party of those eeeeeevil white flyover states aren’t gonna have black people voting GOP any time soon.

  • Affirmative action is not just for blacks in the Democrat universe but also for Hispanics and native Americans. Asians can go hang. Interesting how for the Democrats’ favored skin colors always come in the shade of useful voting blocks for the Democrat party.

  • @JDP, my point was not that the Democrats are exactly the same now as they were then. Only to point out that this idea of a time when the Democrat party represented everything wonderful in the world is a fantasy. The fact is the party has a very dismal history, demographic shift or no.

  • Oh, well, Donald, as I have stated times without number, Obama is the High Priest of Satan. He is determined to divide, and hopefully destroy the Catholic Church. But I have news for him……even if you Americans commit suicide by re-electing him, God will hit back, and viciously, too. May each and everyone in your country who calls themselves Catholics, and all people of goodwill, jump into the trenches and vote this Monster out.

The Party of Death in Convention Assembled

Sunday, August 26, AD 2012



Playing up the War on Women meme and the Todd Akin gaffe, the Democrats are going to be celebrating their most sacred rite right at their Convention in September:

Democrats said that they will feature Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parent Action Fund, Nancy Keenan, president of the NARAL Pro-Choice America and Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University student whose plea for federal birth control funding drew the ire–and a subsequent apology–from Rush Limbaugh.

What’s more, the Democrats are expanding their list of women ready to assail the GOP on women’s issue, adding Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski and actress Eva Longoria to the list that already includes Sen. John Kerry and Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren.

This goes hand in hand with their rejection of Cardinal Dolan’s offer to pray at the Democrat convention.  Dolan is giving the benediction at the Republican convention this week, so in an effort at even-handedness, he offered to do so for the Democrats.  This offer was rejected out of hand.  Why?  It would have been smart politics for the Democrats to have the Cardinal pray for them, perhaps the visuals marginally helping them with Catholic voters.  Yet they turned up their nose.  I can think of three reasons for the rejection:

Continue reading...

37 Responses to The Party of Death in Convention Assembled

  • The Party of Slavery.
    The Party of Death.

    My, how times have changed!


  • The parallels between our pro-life fight Paul and the fight against slavery are indeed strong. This from a speech by Lincoln in New Haven, Connecticut on March 6, 1860:

    “But those who say they hate slavery, and are opposed to it, but yet act with the Democratic party — where are they? Let us apply a few tests. You say that you think slavery is wrong, but you denounce all attempts to restrain it. Is there anything else that you think wrong, that you are not willing to deal with as a wrong? Why are you so careful, so tender of this one wrong and no other? [Laughter.] You will not let us do a single thing as if it was wrong; there is no place where you will allow it to be even called wrong! We must not call it wrong in the Free States, because it is not there, and we must not call it wrong in the Slave States because it is there; we must not call it wrong in politics because that is bringing morality into politics, and we must not call it wrong in the pulpit because that is bringing politics into religion; we must not bring it into the Tract Society or the other societies, because those are such unsuitable places, and there is no single place, according to you, where this wrong thing can properly be called wrong! [Continued laughter and applause.]”

  • I hope that even women who favor legal abortion see this for what it is – shameless pandering. Silly me, I once thought that the whole point of feminism was to assert that women were to be recognized as equals and not simply as sex objects. What does this obsessive focus on BC and abortion do but reduce women to their sex organs? “Women’s health” has come to mean abortion and birth control and breast cancer, as if those are the only reasons women need medical treatment and the only thing we have on our minds. Forget the economy, jobs, foreign policy, runaway government spending – no, we just sit around contemplating our reproductive organs all day long. We’re apparently too dumb to be interested in any other issue. Who are the sexists here?

  • Well said, Donna V., well said!

  • Donna, I couldn’t have said it better! I’ve long had the same thoughts that the early feminists were real women and mothers. They wanted to be able to vote, they wanted to be treated as equals. It’s insane what it has come to mean nowadays.

  • This is a risky move by the Dems. Many independents do not buy into this phony war on women. Class warfare is a much better strategy for the Dems — dishonest to be sure, but more likely to be effective with middle and working class independents. The right to contraception meme, and placing Planned Parenthood front and center, will not play well with many undecided voters. Its only upside is turning out the base.

  • “I fled, and cry’d out, DEATH!
    Hell trembled at the hideous name, and sigh’d
    From all her caves, and back resounded, DEATH!”
    Line 787, Book II, Paradise Lost

    “So farewell hope, and with hope farewell fear,
    Farewell remorse; all good to me is lost.
    Evil, be thou my good.”
    Lines 108-110; Book IV.

    “So spake the Fiend, and with necessity,
    The tyrant’s plea, excused his devilish deeds.”
    Lines 393-394. Book IV.

    “Necessity is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves”, William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, Speech on the India Bill, November, 1783.

  • Its only upside is turning out the base.

    I suspect they’re having doubts that they can even solidify and motivate their base to turn out, Mike. First things first and all that.

  • RL,
    I suspect that is true and not a good sign for them. Either party that makes efforts to appeal to its base risks alienating independents. For Romney, that means stick to economic issues. Obama’s best version of that is class warfare. Many working class Dems are not fans of PP, etc., and placing this issue front and center is risky. I suspect that in the echo chamber that is Obama’s campaign, they think most women are sympathetic to Sandra Fluke, when the truth is most never heard of her and most don’t think government should be in the contraception business or promoting abortion.

