Dems for Life Calls on Hillary to Open Up Democratic Party to Pro Life People

Photo Source: Wikimedia, by Voice of America. Public Domain.

Photo Source: Wikimedia, by Voice of America. Public Domain.

I know what you’re going to say, so let me say it for you.

Fat chance.

Democrats for Life of America has issued a press release calling for Hillary Clinton to bring back the big tent and open up the Democratic Party to pro life people.

Now, for the response I know many of your are thinking: Fat Chance.

I am aware, in ways that most of the rest of your can only guess at, just how entrenched the pro abortion position is in the upper levels of the Democratic Party. I also am aware, again as I think most of you are not, that this does not represent the thinking of many Democrats.

The Rs and the Ds are alike in many ways. One of the most significant is that the upper reaches of both parties are far removed from the rank and file. In fact, the upper reaches of both the R and the D view the rank and file as rubes to be manipulated and managed.

So, if the upper reaches of the Democratic Party are so entrenched in abortion, is it really a “fat chance” deal to try to change it?

No.

Here’s why.

Somebody changed it in the first place.

The Democratic Party was pro life back in the 70s and early 80s. Again, I know this as most of you don’t. I have what you might call insider knowledge of how these deals came down and how we got where we are. I know because I helped create this monster.

Now, back to Democrats for Life’s call for Hillary Clinton to open up the big tent. I think their target is well chosen. Secretary Clinton is pro choice, no doubt about that. I don’t expect her to change on that, although I have to tell you, I pray for it. But she’s not a Christian-hater like President Obama appears to be. She isn’t a bigot.

Unlike President Obama, who has attacked religious freedom, President Clinton supported and signed laws guaranteeing the free exercise of religion. Both Clintons have been consistent respecters of religious freedom in their public behavior. This isn’t rhetoric. They have a track record.

Of all the Democratic candidates, I think Hillary Clinton is the best bet for opening up the party and allowing Democrats to think and let think once again.

Do not take this post an endorsement for Hillary Clinton. I will not endorse any candidate in the upcoming race. I will not make public statements about how I’m going to vote. I don’t vote straight party. I will say that much, but that is all.

My purpose in writing Public Catholic is not to promote more of the political heresy. It is to get Christians to think past the political heresy and follow Christ. Period.

That means I will step on toes from time to time. When I say that Hillary Clinton — who is the D that the Rs love most to hate — is the best bet for religious freedom within the Democratic party, that’s an honest assessment.

Will it work?

From my experience, calling people to follow their better angels never works in the short term. It is not — ever — a quick fix. But if you’ve got the guts and the persistence to keep doing it, you will find that it always works in the long run.

Not with everybody. There will always be people who cling to their dark side. But people respond to higher calls with incredible courage and power if they come to trust the caller.

I support this call to change the party. I have always supported it, and I imagine that I always will. If we can convert the Democratic Party, we can win this fight for life. If we do not convert the Democratic Party, the fight will never end.

It’s as simple as that.

Here’s the full press release from Democrats for Life of America.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MEDIA CONTACT: Kristen Day
(202) 220-3066

May 7, 2015

WASHINGTON, DC – – Democrats For Life of Americais urging presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to open the Big Tent of the Democratic Party to pro-life voters and to support neutrality on the issue of abortion in the Democratic Party Platform. The current platform not only supports abortion, but also supports taxpayer funding of abortion.

“Secretary Clinton once recognized that people ‘have deeply held differences of opinion about the issue of abortion, and she said she respected ‘those who believe that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available.’  We are asking candidate Clinton to open that door and issue in a new era of respect and inclusion for Democrats who hold these views,” said Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats For Life of America.  “For the good of the party, we must re-open the big tent to include Democrats who support life from conception to natural death.”

In 1978, the Democratic Party held a 292-seat majority in the U.S. House, which included 125 pro-life Democrats.  Increased partisanship over the pro-life issue—including the rejection of pro-life candidates within the Democratic Party—caused many of the pro-life Democratic districts to elect Republican candidates.  In fact, the number of pro-choice Democrats in the House has essentially remained around 167.  It is the number of pro-life Democrats that decreased from 125 to only a handful, leaving Democrats overall with only 188 members.

“Since the 1992 shunning of pro-life Democratic Governor Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, the Democratic Party has alienated its pro-life base.  Polls consistently show that about one-third of Democrats—that’s 21 million Democrats—oppose abortion,” said Day.  “If we are going to increase our base to win back the majority and keep the White House, our Democratic nominee must recognize the contributions of pro-life Democrats within our party and the diverse position of Democrats on the issue of abortion.”

