Tumor growing in Democratic Party (shocking what the writer has to say)

Rocky Mountain News ^ | November 12, 2004 | Francis X. Maier

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

It's understandable that people with problems and financial difficulties are tempted by the promises of government benefits, etc. You can't trade away the lives of the innocent unborn and the moral foundations of civilized society for government money. Anyone with a firm grasp of ethics should understand this.

Personally, I would rather starve and be homeless sleeping in the open air than to ever vote for a baby-killer or anti-Catholic secular humanist liberal.

The qualifiers in my post on #16 acknowledged possible explanations.

I'm sure there are regional differences. But my grandfather was a Republican in the 1930s. Not every Catholic in America missed figuring out the Commie aspects of FDR. It's true that some working-class Catholics continued to be hoodwinked by the Dems long after they should have read the writing on the wall. Chris Matthews is still in goo-goo-gah-gahland. There's just no excuse for educated middle-class Catholics not to get this at this point. Except that they are not truly Catholic and are willing to sacrifice the unborn on the altars of secular humanism.

The Dixiecrats stuck with the Dems because it was the pro-slavery and anti-black party in the south originally. As absurd as that might sound. Jimmy Carter and Sam Nunn were Dems because of slavery and that the Republicans OPPOSED slavery in the Civil War. That's the only reason there were ever any southern Democrats left. Zell Miller is another Rip van Winkle who apparently did not have a clue until recently. Unless that is just an act. So it is by means just a Catholic phenomenon. Brainless voting patterns cut across denominations.

[geedee]

Before I comment . . . you've posted some GREAT, GREAT threads today, Chick. Keep it up.

Now . . . I've read a gazillion threads and articles about how the Democrats can somehow capture some of the "morality" vote. Everything I've read can easily be classified as a sham by anyone with a double-digit IQ.

How?

Name the four or five biggest "stars" of the Democratic Party. Go ahead, make a list. Mine would look like this . . .
1. Pee Wee Clinton
2. Teddy "Budha" Kennedy
3. Hitlery Clinton
4. Yoda Carville
5. Dan Rather

Others might list Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al but the five I listed above are the first names that come to my mind when I think of the Democratic Party and what it stands for.

Number one is a serial rapist, a convicted perjurer, and history will show that he sold out his country for political donations . . . see Chinese military crapola.

Number two is a murderer, a college cheat, and has as many morals as a shitbug.

Number three is a White Water thief, a serial liar, and put up with a serial rapist, a convicted perjurer, and a traitor just to advance her own political career.

Number four is a dishonest asshole who'll say anything and do anything to further the liberal agenda . . . regardless of how many personal lives he ruins.

Number five is the most dangerous of all . . . a megalomaniac traitor who tries to wear a mask of impartiality while his every act is blatantly un-American and a slap to the face of ALL Americans regardless of their political leanings. The news is purposefully distorted and slanted and even invented to smear those who don't dance to his narrow-minded, traitorous views of the world.

All the above brings us to this question . . . "What is morality?"

Can it be defined neatly in a couple of words? Can it be "shaped" into a political movement? Can an organization that is systemically bereft of ANY morals suddenly acquire them?

The answer is . . . NO!

Morality is a way of life. A way of living that life. A trait drummed into you from birth by moral parents. An unforgiving code that sometimes makes a MORAL person take stands that'll often-times put them at odds with current fads and beliefs -- it takes a strong person to stand up to NOW and the other abortion mills in the face of the liberal media who have stopped even attempting to put an impartial slant to their reporting.

In short, IMHO, morality isn't as much a "learned" trait as it is a "seedling" trait that's planted early on in ones life, then the seed has to be stubbornly nurtured as one ages before the fruits of this life-style are mature enough to be expressed.

In short . . . if one ain't got it, one ain't gonna be able to make others think you do.

Are all Democrats immoral? Certainly not. I think Joe Lieberman is a moral man . . . although I don't agree with many of his positions I've never thought of attacking the man to argue against his positions. The same can not be said of the five figureheads above . . . just as the same can not be said for MOST of the Democrats.

