You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Democratic Party’ tag.
Last week, the actor James Woods tweeted a video about the history of the Democratic Party:
Dr Carol Swain, Professor of Political Science and Law at Vanderbilt University, guides us through the Democrats’ murky past in this short video, which is just under six minutes long:
Discover who prevented blacks from improving their lives, whether after Reconstruction (post-Civil War), in the early 20th century (KKK) or in the 1960s, when Lyndon Baines Johnson created the welfare state to encourage blacks to vote for Democrats ‘for the next 200 years’.
Democrats also did not want to give black Americans the right to vote. Republicans had to encourage them. Those voting rights came in 1965.
Yes, now is the time for all of us to become more interested in politics.
This is an election year. Be aware of history. Be better informed.
In case you missed it, yesterday’s post was a thorough one on John MacArthur’s biblical thoughts about the current protests.
It’s worthwhile reading that, if you haven’t already, before moving on to recent protest scenes in the United States, where young and old are railing against each other while the coronavirus pandemic rages on.
Our first stop is The Villages in Florida, a conurbation of retirement settlements for the well-heeled middle class. In 2008, many residents supported John McCain. In 2012, many went for Mitt Romney. In 2016, many supported then-candidate Donald Trump.
This was the scene late last week, as Trump supporters and Democrats waged a shouting war against each other. Strong language in the second video. I’m glad she’s not my mayor:
This is our future. Remember, these people have grandchildren, who are young adults.
In a sense, it’s amusing for some onlookers …
… but there can be serious problems, such as STDs among this age group. Coronavirus could be there as well:
Hmm. How many of these people were politically active back in the 1960s?
Let’s leave Florida and travel a few hundred miles north to Raleigh, North Carolina, where a BLM protest took place with 100% white people. Two black conservatives turned up by chance as spectators:
I really wish there had been more interaction here. I’ll get to that shortly.
One wonders if it would have gone like this:
Well, when you’re in your 20s, you know everything. I know I did at the time, like this woman’s niece:
Yet, many of us in our 40s and beyond (I’m at the latter end), were raised to be colour blind and adopt the teachings of Martin Luther King on character. I remember the civil rights era. My parents and many others were shocked at what went on in the South. Yet, that has now been forgotten. Millions had sympathy for the plight of American blacks who could not truly vote (without jumping through hoops, figuratively) until … 1965, with Democrats being the main objectors to that legislation. Once again, Republicans led the way to equality. Since then, further legislation has helped to bring different races to further equality in unemployment and housing.
No one who lived through the civil rights era ever forgot it, so it is unclear why these protesters are so angry. One would have thought the lessons of the recent past would have been transmitted to the next generation. Perhaps not.
Interestingly, Benji Irby’s friend on the day, Shemeka Michelle, filmed a much longer video of the protest:
She said that it seemed the whites protested in order to feel better about themselves.
Perhaps it is some sort of atonement.
Oddly, only one of the protesters there to support black lives bothered to speak to her:
After the protest, she says the other whites avoided her and Benji Irby and went on their way.
Maybe the protesters have never lived amongst people of another race? Maybe they feel bad about it. Well, that’s no reason to take it out on everyone else:
Perhaps it is about control.
Our last stop is across the country in the Pacific Northwest: Portland, Oregon.
Protesters want to take down the monument to the Oregon Trail:
Precisely.
If missionaries had not organised the Oregon Trail after Lewis and Clark’s expedition to the Pacific Northwest, someone else would have. The British tried it and were unsuccessful.
The move westward had been laid out by President Thomas Jefferson in 1803. From Wikipedia:
In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson issued the following instructions to Meriwether Lewis: “The object of your mission is to explore the Missouri river, & such principal stream of it, as, by its course & communication with the waters of the Pacific Ocean, whether the Columbia, Oregon, Colorado and/or other river may offer the most direct & practicable water communication across this continent, for the purposes of commerce.”[1] Although Lewis and William Clark found a path to the Pacific Ocean, it was not until 1859 that a direct and practicable route, the Mullan Road, connected the Missouri River to the Columbia River.
As I remember learning about it in history class more than once, it was a big deal in terms of trade. To begin with, there was fur. Later there was gold.