  • Remember that Sandra Fluke’s demand was specifically not for government to provide her birth control. Rather, it was a demand that government force Georgetown to provide her birth control, and that was her motivation for going to Georgetown in the first place.

    Any time Sandra Fluke makes her way back to the limelight, this should be highlighted.

  • If you have some spare time, you ought to check out some of the pro-slavery tracts from that period. For instance, we often here from pro-abortionists, “If you are so opposed to abortion, how come you are not adopting unwanted children?” There was pro-slavery tract making exactly the same argument to the effect of, “if you are so opposed to slavery, why won’t you pay fair-market value for them and free them yourselves?”

  • Scott W.
    Somewhat Ironically, if the federal government had done just that it would have been an incredible bargain compared to the human and financial costs of the Civil War. Of course, such a scenario would be great fodder for alternative historians (perhaps Don has already pondered it).

  • Lincoln, Mike, when he made statements in favor of compensated emancipation during the War made the same argument. Unfortunately, neither Confederate slave holders or slave holders in the border states were interested.

    “And if, with less money, or money more easily paid, we can preserve the benefits of the Union by this means, than we can by the war alone, is it not also economical to do it? Let us consider it then. Let us ascertain the sum we have expended in the war since compensated emancipation was proposed last March, and consider whether, if that measure had been promptly accepted, by even some of the slave States, the same sum would not have done more to close the war, than has been otherwise done. If so the measure would save money, and, in that view, would be a prudent and economical measure. Certainly it is not so easy to pay something as it is to pay nothing; but it is easier to pay a large sum than it is to pay a larger one.”;cc=lincoln;view=text;idno=lincoln5;rgn=div1;node=lincoln5%3A1126

  • Thanks, Don. I had not realized that. But I’m not surprised. The South’s investment in slavery was more than just financial. It was cultural and entangled with its own sense of self-determination. The War was probably a tragic necessity.

  • Mike Petrik

    The British Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 combined a system of indentures labour for former slaves and substantial compensation. It met with no resistance and also demonstrated that there was no economic case for slavery: the cost of sugar production actually fell after emancipation. The wages of a free labourer and the cost of a slave’s subsistence was the same and a slave represented capital sunk in a wasting asset.

    Likewise, there was no resistance to the abolition of serfdom in Russia in 1861

    I have always thought that slavery in the South was supported, not only by slave-owners, but by the majority of those who were not, as a police measure, not an economic one. It was about controlling the black population. The “Jim Crow” laws, enacted after 1876 bear this out.

  • “If you have some spare time, you ought to check out some of the pro-slavery tracts from that period.”

    What I find interesting is how pro-slavery opinion “hardened” in stages between 1776 and 1860 in a manner not unlike the “hardening” of pro-abortion opinion from, say, 1920 up to the present. From what I understand (this is just a very basic outline), at the time of the Declaration, even Southerners admitted that slavery was not a good thing — it was a necessary evil that, hopefully, could be abolished someday, and in the meantime could be limited with measures such as the abolition of foreign slave trade.

    Then along came the cotton gin and the rise of the cotton industry in the South, which increased demand for slaves. (You could say that the cotton gin, by jump-starting the cotton industry, did for slavery what the Pill, by jump-starting the sexual revolution, did for abortion — counterintuitively, it increased demand for the very thing one would think it would replace.) Consequently, intra-state and inter-state slave trade also became more lucrative, and growing slave populations in the older slave states “had” to go somewhere.

    Hence the ballistic reaction of Southern Congressmen when in 1819, a Northern Congressman proposed a rather mild scheme of gradual emancipation for slaves as a condition for admission of the Missouri Territory as a state (no present slaves would be freed, but any slave children born after statehood would be freed on their 25th birthday). The ensuing debate, which included not so subtle threats of secession and war by representatives of Southern states, was the first real indication that the South had shifted from “Slavery is a bad thing and we’ll get rid of it eventually” to “Slavery is NOT going away and you Northerners had better find a way to live with it.”

    The way that was found to “live with” slavery was, of course, the famous Missouri Compromise setting a geographic boundary between slave and free territory. After that, slavery kind of went on the back burner as a national issue until the mid-1840s, when the annexation of Texas and the Mexican War presented the prospect of a vast expansion of territory potentially open to slavery.

    By this time, Southern opinion had hardened even more and they were now insisting upon expansion of slavery or else. The result: the so-called Compromise of 1850, which included, among other measures, a stricter Fugitive Slave Law compelling residents of free states to cooperate in the return of escaped slaves to their owners. Now, the pro-slavery side had moved beyond a “just leave us alone” stance to insisting that slave ownership couldn’t be merely tolerated, it was an absolute “right” that the federal government should protect.

    Finally, there was the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision, which basically turned slave ownership into a “right” that could not be geographically limited except, perhaps, by popular vote. Now slave owners, for all practical purposes, had the right to own slaves anywhere and at any time — just as today’s Planned Parenthood, et al. fight for the right to abort babies at any time and for any reason.

  • One difference is that abortion was legally murder until 1973 when the Supremes conjured a Constitutional right to “privacy.”