Us Pubbies have had our share of scoundrels . . . Richard Nixon and Robert Packwood being two examples. Nixon had a gazillion good traits . . . but his loose morals allowed him to lose his way. He lied to the American public. And what happened to both him and Packwood?

We . . . us Pubbies . . . took them out. They could've both survived if we'd joined ranks like the Democrats do when one of their leaders is under siege. But we don't do that . . . we'll eat one of our own with a moral viciousness when they stray.

Pee Wee Clinton would've never, never, ever been reelected had he been a Republican. We wouldn't have stood for it. And Ted Kennedy? He would still be making little rocks outta big rocks if he'd been a Texas Senator when he killed Mary Jo Kopechne.

But morals mean nothing to most Democrats. They only have one belief . . . WIN AT ALL COSTS. Regardless of the tactics required, regardless of the lies told, regardless of the lives ruined, regardless of the effect on their country, regardless of ALL things . . . just win, Baby. Just win.

THAT is why MORALS and LIBERALS are oxymoronic terms only used by idiots and all this "supposed" soul-searching is just the liberals latest tactic in trying to REDEFINE the term "morals" so that they can somehow fit under its tent. But the majority of the American people see them for what they truly are . . . immoral parasites who do nothing but eventually kill their hosts.

[CasearianDaoist]

They l gain some traction with this. They will go after every demographic and try to peel off a few vote. They will go after the Catholic vote in a big way. Remember that the Chatholic vote is not particulaly conservative. That is why we must now force the issue and frame that issues by openly naming the Democrats for the Socialist that they are and clearly articulate just what Socilism is.

[redgolum]

I totally agree.

I told my father in law that I would not vote for a pro abort candidate ever again. He is an old school Catholic Democrat, who has never voted anything else. My mother in law is different though. She doesn't like some of the Republican platform, but will vote for them rather than a pro abort Democrat.

[gridlock]

Indeed. It would be far easier to get a Republican to support expanded social programs than it would be to get a Democrat to compromise on "Choice".

The problem with the Democrat Party is that they are utterly beholden to three groups (Pro-Choice, Union and Minority Huckster). Remove any one of those three, and the three-legged stool will not stand.

[Condor51]

It's true that some working-class Catholics continued to be hoodwinked by the Dems long after they should have read the writing on the wall.

BINGO, you have it right there.

That being said, I get the distinct impression from the author that he and his wife are in their mid-late 50's, As that would explain his wife's and her families 'homage' to the Dems in Chicago at the time. And even prior to the Daley Machine, there was the (mayor) Kennelly Machine. The Irish Dem Catholics ruled Chicago almost forever. Plus if you didn't vote Dem you didn't get your garbage picked up or a slew of inspectors would suddenly appear at your Candy Store, Tavern or House. And 'they' knew how you voted.

But this part is troubling:

she remembers Saul Alinsky organizing neighborhood groups in her living room at the invitation of her mother and father.

Alinsky was a Communist, (which I recently found out) but he actually did 'some good'. He along with Joe Meegen founded the Back Of The Yards Neighborhood Council in 1945 - which Meegen ran the day-to-day operations. The BYNC DID good things long before there were all these gubmint programs. They had a yearly month long carnival called the Chicago Free Fair and all the money raised went back INTO the neighborhood. They had little league teams (which I played on one year), and all sorts of youth group activities. They also helped with 'juvies'. If a kid got in trouble, say for shoplifting or auto theft and it was a 1st offense - instead of jail (the Audy Home) the kid was 'sent' to Joe Meegan as a form of 'probation'. The Back of The Yards was always a tough neighborhood and Meegan & the BYNC kept a lot of kids OUT of Joliet (prison).

But back to Alinsky -- if they were 'organizing' in the wife's home, they surely were up to no good. Oh and Alinsky happens to be Hillary's 'Hero'. Her college thesis was ON Saul Alinsky!

The Back Of The Yards is almost a caricature of those old Cagney movies - you 'went straight', became a Priest or went to Prison and College was NOT an option.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Neither party is or is likely to be %100 Catholic any time soon. The ethical decision involved is one of the "lesser evil" or "lesser evils."