The plan was called the Manifest Destiny, as History.com explains:
By the 1840s, the Manifest Destiny had Americans in the East eager to expand their horizons. While Lewis and Clark had made their way west from 1804 to 1806, merchants, traders and trappers were also among the first people to forge a path across the Continental Divide.
A merchant, Nathan Wyeth, led the first group of missionaries who settled in Idaho in 1834.
Marcus Whitman, a Methodist missionary from the state of New York, made the first successful crossing to what we know as the state of Washington in 1836. His wife, Narcissa, kept a diary of their perilous journey:
The party made it to the Green River Rendezvous, then faced a grueling journey along Native American trails across the Rockies using Hudson Bay Company trappers as guides. They finally reached Fort Vancouver, Washington, and built missionary posts nearby—Whitman’s post was at Waiilatpu amid the Cayuse Indians.
Whitman’s small party had proved both men and women could travel west, although not easily. Narcissa’s accounts of the journey were published in the East and slowly more missionaries and settlers followed their path which became known as the Whitman Mission Route.
In 1842, the Whitman mission was closed by the American Missionary Board, and Whitman went back to the East on horseback where he lobbied for continued funding of his mission work. In the meantime, missionary Elijah White led over 100 pioneers across the Oregon Trail.
Whitman led another expedition of settlers in 1843, destined for what we know as Oregon:
The group included 120 wagons, about 1,000 people and thousands of livestock. Their trek began on May 22 and lasted five months.
It effectively opened the floodgates of pioneer migration along the Oregon Trail and became known as the Great Emigration of 1843.
Unfortunately, the settlers brought measles with them, infecting the Cayuse. Whitman did try to help cure those infected:
After a measles epidemic broke out in 1847, the Cayuse population was decimated, despite Whitman using his medical knowledge to help them.
In the ongoing conflict, Whitman, his wife and some of the mission staff were killed; many more were taken hostage for over a month. The incident sparked a seven-year war between the Cayuse and the federal government.
We can say what we like in the 21st century, but travelling from coast to coast involved a lot of planning and expense:
Emigrants had to sell their homes, businesses and any possessions they couldn’t take with them.
They could not take a lot of possessions, because they had to ensure that their covered prairie schooner wagons could accommodate their families and their food. There weren’t any real settlements at the time, so everything had to be purchased in advance. There were no restaurants, cafés or grocery stores along the way. Wives had to make every meal from scratch. The most common meat was bacon. Imagine how limited their meals were day to day for five months. How awful.
So they put up with that. Then they had to endure a) the weather and b) the terrain:
There were slightly different paths for reaching Oregon but, for the most part, settlers crossed the Great Plains until they reached their first trading post at Fort Kearney, averaging between ten and fifteen miles per day.
From Fort Kearney, they followed the Platte River over 600 miles to Fort Laramie and then ascended the Rocky Mountains where they faced hot days and cold nights. Summer thunderstorms were common and made traveling slow and treacherous.
It’s a wonder anyone was able to make the journey. The major landmark along the route was in Wyoming at Independence Rock:
The settlers gave a sigh of relief if they reached Independence Rock—a huge granite rock that marked the halfway point of their journey—by July 4 because it meant they were on schedule. So many people added their name to the rock it became known as the “Great Register of the Desert.”
After leaving Independence Rock, settlers climbed the Rocky Mountains to the South Pass. Then they crossed the desert to Fort Hall, the second trading post.
From there they navigated Snake River Canyon and a steep, dangerous climb over the Blue Mountains before moving along the Columbia River to the settlement of Dalles and finally to Oregon City. Some people continued south into California.
There was also a lot of disease, possible conflicts with native Americans — and death:
According to the Oregon California Trails Association, almost one in ten who embarked on the trail didn’t survive.
Most people died of diseases such as dysentery, cholera, smallpox or flu, or in accidents caused by inexperience, exhaustion and carelessness. It was not uncommon for people to be crushed beneath wagon wheels or accidentally shot to death, and many people drowned during perilous river crossings.
Travelers often left warning messages to those journeying behind them if there was an outbreak of disease, bad water or hostile American Indian tribes nearby. As more and more settlers headed west, the Oregon Trail became a well-beaten path and an abandoned junkyard of surrendered possessions. It also became a graveyard for tens of thousands of pioneer men, women and children and countless livestock.
With the advent of the railroads in 1869, covered wagons gradually became obsolete.