  • T Shaw,
    That is a bit of an exaggeration. First, the legality of abortion was a state question, and state laws varied — including several where if was legal on demand. Further the trend favored liberalization. Second, in states where if was criminalized, it was not classified as murder, and penalties were not comparable.

  • Mike Petrik

    Under Scottish practice, abortionists were, invariably, charged, at common law, with using an instrument or administering a poison or other noxious substance, with intent to procure a miscarriage.

    In this way, prosecutors did not have to prove that the child was alive at the time of the offence, or, even, that the woman was pregnant; it was enough that the abortionist thought she was, or even, might be.

    Given the rule, “Testis unus, testis nullus” [one witness is no witness] prosecutors usually had to rely on the evidence of two women who had undergone abortions (such witnesses to a course of criminal conduct being regarded as mutually corroborative). Now, a witness’s precognition cannot be used against them and, once they testify as a socius criminis, they are immune from prosecution anyway.

    As a matter of practice, therefore, the prosecution of the woman would usually face insuperable obstacles.

  • The fact is that the liberals already have their photo opportunity with Cardinal Dolan at the Al Smith Dinner and they can use that night and its images to portray singularity with the Catholic Church, which they know luke-warm Catholics will eat up in their effort to find an excuse to vote for and defend Obama or other liberal agendas. They don’t need another moment of Cardinal Dolan’s time, he has already been very generous to offer a moment for the liberal media to feed on. it’s a good thing that Cardinal Dolan isn’t being welcome at the DNC, he should not be giving blessings to a party that has used the HHS Mandate to make Catholics in this country question their values and morals, and will also be using pro-abortion as its major platform for the DNC. The Catholic Church should not be seen anywhere near an event that upholds this murderous ideology.

  • T. Shaw says:
    “One difference is that abortion was legally murder until 1973 when the Supremes conjured a Constitutional right to “privacy.””

    I did not know that there was not a right to privacy enjoyed by all people. If the Supreme Court was affirming the “right to privacy”, then it must have affirmed the “right to privacy “ enjoyed by all people. If the Supreme Court was rewriting the unalienable “right to privacy” endowed by “their Creator”, then the court corrupted true freedom.
    How did the Court go from the “right to privacy” enjoyed by all people to the “right to privacy” for the woman’s body for the perpetration of abortion, and paid for by all men, women, and children including those unborn of our constitutional posterity?

  • Mike Petric, Michael Paterson-Seymour:

    How does the termination of a human being’s existence become less of a crime only because legal authorities do not have the wherewithall to prosecute?

    If human rights came from the government, the government can tax you for taking human rights away.

  • “We shall go before a higher tribunal – a tribunal where a Judge of infinite goodness, as well as infinite justice, will preside, and where many of the judgments of this world will be reversed.” Thomas Meagher, late B/G, Commander Irish Brigade, March 1862 to May 1863.

  • Don, I can see where you’re going with this. You’re calling for reparations for the descendants of slave-owners, right? That sounds like political gold!

  • Mary, many sins are not crimes, and in some cases that is precisely for prudential reasons such as unenforecability. While Christendom long treated abortion as a sin and a crime, the offense was not really considered a variant of murder and penalties were almost always directed toward the abortionists rather than the mothers. The word “right” has an uneasy relationship with Catholic tradition, but governments will always secure rights imperfectly, and necessarily so. This is not to suggest that abortion is not a serious sin that should be criminalized (it is and should), but current human circumstances, or perhaps the human condition itself, makes it very difficult, and probably unwise or even unjust, to criminalize it as murder.

  • Mike Petric “the offense was not really considered a variant of murder and penalties were almost always directed toward the abortionists rather than the mothers.”

    The abortionist is precisely the individual who must be held accountable. The abortionist’s crime is more than scraping the human soul, God’s will from the womb. The abortionist’s crime is not aiding and assisting in the mother’s, another human being’s, time of need.

  • The sin is in the abrogation of God’s Will by killing the unborn baby, i.e., God’s creation.

  • Pinky says:
    Don, I can see where you’re going with this. You’re calling for reparations for the descendants of slave-owners, right? That sounds like political gold!

    After the Civil War, every freed slave was offered one mule and forty acres of land to support himself. Some accepted the offer. Others went west. There was a movement to make reparations to the descendants of slaves by counting each black persons’ vote as two votes. Not fair, nor is it conducive to good government. Many people did not own slaves. Immigrant people may even have been slaves. How can it be fair to tax a person who has not owned slaves because he has become an American citizen? If Lincoln had not offered a settlement of forty acres and a mule to every slave, a settlement would be necessary.

  • As Nicholas P. pointed out above, the progressive liberal Catholics have their nod of sanction from the Al Smith dinner. It would be a bit hard to take for the Cardinal to say a benediction after hours of speeches dedicated to the killing of the unborn. I assume he offered since his offer was accepted for the Republican convention. He appears to be trying to be meticulous in not being cast as backing either party.

  • The 40 acres and a mule offer was never official US policy, but was the substance of a single ad hoc order by General Sherman (Special Field Order N0. 15) intended to apply to Blacks who were in the proximity of his army as it marched through Georgia. Sherman even set aside South Carolina’s Sea Islands for this purpose, and that acreage was quickly absorbed by the intended beneficiaries. But the idea that freed slaves were more generally given this option is mistaken.