That diversity of opinion is as follows:

  • 61% of Democrats support parental consent for minors seeking abortion (Gallup, 2011);
  • 60% of Democrats support a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking abortion (Gallup, 2011);
  • 84% of Democrats support informed consent (Gallup, 2011);
  • 49% of Democrats support an ultrasound requirement (Gallup, 2011);
  • 59% of Democrats support a ban on partial-birth abortions (Gallup, 2011).

“We are asking Secretary Clinton and any other Democratic presidential hopeful to embrace a platform that fully represents all Democrats, not just those who support abortion,” said Day.  “In the 2008 election, about one-quarter of Obama’s supporters self-identified as pro-life.  These numbers are not trivial; they exceed many prominent and well-represented constituencies in the party.  Electoral success for the party nationwide will depend on the enthusiasm of all Democrats, including pro-life Democrats.”

-30-

 

Nigeria’s President Asked for US Aid Against Boko Haram Last Fall

President Jonathan Goodluck of Nigeria asked President Obama to help him fight Boko Haram last fall.

I know he was serious about it because he does what anybody who is serious about making their case with our elected officials must do: He hired a high-dollar lobbyist to do his talking for him.

It cost Nigeria $3 million to hire the Patton Boggs lobbying firm to explain that Boko Haram are terrorists to American politicians. If that doesn’t tell you where things are with our government (and I’m not talking about the Rs and the Ds, I am talking about our government) then nothing will.

One of the most important things President Goodluck wanted was to have Washington define Boko Haram as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, something the State Department has refused to do. This would have made it possible to track monies going to fund Boko Haram, which, in my opinion, is a key factor in bringing them down. I’ve written before about the American government’s refusal to do this.

American officials have been talking a lot since the groundswell of public outrage created by the kidnapping of around 300 Nigerian school girls by Boko Haram. As it becomes clear that the girls were kidnapped to sell and use as sex slaves, public outrage has deepened, leading to even more Beltway chatter on the subject.

First Lady Michelle Obama has even gotten into the act.

34d602a2 ba5d 464f aa60 587d42f9424c

Unfortunately a good bit of what American officials have been saying has turned out to be either lies or a reflection of how badly misinformed they are. Claims that Nigeria has refused American help due to an insular resistance to outsiders have turned out to be untrue. Instead, the Nigerians have been asking for our help and have been turned away.

So, where does that leave us, other than concerned about these poor girls and, as usual, feeling cynical about the lying liars in our own government?

I think one thing we should consider is the fact that Nigeria is an oil producing nation. As such, that makes it prey for all sorts of corporatist interests. I do not know what part that plays in this sad drama, but I’m guessing that it is a significant one.

I was talking about this situation in Nigeria with friends over dinner a few nights ago. One of them said, “be careful about blaming the Nigerians. Once we get into this, we may find out that the we’re (meaning our government and corporatist interests) are mixed up in it somehow.”

That still hasn’t been proven.

What we know is that people in Washington have spewed out a bunch of inaccurate statements about America’s behavior and that of the Nigerian government. We also know that our government has refused to help Nigeria in the recent past, and that there is oil money involved in Nigerian politics.

I’ve been critical of President Goodluck’s government and its inability or unwillingness to respond appropriately to Boko Haram’s terrorism. I am still utterly confounded by the Nigerian government’s long-term failure to protect its citizens. I am disgusted by the lies coming out of Washington, as well.

Maybe instead hiring expensive lobbyists to make his case before the American government, President Goodluck should just have hired someone like Blackwater. I’m not much for mercenary soldiers. But when the military of a nation is so inept, and the other nations it goes to for help are so … whatever this bunch in DC are … that may be something to consider. How many lives and how much chaos does Boko Haram have to cost before enough is too much?

That speculation aside, the important issue of when these deadheads are going to stop lying and blaming each other and get those girls back hasn’t been addressed.

From ABC News:

WASHINGTON – The Government of Nigeria last fall hired a powerful Washington lobbying firm to press its case for intelligence on violent terror group Boko Haram and to persuade the Obama administration to donate non-lethal equipment in the hunt for extremists, according to documents filed with the U.S. government.

Since nearly 300 schoolgirls in the northeastern town of Chibok were abducted nearly a month ago by a large force of Boko Haram militants, some officials in Washington have blamed the challenge of confronting the al Qaeda-aligned group formed in 2009 — but designated only last November as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. – on Nigeria’s resistance to accepting outside help.