The westward migration continued — more comfortably. You can read more here.
So, one wonders what these protesters in Oregon are angry about. Perhaps they should live elsewhere?
As John MacArthur says (see yesterday’s post), these protests are built on lies, helping no one.
This is the Democrat Victory Plan for 2020 (h/t with thanks):
Historically, this is known as the Algerian Strategy, used in the Algerian Civil War.
I do not think it will work, but expect the chaos to continue.
An American named Chaziel Sunz used to belong to Black Lives Matter some years ago.
In 2017, he made a 15-minute video about the movement having been ‘infiltrated’ and controlled by ‘Soros and Clinton’. He warned blacks not to play into the desire of them and the Democrat Party who want a civil war.
He said that left-wing movements, such as BLM and Antifa, are ‘bogus’ and are preying upon people’s emotions. Those in charge of them want a fully divided right and left. He also said this is another reason why gun control is such a big deal with the Democrats. They want everyone unarmed for a reason.
Sunz asked that people put any race issues they have to a side and approach this issue with a clear head: don’t fall into the trap of a civil war.
He also said that the Las Vegas attack, which had taken place on October 1 that year, was a far-Left act, purposely against those attending the country music festival.
I only saw this video a few days ago. Apparently, it’s been taken down several times since 2017:
If this is removed, Gateway Pundit have another copy of it with this key quote:
Chaziel Sunz: They got us working for them. How they get us is they playing us emotionally… They getting anybody who basically doesn’t like Donald Trump to fight for war that is being started on American turf very, very soon. And they want us to be a part of their side. What I’m trying to get the black population to understand, and this is critical, is the movement has been compromised… BLM is not actually a black organization and never was… If you have any kind of brain you know BLM is endorsed by the Soros and Clinton family.
Chaziel Sunz made another video earlier that year, just after the Manchester bombing in England in May. Even though it’s three years old, now is an apposite time to watch it. He accuses the media of ginning up falsely emotional reactions to news events. Again, he asks us not to get too emotional about these things. If we want to pray, fine, but he said that a lot of people are making money out of false sympathy when these attacks occur:
He’s not a Trump fan, in case anyone is wondering.
He does want unity in a time when manipulation is rife.
I hope he has been talking with community groups about his experiences and knowledge from his time as a left-wing activist.
It’s bad enough being laid off during the coronavirus outbreak.
Imagine how bad it is when the emergency paycheck funding pot is empty and the Democrat-dominated House won’t vote to replenish it. Here is the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky):
So do I.
The following video from James Corden’s show features Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) at home around Easter. It’s a must watch. She has brand new, gleaming stainless steel freezers full of ice cream. I cannot believe she had the nerve to post this herself, yet she did:
That photo was taken at the Pelosi family estate in California.
How nice for them.
President Trump had a go at her over the inaction with regard to emergency paycheck funding:
He reminded people that Pelosi encouraged Californians to go to San Francisco for Chinese New Year celebrations:
There was intense Democrat reaction to Trump’s closing the border with China, where air traffic was concerned:
Also:
On the other side of the world, and related to this, an Australian MP points out what China was doing with regard to airspace:
And remember this from the WHO a week before?
Whatever is going on with the WHO, President Trump was right to withhold funds for the time being.
But Pelosi isn’t having any of it.
On April 17, Moonbattery reported:
Confirming yet again that the Democrat Party is not on America’s side, Nancy Pelosi set aside her designer ice cream long enough to rage over Trump sensibly suspending funding to the malign World Health Organization:
“This decision is dangerous, illegal and will be swiftly challenged,” Pelosi said. …
Pelosi’s comments come after the president announced Tuesday that the United States would immediately halt funding for the health organization, saying it had put “political correctness over lifesaving measures,” noting that the U.S. would undertake a 60-to-90 day investigation into why the “China-centric” WHO had caused “so much death” by “severely mismanaging and covering up” the coronavirus spread.
The United States is the world’s largest donor to the WHO, a UN organisation (emphases mine):
The United States is the WHO’s largest single donor, and the State Department had previously planned to provide the agency $893 million in the current two-year funding period. Trump said the United States contributes roughly $400 million to $500 million per year to WHO, while China offers only about $40 million.