  • Mary – I was kidding.

  • Pinky- For the record, I’m all in favor of reparations. Anybody who is a descendant of a slave must make reparations TO the US for having had the privilege of being born here as a result. Lord knows where they would have been otherwise.

  • ry de Voe wrote, “How does the termination of a human being’s existence become less of a crime only because legal authorities do not have the wherewithall to prosecute?”

    It doesn’t. I was merely pointing out the limits of enforcement.

    In the same way, in France, the maximum penalty for procuring an abortion was 5 years imprisonment. Had it been more than 5 years, the accused would have been entitled to a jury trial and juries notoriously refused to convict a « faiseuse d’anges » [angel maker] as the French call village abortionists. Even so, every village had one; everyone knew it; no one talked about it; the police regarded it as “women’s business.” It was only when a woman died that the Parquet, like Captain Renault, in Casablanca, professed themselves “shocked, shocked, to discover” that such things went on and M. le curé would preach an edifying sermon on the following Sunday.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour:
    Statutes against abortion were wiped away by Roe v. Wade. These statutes were for the edification of all people to know that the government valued the newly begotten human being. And even though they may have been unenforceable, the statutes defined the culture.

    When my mom got pregnant with my sister, the local midwife asked: “Do you want it?”. After my sister was born and mom got me, the local midwife again asked: “Do you want it?” I was able to write: “Here I am. Mom chose me.” This midwife was the richest woman in the county.

    Still, Michael, the statutes define our culture and our culture of life has been expunged from our neighborhood, stolen from our senses and evicted from our consciences, as has the reality of the human being’s immortal soul. Let us at least have the statutes to point to when the day of wrath comes upon us. Thank you, too, for your fine reply to my post.

    Mike Petrik:

    “The 40 acres and a mule offer was never official US policy, but was the substance of a single ad hoc order by General Sherman (Special Field Order N0. 15) intended to apply to Blacks who were in the proximity of his army as it marched through Georgia. Sherman even set aside South Carolina’s Sea Islands for this purpose, and that acreage was quickly absorbed by the intended beneficiaries. But the idea that freed slaves were more generally given this option is mistaken.

    Thank you for this, Mike Petric. My ignorance is showing. And who would have thought it would be Sherman? But thinking, at the time, our country had open space that could be squatted on as in the Homestead Act (which is still viable, see indwellers ) and became yours after seven years. Being a free man and a citizen, the former slave could own property and vote, and as Paul D. writes. It is pretty good to be a U.S. citizen.
    As an aside, Clinton wrote an Executive Order making all free lands and waterways the purview of the chief executve. Squatter’s rights be damned, but these rights do exist in the laws.

    Pinky says:
    Mary – I was kidding.
    Pinky: I was laughing.

  • Mike Petrik, So sorry I misspelled your name.

    If Cardinal Dolan gives the benediction reaffirming the unborn, begotten human being’s right to life, he may not escape with his life. Mother Teresa did at the Prayer Breakfast with the Clintons and at the Noble Peace Prize. Did anyone notice Obama skipped the Prayer Breakfast. too dangerous for a communist.
    Cardinal Dolan is quite capable of affirming man’s unalienable right to life and his freedom of conscience.

    Congress passed the Affordable Healthcare Act handing over its authentic authority to speak for the people in government. Congress does not have the power to trade away representative government’s checks and balances. The Affordable Healthcare Act is legislative nonsense. The HHS mandate is totalitarianism. Congress cannot legislate nonsense.

  • No worries at all, Mary.
    FWIW I doubt Cardinal Dolan will disappoint.

  • Mary de Voe

    I agree that laws can serve for edification and affirming moral values. I would simply add that sometimes a less than ideal measure of enforcement is better than none at all.

    For example, drunkenness is a bad thing, but we only prosecute drunkenness in a public place. Lying is wrong, but we only prosecute the more harmful forms – Falsehood, fraud and wilful imposition, or perjury and so on. We sometimes give immunity to thieves, so they can testify against a resetter.

    A great Catholic jurist, Portalis – he had suffered for the Faith during the French Revolution and was one of the people who drafted the Code Napoléon, said, “Christianity, which speaks only to the conscience, guides by grace the little number of the elect to salvation; the law restrains by force the unruly passions of wicked men, in the interests of public order/public policy [l’ordre public]”

The Party of Gendercide and the Words of Abraham Lincoln

Thursday, May 31, AD 2012

Live Action today released a second video showing that Planned Parenthood, an organization that I have designated  Worse Than Murder, Inc, has no problem with sex selection abortions.  Go here to read my post on the first gendercide video released by Live Action.  Today the House failed to muster the two-thirds vote necessary to pass the  Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act which would have banned this unspeakable evil.  The Obama administration opposed the bill.  Obama has never found any form of abortion he opposes and Planned Parenthood has his complete allegiance.  In the House 276 Republicans voted in favor of the bill, 7 against.   Democrats voted 161 in favor of gendercide and 20 against.

The core of the Democrat party today is abortion.  The vote on gendercide demonstrates just how extreme this allegiance is.  As in the days of slavery, the Democrat party champions the notion that we can, in good conscience, ignore the rights of portions of the human race, and that the unborn, like the slaves of old, are mere property and may be destroyed at the mother’s will and whim.  The words of Lincoln should be our battle cry against this old evil in a new form:

Continue reading...