In this case, the election of 2004, the war eventually will end. Kerry's pro-abortion and Frankenstein stem cell policies would haved lived on through the Supreme Court for decades. That CANNOT be tolerated. And every Catholic and Protestant must stand up and be counted on this. To fail to do so makes you party to the evils involved.

Kerry was just TOTALLY NUTS, Bonkers, insane (to an extreme degree) to stake out the barbaric position on stem cells that he was pushing with great enthusiasm. The guy is just nmot a Catholic or scarcely even any kind of Christian in even a minimal sense.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Prior to Roe vs. Wade, the Dems had not directly embraced the rabid anti-Catholic/anti-Christian ideology that is now common throughout the hard-core liberal faction that dominates most of their inner workings.

JFK did not run overtly as an anti-Catholic or anti-Christian candidate in 1960. Neither did Al Smith in 1928. With the coming of the pro-abortion hysteria of liberals in the 1970s, there was no longer any reason for a Catholic or a Protestant to offer support for Dems.

Kerry did run as an anti-Catholic/anti-Christian candidate promoting the senseless slaughter of the unborn not just as a woman's right to abortion but for embryonic stem cells. That is just unbelievable. Outrageous, disgusting, horrific. No Catholic can ever support that. Ever. Schwarzenegger is a disgrace as well for that proposition out in California. He and his wife are a disgrace.

[NYer]

It seems Shrillary Clinton has understood. She delivered a speech the other day, noting that the Democrats should learn from the bible-toters but apply that message to their policies, rather than the moral values espoused by the voters.

Can't wait to see her addressing a congregation from behind a lectern ... oh wait ... she did that already while campaigning for the Senate. Here she is 'politicking' from the pulpit at St. Michael's Roman Catholic Church in Rochester NY.

An usher would find Catholics he did not want to be in church for Hillary's rally. Then he would try to talk police into evicting person.

Sen. Schumer, Hillary and daughter. Most of the first four rows were filled by politicos who arrived through the sanctuary. The crowd cheered enthusiastically; including the four busloads (one from Salvation Army) who were trucked in. Remember, Catholics were evicted when spotted by usher.

Across the street from their church, Catholics rallied.

Delivering a message the Democrats have still not understood. In anticipation of her "visit", the Holy Eucharist was removed from the Tabernacle to the Sacristy.

FYI - the RC Diocese of Rochester (NY), is shepherded by one of the most liberal bishops in the US.

Catholic Ping - please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[Aquinasfan]

Good article.

[26lemoncharlie]

Have they checked the building for cracks!!

[Zionist Conspirator]

For one hundred years, the South saw the Republican party as the party of the War of Northern Aggression and Reconstruction. My grand daddy would sooner vote for a yellow dog as pull the lever for a Republican.

You may not believe this, but there are still plenty of old-fashioned, "redneck" yellow dog Democrats. They complain about "the Blacks" and listen to country music, but every two years all the signs come out--signs endorsing the full spate of Democratic candidates for that year, from the old-fashioned Southern conservatives to the fruitcakes. It doesn't matter. As long as they have that d@mned "D" by their names.

Of course, I suppose I'm one to talk seeing as how my ancestors were Southern Unionist Lincoln Republicans. Would I behave the same way if my party had taken the same route? I hope not.

And by the way, don't you think it was stupid of the South to vote as a solid bloc against Calvin Coolidge?

[Utah Binger]

1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion on demand

Problem is the young generation of mush heads think this is a form of birth control. We need to do a better job of saying it is MURDER, MURDER, MURDER...

[rogator]

"For a Catholic politician like sKerry..."

Kerry is about as much of a Catholic as Specter is a Republican or probably less.

[Zionist Conspirator]

It's understandable that people with problems and financial difficulties are tempted by the promises of government benefits, etc. You can't trade away the lives of the innocent unborn and the moral foundations of civilized society for government money. Anyone with a firm grasp of ethics should understand this.

Personally, I would rather starve and be homeless sleeping in the open air than to ever vote for a baby-killer or anti-Catholic secular humanist liberal.

If people think the social safety net should be larger, lobby pro-life Republicans on these issues.