Pelosi has her own interests at heart:
Why should Americans pay for a Chinese propaganda platform when we have our own urgent needs? Maybe because Pelosi is heavily invested in China.
Readers might also be interested in this:
The World Health Organization in Europe is asking government officials to restrict access to alcohol as citizens continue widespread lockdowns amid the coronavirus pandemic.
As Moonbattery points out:
Even Stalin let his slaves drink vodka. The technocrats of the WHO make the communist dictator look like a libertarian.
Enough said.
However, it isn’t only Democrats opposing President Trump’s pandemic policies.
The Bushes are at it, too:
President Trump called it correctly then and he continues to take correct decisions now.
Given the current circumstances, this is probably the right thing to do, especially as an April 13 Ipsos poll found that eight out of ten Americans want a moratorium on immigration:
As for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic:
Even New York’s governor Andrew Cuomo had to give the federal government credit:
By the way, if you’ve ever wondered how CNN and MSNBC know exactly when to pull the plug on the daily coronavirus briefings, a reporter explains all:
Returning to Nancy Pelosi, the Trump campaign team have made a short advert about her and her ice cream:
Excellent work.
The 2020 Nevada caucus took place on Saturday, February 22.
The results were clear for President Trump and Bernie Sanders.
Republican caucus
On Friday, February 21, President Trump ended a whirlwind tour of Western states with a noonday rally in Las Vegas:
Trump’s campaign manager Brad Parscale has been tabulating the demographic make-up of those attending the president’s 2020 rallies. These were the results for the Nevada rally, attendance at which was not limited to Nevada residents. Out of state Trump supporters also attended:
The next day, the result was overwhelming for the incumbent:
According to these tweets, Parscale will continue to examine and target Nevada’s demographics in the run-up to November:
Democrat caucus
Bernie Sanders’s victory brought out naysayers on the Left, two of whom suggested that their much-despised — by them — incumbent would be a better choice than the socialist from Vermont. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said, ‘Perhaps Trump would be better’:
Let’s remind ourselves that President Trump is not a natural Republican:
But, I digress.
Sanders’s win was declared on Saturday evening, when it was still a projection:
As with the Iowa caucus, final results emerged two days later, because of the same issues that beset the Democrats in Iowa:
Sanders won 40.5% of the final (second round) Nevada caucus votes, with Joe Biden on 18.9% and Pete Buttigieg on 17.3%. Bernie walked away with 24 Nevada delegates, Biden nine and Buttigieg three.
Former Democrat US Senator Harry Reid now thinks the state should have a primary rather than a caucus:
Interestingly, before the caucus, Reid said he would not endorse the winner:
Another interesting development was a drop in the number of minorities taking part:
Is Sanders a viable candidate?
It’s hard to say at the moment whether Bernie Sanders is a viable candidate in the long run.
The United States has 47 primaries to follow. (The New Hampshire primary was held after the Iowa caucus.) Super Tuesday, when a number of states will conduct their primaries on March 3, should prove decisive for Democrats who are struggling to secure delegates. One-third of delegates will be in play that day.
Sanders wasted no time after his time in Nevada to push forward his admiration of socialism, namely that of Fidel Castro.
Obama, along with other prominent Democrats, has condemned Sanders’s brand of left-wing politics. This is somewhat hypocritical.
Remember this?
Their condemnation comes because Sanders’s vision for America is theirs, but, contrary to him, they want to progress more slowly, e.g. according to the boiling frog analogy. They want Americans to sleepwalk into it, by which time it would be too late to extract themselves from it.
Sanders is unlikely to win many delegates in South Carolina (seen to be Biden country) or Florida (resolutely anti-Castro). However, more urban- and university-focussed states could see him continue his success.
As President Trump said on Sunday, February 23:
Well, I think it was a great win for Bernie Sanders. We’ll see how it all turns out. They’ve got a lot of winning to do. I hope they treat him fairly. Frankly, I don’t care who I run against. I just hope they treat him fairly. I hope it’s not going to be a rigged deal because there’s a lot of bad things going on. And I hope it’s not going to be one of those. So we’ll see what happens.
But I congratulate Bernie Sanders. And if it’s going to be him, he certainly has a substantial lead. We’ll see what happens.
Indeed. The Democratic National Convention this summer will be telling. Will Sanders be denied once again, as he was in 2016?