5 Responses to The Party of Gendercide and the Words of Abraham Lincoln

  • BRAVO! This made me tear up! I am a sidewalk counselor for a pro-life group and everyday the media and the Left just beats us down. Thank you for posting this! God Bless you!

  • Thank you Ashley for being a sidewalk counselor. That is the most difficult, and essential, service in the pro-life cause. I tear up also when I read the words of Lincoln in the above passage.

  • This is so appalling & scary as it reminds me of China.

  • What has always perplexed me is that Catholics and Blacks, as a general rule, have always marched lockstep with democrats! Yes, the left changed the language, rewrote history and owns the rest of the media. That is the reason that most sheeple vote democrat, but how many examples do these people need to convince them that this is the party of death and destruction. These dems are really communists. Oh, and voters DO have a choice – they can always vote for the better choice on the Republican side. Educate yourselves for Goodness Sake!

Party of Death

Wednesday, November 30, AD 2011

4 Responses to Party of Death

Why Do Those Bitter Clingers Vote Republican?

Monday, November 21, AD 2011



Liberal elites frequently profess astonishment at why so many  middle class Americans vote Republican.  Thomas Frank in 2004 published a book, What’s The Matter With Kansas , in which he bemoaned the fact that his fellow Kansans, or former fellow Kansans I should say since he resides in Washington DC, did not share his love of the Party of the Jackass.  Lee Siegel at The Daily Beast has a brilliant column in which he explains the political facts of life to the Liberal elites in the form of a letter from Occupy Harvard to their parents:

The man you think is a “sucker” because he votes for Republican candidates who don’t seem to give a hoot about him will vote for them every time. He looks at you, the crowd of The-Fix-Is-Always-In, and he casts his lot with the crowd of wealth and initiative.

You see, Mom and Dad, they don’t lie about his prospects. They tell him that he has to sink or swim. They don’t disrespect his willpower by promising that government will make life easier for him. They tell him that they respect his individuality. They tell him straight out what you, the liberal elite, know to be true but will never say. They tell him that life in America is winner-take-all, and that they are the people who will let him keep what he has. They tell him that his religion, his wife’s capacity to reproduce, his children—whether they are “successful” or not—are his treasure. They tell him that they don’t care if he is a person of modest ambition, little sophistication, and humble means. What they value is his capacity to change his own life.


What you tell him is that he should put his life in your hands. Yet you scorn his religion. You mock his faith in the sacredness of conception. You deride his belief in family. You tell him that his love for hunting makes him a murderer, and that his terror at being economically displaced makes him a xenophobe and a racist. Then you emasculate his hope for the future by telling him that if his ship comes in—that dream of a ship that makes the grinding disappointment of daily life worth living through—you’ll help yourself to a big slice of it. And you expect him to believe your rhetoric about fairness and equality when, all the while, you are accusing him of gullibility in his politics and bad faith toward the least fortunate of his fellow citizens. When, all the while, you are living untouched by your own policies. When you are cushioned against life’s hardness, not by government, but by simply knowing other people in your class. You expect him to buy your talk about equitable distribution of wealth when you are sailing through tax loopholes off into the sunset. For this man, his emotions make all the rational sense in the world.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Why Do Those Bitter Clingers Vote Republican?

  • Brilliant!

    Thank God 52% of “we the people” persist as producers and taxpayers.

    In general, democrat constituencies, e.g., the OWS crowd are amoral, cretinous, immoral, indolent, languid, vulgar creatures who seem convinced that it is the government’s duty to provide for them.

    Last week, a gang of self-identified “patriotic” millionaires was in DC propagandizing (up-scale street threater?) to end evil tax-cuts-for-the-rich. A right-wing provocateur asked each one (and gave the IRS Form) voluntarily to pay additional monies. They all refused.

    I would have sent them to the nearest US Army Recruiting Station.

  • I especially love the reference to the “Party of the Jackass”. Perhaps the party’s new
    slogan should be “Always Braying, Always Obstinate, Always Sterile”.

  • I read the Daily Beast column. Eh. Seems like a strawman argument to me. Ooo, those lousy rich hypocrites making fun of your hard work and your unborn child! Boo!

    I haven’t read Thomas Frank’s book, but I’ve read other things he’s written, and in my opinion he can’t grapple with the fact that the Republican Party is socially populist and economically elitist, and the Democratic Party is socially elitist and economically populist. That’s not to judge whether either party’s policies are correct; it’s just an acknowledgement that a lot of people are split between their social and economic interests.

    Frank looks at Kansas and can’t figure out why people vote against their economic interests. Well, Frank, that depends first of all on whether you think they are voting against their economic interests. But more than that, the idea that people vote strictly according to their pocketbooks is ridiculous. It reminds me of a question that Charles Murray asked: if you passed away, would you rather your children be adopted by a rich couple with poor morals or a good couple who was just scraping by? I think most people would choose the latter.

    Anyway, sorry if I went off on a tangent there, but lately I’ve been getting equally frustrated by the Bill O’Reillys and the Chris Matthewses.

  • Actually Pinky, Chris “Tingle up my leg” Matthews is sounding fairly frustrated about Obama these days.