Thank you for these words. I am as conservative as they come on social issues, but the cooption of conservatism by economic Darwinism truly disturbs me. How can anyone who opposes the loathsome killing of the disabled (because they'd be a drain on the system) turn around and call for a Malthusian/Darwinist society in which "nature" would cull the unfit? It's disgusting.

I've been poor all my life. I was born in practically "third world" poverty, yet my father worked like a slave all his life. Where was his Horatio Alger story? The belief that unregulated capitalism would create a perfect society is as utopian as any socialist notion.

There are people on this thread obsessed with the idea that someone who isn't working isn't being Darwinistically eliminated from the population. But not everyone who isn't working is lazy. Some people can't work. Shall nature cull them and "decrease the surplus population" as Scrooge put it? Anti-infanticide simply does not fit in with social Darwinism very well. I'm sorry.

I don't wish to offend those who believe that the State should not perform these charitable functions. I know that there should be a large non-state social infrastructure to do this. But not everyone has a large family to fall back on (I am one example; practically all my relatives are dead). What I am objecting to is a rabid economism that simply does not fit with a G-dly view of the world. And for the record, "lazy people" did not invent Communism. Communism and socialism are not movements of "lazy people" but of "the workers." The goal of conventional leftwing socialism has always been to reduce everyone to manual drudgery, which it celebrates as "toil." Communist states shoot "parasites." With civilization collapsing all around us this is not the time for doctrinaire, materialist economism of any kind.

The ironic thing to all this is that I myself believe we should explore pre-capitalist, rightwing alternatives to today's competing economic systems (ultimately based on the Torah, perhaps using the economic and property system of ancient Israel as a guide). What's ironic about this? That the people on the Right who agree with me on these things tend to be militantly anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist, believing that capitalism and socialism are modern Jewish inventions that destroyed a medieval "utopia." For some reason, these people seem to think that the "new testament" contains a precise blueprint for governing society when it doesn't. Such a blueprint exists in G-d's TORAH, which too many rightwing non-capitalist chr*stians are totally ignorant of as they mouth idiocies about "Talmudic evil." Will this ever change? Well yes, when Mashiach comes. But unfortunately the anti-Semitism of the advocates of rightwing alternatives to capitalism drives many decent people into the social Darwinist camp. But all the anti-Semitism of these people cannot discredit G-d's Torah. I hope and pray that we can roll back the forces of G-dlessness without instituting a society based on forces just as materialistic and just as G-dless.

For the record, although my own life is lived on the edge I refuse to vote for a liberal Democrat. I absolutely refuse to do so. It turns my stomach to here the candidates I vote for trying to appeal to me by promising not to raise my taxes (I'm too poor to pay anything other than sales taxes) and fulminating about "lazy people" who I suppose they think they should be starving. But I'm not a conservative because of my slim pocketbook.

G-dly conservative people must be appealed to on the inevitable problems and sufferings that befall people in all societies this side of the Kingdom of G-d. Such concerns must never become a monopoly of the G-dless party. But G-d help me how my stomach twists when in the midst of a society worshipping Molokh (mach shemo) I hear so much talk about money and "lazy" people who aren't being eliminated fast enough by the laws of economic Darwinism.

[wildbill]

If there WAS a question about when a human life begins, wouldn't the humane thing be to err on the side of humanity?

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Valid points. The crypto-social Darwinism of the Bell Curve mafia is a problem. It hurts the conservative movement. The genuine Christian conservatism we should all want.

Those who seek to downplay moral matters in favor of the esoterica of merely economic maneuvers and the invisible hand sorcery of market forces do not help the conservative cause. America will not be saved as a culture by merely "market forces." That whole line of materialistic reasoning is sophistry.

[Ciexyz]

I remember Bob Casey with respect, even tho I'm a registered Republican and was so registered during Casey's governorship of my state. He was the kind of Democrat that I could relate to. And yes, I remember with sadness how he was SHUNNED at the Democratic convention and ever afterwards.

[EdReform]

BTTT

[uncitizen]

Excellent post. This part in particular is disturbing:

"But it's also true that children like our son are becoming extinct in part because the abortion lobby has a stranglehold on the Democratic Party platform"

There is something so good, a superior humanity, in people with Downs Syndrome.