The Iowa caucuses, both Republican and Democrat, took place on Monday, February 3, 2020.
They truly were a tale of two parties.
The Iowa caucus is the first presidential candidate — and delegate — selection during a general election year in the US.
On the eve of the Nevada caucus on Saturday, February 22, it’s worth revisiting.
Republican caucus
Not all of the Republican Iowa caucuses have gone smoothly in recent years.
This year’s did, and so did 2008‘s.
However, 2012‘s was very tight between Rick Santorum who finished narrowly in first place with 24.6% of the vote and Mitt Romney, in second with a nail-biting 24.5%.
In 2016, Ted Cruz was still at the top of his game, finishing first with 27.6%, and Donald Trump in second on 24.3%. Yet, that was the year that Cruz’s campaign workers spread false rumours to Ben Carson’s supporters that the good doctor had dropped out of the race. A lie! However, Carson’s paltry 9.7% ensured that he did drop out soon afterwards. Terrible!
That was how Donald Trump was able to attach the word ‘Lying’ to ‘Ted’ in a tweet with photos of both their wives. The Telegraph has more on the story.
Trump never let up on Cruz, either. Cruz folded in tears a couple of months later. Marco Rubio dropped out a day or two later, leaving candidate Trump the last man standing.
This year, Trump, the incumbent, had two minor rivals and ‘other’. William ‘Bill’ Weld, a former Massachusetts governor, garnered 1.3% of the vote and one delegate. Joe Walsh, a former Congressman for Illinois, came in third place with 1.1% of the vote and no delegates.
President Trump received 31,464 votes and 39 delegates.
There was a record turnout for an incumbent president, breaking Obama’s record of 25,000:
It was like a mini-rally in places:
Democrat caucus
The Democrat caucus resulted in confusion, much like 2016’s.
The 2016 caucus was held on February 1 that year. The Des Moines Register asked, ‘Iowa’s nightmare revisited: Was correct winner called?’
‘Nightmare revisited’ refers to the Republican result in 2012. As the newspaper reported in 2016:
This time it’s the Democrats, not the Republicans.
Four years ago, the top Democrat candidates were Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders (emphases mine):
Even as Hillary Clinton trumpeted her Iowa win in New Hampshire on Tuesday, aides for Bernie Sanders said the eyelash-thin margin raised questions and called for a review. The chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party rejected that notion, saying the results are final …
At 2:30 a.m. Tuesday, Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Andy McGuire announced that Clinton had eked out a slim victory, based on results from 1,682 of 1,683 precincts.
Voters from the final missing Democratic precinct tracked down party officials Tuesday morning to report their results. Sanders won that precinct, Des Moines precinct No. 42, by two delegate equivalents over Clinton.
The Iowa Democratic Party said the updated final tally of delegate equivalents for all the precincts statewide was:
Clinton: 700.59
Sanders: 696.82.
That’s a 3.77-count margin between Clinton, the powerful establishment favorite who early on in the Democratic race was expected to win in a virtual coronation, and Sanders, a democratic socialist who few in Iowa knew much about a year ago.
Incredible.
In 2020, the result was also contested. Bernie Sanders came in a very close second to Pete Buttigieg:
– Bernie won the popular vote: 45,831 to 43,273, or 26.5% to 25.1%;
– State delegate equivalents were as close as they were four years previously. Mayor Pete ended up with 563.2 and Bernie with 563.1.
Good grief.
Turnout was also low:
So, why, then, was it so difficult for the media to get the results?
This is what happened at CNN:
Bernie, understandably, was not best pleased as Buttigieg announced victory:
Two theories abound as to what happened this year.
One blames the fiasco on a new app that the Democrats were using. Another pins it on incompetence.
Here is a good summary of both:
The new app
Those who blame it on the new app point out that some high-profile people working on the campaign of Mayor Pete — dubbed Mayor Cheat after the caucus — knew the developers:
Questions also arose over ACRONYM:
Here’s more on that:
Shadow’s app looks as if it is/was set to be used in Nevada, too:
One hopes the bugs get ironed out by tomorrow, the 22nd, otherwise, it could look like another case of:
Incompetence
A week later, Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi wrote an excellent article about what he saw: ‘The Iowa Caucus Was Waterloo for Democrats’.