  • Regarding Oama’s re-election hopes:

    Bray for a miracle!

GOP Pro-life Win in New Hampshire

Friday, June 24, AD 2011


One of the consequences of the Republican sweep in 2010 is that the Republicans control many state legislatures by very wide margins.  A host of pro-life legislation is making its way through these GOP chambers.  One of the latest pro-life bills to be enacted into law is a parental notification law when minors seek to have an abortion in New Hampshire.  The text of the law may be read here.

On its way to becoming a law it was vetoed by Governor John Lynch.  Lynch is a Democrat, a Catholic and a pro-abort, a combination all too common in our nation.  The veto was overridden in the New Hampshire legislature on June 22 by votes of 266-102 in the House and in the Senate 17-7.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to GOP Pro-life Win in New Hampshire

  • “The next time some “Catholic” shill for the party of abortion attempts to convince you that there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans on abortion, you look them straight in the eye and call them a liar. You may place whatever adjective you please before the term liar.”

    I agree 100%, Donald.

  • Not that Repubs. are perfect but clearly there are differences of substance with Dems. I did point out on Red Cardigan’s blog the substantial voting differences between Repubs. and Dems. on abortion and called it a lie to say there were no differences between the two. She was not pleased. However, I was not calling her a liar as one has to know one is not telling the truth in order to be lying. In this case I believe she has stopped presenting this lie and is not a liar.

    This is opposed to other blogs where the truth has been pointed out and the lies continue. These people are liars.

Abortion Foreign Policy

Sunday, June 27, AD 2010

Hattip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.  Secretary of State Clinton has been at war with Prime Minister Harper of Canada in regard to abortion and the G8 summit meeting, which just concluded yesterday, for months, as the above video from March indicates.

These efforts continued up to the G8 summit, as Clinton wanted to hold any aid hostage until woman’s health was defined as including a right to slay the unborn, as this post by Anna Halpine and Greg Pfundstein at National Review Online indicates:

On the agenda at the G8 summit in Canada is promoting maternal and infant health in the poorest parts of the globe.  The high rates of maternal and infant mortality in many countries are an impediment to democracy and social development, to say nothing of a human tragedy for these communities. Commitments of resources from the G8 countries to address these problems should be welcomed and commended. Why, then, is the Obama delegation threatening to derail these agreements?

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Abortion Foreign Policy

  • This is FAR more that a “Democrat” issue. Its a Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Council of the America’s etc issue mainly overseen by David Rockefeller and his stooges who populate BOTH parties.

    Many people have no idea that population control of third world countries has been official US policy since 1974 with the expressed intent of taking advantage of their natural resources – all in the name of “National Security”. Don’t believe me ? See for yourself…

    Kissinger Report 2004
    How U.S. foreign policy uses population control to exploit third world economies.

    It should be noted that Dick Cheney, yes that Dick Cheney – the former VP has been a Rockefeller stooge for decades doing his bidding – particularly in Latin America

  • Jim,

    Thank God Cheney’s replacement doesn’t work for Rockefeller!

    He goes around calling taxpayers (job producers) smart @$$es!

    Anyhow, for eight years VP Cheney’s duty was to inquire daily about the president’s health and attend state funerals. That’s probably when Cheney got Bush (I blame Bush gets you A+ on a paper in school?) to rescind the Mexico City thingy that provided US $$$funds for abortions the one that Obama immediately reinstated in January 2009.

    However, NOW, Hillary, and the three stooges: Obama, Pelosi and Reid are running the country (into the freaking dirt) and are liberals who don’t work for the TLC. Do they work for George Soros or comintern in hiding?

  • Jim this thread is not going to go down the tin foil hat path. Dick Cheney throughout his career has been opposed to abortion:

    Many RINOs did take a pro-abort position, but they are currently an endangered species in the GOP, without any influence, while the pro-aborts are the heart and soul of the Democrat party.

  • “Their attitude calls to mind that of the pro-slavery forces before the Civil War who were willing to destroy the nation rather than compromise an inch on the ‘sacred’ right of one man to own another man as a chattel.”

    Rave on Don, your digression into liberal revisionist history just shows how deep collectivism has seeped into the mindset of modern day “alleged conservatives”. The federal government, a strong unitary executive, and complete disregard of the 10th Amendment and state’s rights are seen as good things so long as your guys are in power. Forget the fact that a federal government strong enough to force the individual states to permit abortion and gay marriage would also be strong enough to impose it also. As usual you statists are very short sighted.

    In regard to your denigration of the Southern Cause see one of my favorite Simpson scenes.

    Proctor: All right, here’s your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?
    Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter–
    Proctor: Wait, wait… just say slavery.
    Apu: Slavery it is, sir.
    — “Much Apu About Nothing”

    Please don’t intimate that I’m racist or pro-slavery. Rather, I just believe that slavery would have ultimately been eliminated in the US just as it was in every other western nation at the time – without war. It was that the “American Stalin”, Abe Lincoln (who by the way was very much admired by Karl Marx) wanted to increase the power of the presidency and federal government and didn’t care how many constitutional rights he had to trample or people he had to kill to do it.

  • Melinda Gates pledged a further $1.5 billion for maternal health, specifying that no funding would be provided for abortion.