If you enjoy politics, you’ll want to read about his experience and about the Democrats he met on and before February 3.
Taibbi discounts the app as having been a factor in the caucus vote meltdown. He adopts the British philosophy of ‘cock-up before conspiracy’.
Excerpts follow.
There were problems with unauthorised precinct captains. The night before the caucus:
… a 36-year-old Minnesotan named Chris Storey called a number he’d been given, for a woman who was chair of the Waukee 4 district. Thanks to a new rule allowing out-of-state volunteers to be precinct captains, he was set to represent the Sanders campaign there.
“We got along, it was great,” he recalls. “She told me she was looking forward to seeing me the next day.”
The next day, caucus day, Storey showed up at Shuler Elementary School in Clive, Iowa. The same official he’d spoken with the night before met him at the door. “It was like two different people,” he recalls. “I was told there was a written directive from the county chair that nonresidents could not be precinct captains.”
Sanders had to get a last-minute replacement captain in Waukee 4, someone not formally aligned with the campaign. He fell short of viability there by five votes. County chair Bryce Smith, who made the decision, said he was responding to a late directive from the Iowa Democratic Party that said they would allow one nonresident captain per campaign, per precinct, but “the discretion of the chair is what goes,” i.e., this ultimately was a judgment call for county chairs. Smith said he didn’t like the change to the long-standing rule — “What’s stopping a campaign from hiring professional persuaders and high-profile people?” he asked — and decided to bar nonresident captains. The IDP has not yet commented.
As a result, some would-be captains from multiple different campaigns in Dallas County were pulled off the job (Smith said he got “five, six, eight” calls to complain). Meanwhile, in other districts, nonresident captains were common.
There were other issues:
Caucus participants later in the week would offer an eyebrow-raising number of other issues: bad head counts, misreported results, misreads of rules, wrong numbers, telecommunications errors, and other problems.
Taibbi says this should have been a straightforward caucus:
The basics of the caucus aren’t hard. You enter a building that is poorly ventilated, too small, and surrounded by mud puddles — usually a school gym. You join other people who plan on voting your way, gathering around the “precinct captain” for your candidate. If your pile of people comprises 15% of the room or more on the first count, your candidate is deemed “viable” and you must stay in that group. If your group doesn’t reach 15%, you must move to a new group or declare yourself undecided. There is a second count, and it should be done.
The caucus results, such as they were, continued to cause confusion the rest of the week:
What happened over the five days after the caucus was a mind-boggling display of fecklessness and ineptitude. Delay after inexplicable delay halted the process, to the point where it began to feel like the caucus had not really taken place. Results were released in chunks, turning what should have been a single news story into many, often with Buttigieg “in the lead.”
He explains that, although it looked as if Sanders actually won on paper, there was cause to call the win for Buttigieg:
Though Sanders won the popular vote by a fair margin, both in terms of initial preference (6,000 votes) and final preference (2,000), for most of the week Mayor Pete’s lead with “state delegate equivalents” — the number used to calculate how many national delegates are sent to the Democratic convention — made him the technical winner in the eyes of most. By the end of the week, however, Sanders had regained so much ground, to within 1.5 state delegate equivalents, that news organizations like the AP were despairing at calling a winner.
This wasn’t necessarily incorrect. The awarding of delegates in a state like Iowa is inherently somewhat random. If there’s a tie in votes in a district awarding five delegates, a preposterous system of coin flips is used to break the odd number. The geographical calculation for state delegate equivalents is also uneven, weighted toward the rural. A wide popular-vote winner can surely lose.
Returning to the aforementioned Chris Storey from Minnesota, who was ultimately turned down as precinct chairman:
“Is it incompetence or corruption? That’s the big question,” asked Storey. “I’m not sure it matters. It could be both.”
Conclusion
Whatever went wrong with the Democrat caucus, President Trump’s campaign manager Brad Parscale had this to say:
Democrats should hope for a more carefully conducted caucus in Nevada on Saturday.
Yesterday’s post on Democrat support for abortion featured Pete Buttigieg and a Fordham University bioethics professor who was so distraught by the mayor’s pro-choice stance that he resigned from the board of Democrats for Life.
Last week, the Revd Franklin Graham was astonished to hear Bernie Sanders say that being ‘pro-choice’ — supporting abortion — was part and parcel of being a Democrat:
The son of the late Billy Graham rightly wondered where the ‘outcry’ was against such a stance.
The Breitbart article of February 12 linked in the tweet tells us that Graham sent a sharp warning about socialism before urging Christians to ‘wake up’ (emphases mine):
The evangelical leader went on to urge Christians to wake up to what is happening in the Democrat party and to take to heart their civic duty to vote.
“This is an example of why it is so important for people of faith to research who you vote for in every election and understand where they stand on issues that are important to you,” he said.
“I urge Christians to pray for our nation, our leaders, and the upcoming elections, from local to national. Make sure that you are registered to vote, otherwise we will lose our country,” he warned.
True.
This November, Republicans, the supporters of the rights of the unborn — and, yes, as God’s creation, the unborn do have rights — need to win back the House of Representatives and maintain, if not increase, their majority in the Senate.
I despair of notional Christians, including clergy, who are lukewarm on the subject of abortion. They laud the Democrats as the only politicians with ethics. The way it looks to many of us, even overseas, is that most Democrat politicians lack ethics, pure and simple. I am struggling to think of any in the House or Senate who deal honestly and fairly.
One thing is for sure: most Democrats no longer support life in the womb.
Where do Democrats stand in defending the rights of the unborn? Sadly, nowhere.
Yet, it has taken several years for this truth to dawn on lifetime Democrat voters.
It is unfortunate that Pete ‘Mayor Pete’ Buttigieg (pron. ‘Budd-uh-judge’) of South Bend, Indiana, is an Episcopalian. He puts the denomination to shame in his support of late-term abortion. Yet, many other Episcopalians — also Democrats — do, too:
On Tuesday, February 11, 2020, at least one Catholic Democrat saw the light, as Mayor Pete defended abortion until the bitter end. Interestingly, Mayor Pete’s dad was a left-wing professor at the University of Notre Dame who was a co-founder and past president of the International Gramsci Society. Who can make sense out of that? But I digress.
LifeSite News reported that the professor who termed Mayor Pete’s views as ‘the straw that broke this camel’s back’ is:
Charles Camosy, an associate professor of Theology at Fordham University, has also resigned from the board of Democrats for Life.
Camosy, who specializes in biomedical ethics, explained his reasons for his decision in an op ed he wrote for Thursday’s New York Post: the Democrats’ complete disregard for the unborn child.
Also (emphases mine):
… it was same-sex married Pete Buttigieg’s attitude to late-term abortion, aired last week on The View, that convinced Camosy that pro-life Democrats are “fighting a losing battle” in convincing their party to respect their position. Buttigieg had indicated that he didn’t think the government should have any say regarding late-term abortion or post-birth infanticide.
“The straw that broke this camel’s back was Pete Buttigieg’s extremism,” Camosy wrote.
“Here was a mainstream Democratic candidate suggesting, at one point, that abortion is OK up to the point the baby draws her first breath.”
He concluded that if the party was “willing to go all-in on the most volatile issue of our time with a position held by only 13 percent of the population, it was time to take no for an answer.”
Camosy also predicted that, thanks to its pro-abortion “extremism,” the Democratic Party will lose the next election.
We can but hope. If they win, they will have cheated; of that, I’m sure.
Dr Camosy does not think he will be able to vote Republican, though:
“My broader values mean I can’t vote Republican, however, and this makes me one of many millions of Americans for whom our political duopoly doesn’t work,” he wrote.
That’s too bad. Opening up other minor yet established parties does not work, either. The British proved that in their December 12, 2019 election.
LifeSite News has more of what Camosy wrote for the New York Post, all of it worthwhile reading. It also quotes Mayor Pete’s views for The View.
In closing, this is what Camosy had to say in his op-ed about the Democrats’ stance on late-term abortion:
Camosy asked them to participate in a thought experiment in which they suppose that “hundreds of thousands of children are being killed each year in horrific ways,” either because they have Down syndrome, or because their grandparents think their parents are too young, or because an abusive partner demands it.
“And then suppose a political party claimed this killing was a social good. Just another kind of health care. Something to shout about with pride,” the ethicist asked.
“This party, it should go without saying, would be unsupportable,” he concluded.
Just so.
Sounds a lot like eugenics, doesn’t it?
More will follow on the Democrats’ views on abortion.