    This seems like good news. She elaborated a little in an interview with NPR on June 7th.

    NORRIS: Now, you didn’t talk specifically about abortion today, but the conference, Women Deliver, is calling for safe and legal abortions as one of the tools that would help combat maternal death. Do you agree for this push? Is that a good idea, this push for access to safe and legal abortions? Or is that getting into a big of a tricky area?

    Ms. GATES: I understand in their case why they’re calling for that, and I think that makes sense, but the foundation specifically doesn’t take a stance on abortion for exactly this reason, is we don’t want to be part of the controversy or stem that controversy.

    We’re much more trying to work upstream on reproductive health rights. If you work upstream on that, and you say to a woman today, you know, would you like to have an injection that you could come in once a month or an implant where you came in once every three years, and you give them the choices or the different tools, then you don’t even have to get into the issue of abortion downstream.

    So we have 200 million women that can’t even get the tools they need to plan their family. We have that problem to solve first.

  • “Please don’t intimate that I’m racist or pro-slavery.”

    Nah, but like most neo-cons (neo-Confederates that is) you simply do not take seriously what the founding fathers of the Confederacy had to say at the time:

    Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy:

    March 21, 1861: “But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the “storm came and the wind blew, it fell.”

    “Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics.”

    Jefferson Davis in his message to the Confederate Congress of April 29, 1861 was quite clear on what the war was about:

    “The climate and soil of the Northern States soon proved unpropitious to the continuance of slave labor, whilst the converse was the case at the South. Under the unrestricted free intercourse between the two sections, the Northern States consulted their own interests by selling their slaves to the South and prohibiting slavery within their limits. The South were willing purchasers of a property suitable to their wants, and paid the price of acquisition without harboring a suspicion that their quiet possession was to be disturbed by those who were inhibited not only by want of constitutional authority, but by good faith as vendors, from disquieting a title emanating from themselves. As soon, however, as the Northern States that prohibited African slavery within their limits had reached a number sufficient to give their representation a controlling voice in Congress, a persistent and organized system of hostile measures against the rights of the owners of slaves in the Southern States was inaugurated and gradually extended. A continuous series of measures was devised and prosecuted for the purpose of rendering insecure the tenure of property in slaves. Fanatical organizations, supplied with money by voluntary subscriptions, were assiduously engaged in exciting amongst the slaves a spirit of discontent and revolt; means were furnished for their escape from their owners, and agents secretly employed to entice them to abscond; the constitutional provisions for their rendition to their owners was first evaded, then openly denounced as a violation of conscientious obligation and religious duty; men were taught that it was a merit to elude, disobey, and violently oppose the execution of the laws enacted to secure the performance of the promise contained in the constitutional compact; owners of slaves were mobbed and even murdered in open day solely for applying to a magistrate for the arrest of a fugitive slave; the dogmas of these voluntary organizations soon obtained control of the Legislatures of many of the Northern States, and laws were passed providing for the punishment, by ruinous fines and long-continued imprisonment in jails and penitentiaries, of citizens of the Southern States who should dare to ask aid of the officers of the law for the recovery of their property. Emboldened by success, the theater of agitation and aggression against the clearly expressed constitutional rights of the Southern States was transferred to the Congress; Senators and Representatives were sent to the common councils of the nation, whose chief title to this distinction consisted in the display of a spirit of ultra fanaticism, and whose business was not “to promote the general welfare or insure domestic tranquillity,” but to awaken the bitterest hatred against the citizens of sister States by violent denunciation of their institutions; the transaction of public affairs was impeded by repeated efforts to usurp powers not delegated by the Constitution, for the purpose of impairing the security of property in slaves, and reducing those States which held slaves to a condition of inferiority. Finally a great party was organized for the purpose of obtaining the administration of the Government, with the avowed object of using its power for the total exclusion of the slave States from all participation in the benefits of the public domain acquired by all the States in common, whether by conquest or purchase; of surrounding them entirely by States in which slavery should be prohibited; of thus rendering the property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless, and thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars. This party, thus organized, succeeded in the month of November last in the election of its candidate for the Presidency of the United States.”

    “In the meantime, under the mild and genial climate of the Southern States and the increasing care and attention for the well-being and comfort of the laboring class, dictated alike by interest and humanity, the African slaves had augmented in number from about 600,000, at the date of the adoption of the constitutional compact, to upward of 4,000,000. In moral and social condition they had been elevated from brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers, and supplied not only with bodily comforts but with careful religious instruction. Under the supervision of a superior race their labor had been so directed as not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South; the white population of the Southern slaveholding States had augmented form about 1,250,000 at the date of the adoption of the Constitution to more than 8,500,000 in 1860; and the productions of the South in cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, had swollen to an amount which formed nearly three-fourths of the exports of the whole United States and had become absolutely necessary to the wants of civilized man. With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperiled, the people of the Southern States were driven by the conduct of the North to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced. With this view the Legislatures of the several States invited the people to select delegates to conventions to be held for the purpose of determining for themselves what measures were best adapted to meet so alarming a crisis in their history. ”

    The Civil War was all about slavery from start to finish, neo-Confederate hogwash notwithstanding.

  • Donald – it’s not “tinfoil hat” when its in writing and published. You used the very same source to quote that I did –

    The link below is the National Security Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) aka “The Kissinger Report”. On page 10 it specifically lists thirteen countries as targets for population control:

    30. The World Population Plan of Action is not self-enforcing and will require vigorous efforts by interested countries, U.N. agencies and other international bodies to make it effective. U.S. leadership is essential. The strategy must include the following elements and actions:

    (a) Concentration on key countries.
    Assistance for population moderation should give primary emphasis to the largest and fastest growing developing countries where there is special U.S. political and
    strategic interest.

    Assistance for population moderation should give primary emphasis to the largest and fastest growing developing countries where there is special U.S. political and
    strategic interest. Those countries are: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Columbia. Together, they account for 47 percent of the world’s current population increase.”

    This policy has never been repealed.

  • Jim here is a link to the National Security Study Memorandums prepared during the Nixon administration.

    As you can see there are 206 of them. These type of papers are produced endlessly by agencies. Most of them are forgotten almost as soon as they are written. This one has been seized upon by the various loonie organizations who view Kissenger as a devil figure, as a google search of national security memorandum 200 quickly reveals. The actual impact of this document on US policy was negligible.

  • Don you do love your long insufferable quotes. Hoping, I’m sure that if you use enough long quotes people might think your arguments have merit. I’d hate to see the length of your legal briefs – they must be a bitch to wade through, but then length also equals billable hours.

    Don, just read what Vladimir Lincoln wrote in his first inaugural speech:

    “Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—

    ‘I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.'”

    In short,Lincoln’s didn’t care whether slavery survived or not, rather his primary concern, maintaining the Union, was voiced later in the same speech:

    I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

    Such American Exceptionalist B***S***. No government ever contemplates its own end. All governments believe they will survive forever: Ancient Rome and Egypt, USSR, Nazi Germany (although Hitler realized it might last only 1000 years). However, all governments collapse in time and the US will be no exception. Can the rational behind this “perpetual” argument be found anywhere in the constitution. In deed, until this time most states, North and South, believed they had the right to succeed from the Union and threatened it many times. It was just another form of check & balance on the power of the federal government.

    Your interpretation of the causes of the civil war represent the politically correct bull that passes for the study of history during the past 20 or 30 years. When I was in middle school and high school in the early and mid 70’s we spent weeks studying the under lying causes of the civil war – and this was in public schools in Northern Indiana.

    History is written by the victors and this is just another case of the losing side in a war being demonized by the winner . . . just to show how just their cause was whether it was at the time or not.

    Sorry, didn’t mean to high jack your discussion but you were the one to drag in the poor Confederates into a discussion on abortion

  • Getting back to the topic at hand. . . We the glorious American people provide aid to all the poor peoples of the world . . . contingent of course upon them molding their societies into our image . . . which is the image of perfection of course . . . abortion on demand, gay rights, perpetual Viagra and Extenze commercials . . . and then we wonder why they hate us. . . its because we are free . . . right.

  • FUJI like most neo-cons, (neo-Confederates), when you are brought face to face with evidence that your myth that the Civil War was not about slavery, is just that, a myth, you clumsily attempt to shift the argument.

    As to your quotes from Lincoln, leaving aside your asinine comparisons of Lincoln to Soviet dictators, which I understand passes for wit in benighted neo-Confederate and paleo-Conservative circles, Lincoln was absolutely correct. He campaigned on a platform of no slavery in the territories and non-interference with slavery in the Southern states. Although Lincoln wished to see slavery abolished, he recognized that he had no authority to do so as President under the Constitution. It was the Confederates, ironically enough, who signed the death warrant of the Peculiar Institution, by precipitating a War they were bound to lose, thus allowing Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, and to have Congress pass the Thirteenth Amendment.

    As to secession, Lincoln is correct that the Constitution is completely silent on the subject, something wiser Southerners realized at the time.

    Robert E. Lee, January 23, 1861: “The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression and am willing to take every proper step for redress . It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any state if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “perpetual union,” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution. . . . Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved, and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people; and, save in defense, will draw my sword on none.”

    FUJI, actually read some of the great histories of the War, rather than attempting to simply crib your information from neo-Confederate websites. Your feeble arguments simply embarrass you.

  • Yeah Don, how dare you cite evidence and the words of people who were actually alive during the Civil War. It’s like hard to read and stuff.

    Is it me or is the quality of the neoCons posting here rapidly deteriorating?

  • This is an example of how those with an incomplete education can be confused when presented with partial information. Yes, Lincoln did say things that if they stood on their own with no additional context could lead one to reach incorrect conclusions about his opinion of slavery. However, it does the man’s legacy a great disservice to paint him with that brush. He was strongly opposed to slavery. However, he also understood the audience he was addressing. There was not a strong universal appetite in the northern states to fight and possibly die to end slavery. Lincoln understood that he would be more successful appealing to the patriotic spirit to preserve the union.

    We have public libraries throughout this country. I would recommend anyone confused about the Civil War visit one of those libraries and read some books on that period. Heck, for easy reading just review the bio’s of our early presidents. Slavery in some way or another was political issue for nearly every president from John Q. Adams to Lincoln. One way to avoid being overly influenced by one author’s point of view is to read multiple books on the same subject. More books have been written about Lincoln than any other president so it should not be difficult getting the full picture of the man.