The U.S. designation allows freezing of bank assets, adding Boko Haram members to no-fly lists and prioritizes law enforcement actions. ABC News and The Daily Beast reported Thursday that debates within the U.S. and Nigerian governments over how much of a threat was posed by the group delayed it being declared an FTO and a military Tier One Threat Group for two years.

Amid an international outcry over April’s abductions by Boko Haram of the Chibok schoolgirls, some U.S. officials have insisted that Nigeria didn’t want the FTO designation earlier than 2013 because it might elevate Boko Haram’s global jihadi status.

Secretary of State John Kerry’s remarks Monday echoed those who’ve said that the African nation’s fierce pride also led it to shoo away offers of American and British counter-terrorism assistance, even after a United Nations office in Abuja was bombed three years ago.

“The [Nigerian] government had its own set of strategies, if you will, in the beginning,” Kerry said at a press conference. “And you can offer and talk, but you can’t do [anything] if a government has its own sense of how it’s proceeding. I think now the complications that have arisen have convinced everybody that there needs to be a greater effort.”

Slander is Murder with Words, Even When the Victim is Pro Abortion

WD2790 800x533

Don’t try to fight Satan by using Satan’s weapons.

Slander and personal malice are Satan’s weapons.

Ergo, do not use personal attacks against other people, even when they are pro abortion, pro gay marriage, or some other pro or anti that gets your riled.

Stand up for what you believe, and be willing to pay the price for doing that, even if it means that you will be the target of slander, malicious lies, and character assassination yourself. That’s to be expected if you follow Christ. These things are, after all, Satan’s weapons.

I’m not saying this in a general way. I am referring to a specific situation that is arising and needs to be put down before it goes any further. I’ve read several personal attacks on Senator Wendy Davis, the filibustering Texas Senator, now gubernatorial candidate, who rose to national fame last spring.

The way this sort of thing usually happens is that the opposition candidate or the opposition political party does “research” and comes up with these things. They don’t want to slime themselves by saying it, so they give it to their “operatives” in the field to say it for them. That way, their operative is the one who looks like a dirt bag, while the candidate or political party gets the benefit and keeps their skirts clean. This is how President Obama ran his viciously misogynist campaigns against both Senator Hillary Clinton and Governor Sarah Palin.

These attacks on Senator Davis that are circling in the pro life blogosphere have the appearance of being plants by political actors who are using the pro life movement to do their dirty work. I would, as we say in Oklahoma, bet the ranch that the stories have their source in either the opposition political party or the opposition candidate’s camp.

This is a disgusting mis-use of the pro life movement. Not only that, but the stories being circulated about Senator Davis are not worth talking about. The ones I’ve read focus on picayune differences in a couple of dates from when the Senator was young, and — get this — complaints by her ex-husband that she never loved him and was only using him for money.

My feeling about the things I’ve read about Senator Davis is that they do not speak to her ability to do the job, and they do not reveal anything that puts the lie to her basic platform for running for office. Surely there are things in her official record as an office holder that would make a legitimate discussion about her worthiness for the office of governor of Texas.

I rather doubt that Senator Davis has performed her office in a way that jibes with the beliefs of all Texans. If her position on abortion is consistent with her other votes, she may have a number of big-city, rich-district positions that most Texans disagree with. These would be legitimate political issues that are worthy of discussion in a political campaign.

Back when I was pro choice, the pro life people attacked me mercilessly — and inaccurately — about my character, sex life, back ground, etc. They honed in on me personally and just plain made up lies about me and my personal life. Some of these lies still circulate to this day.

What they did not do was defeat me at the polls. In fact, what they succeeded in doing was convincing me, my campaign supporters and the vast majority of my constituents that they were an unsavory and dishonest bunch of people. They did such a good job of this that later on, after my conversion, when the Holy Spirit asked me to change my position on abortion, I was terrified. I knew my pro abortion friends would turn on me, and I had no idea where to go otherwise. I didn’t know any nice pro life people to turn to.

How many people have we kept trapped in their pro choice positions by this kind of behavior?

It saddens me when I see pro life people jump off the high road and into the sewer of political slime. We speak for the cause of the sanctity of human life. Most of us follow a risen Lord, Who is the Lord of all life. We defame our cause and the Lord Jesus Christ whose name we bear when we behave this way.

Senator Davis will have serious economic backing in her campaign. She will also have the well-deserved enthusiasm of every pro choice person in this country. She’s brave. She’s beautiful. She’s intelligent.

She is, in short, a worthy opponent. She could win this election.

If pro life people continue down this road of slandering her personally instead of offering voters a positive alternative, I guarantee that she will win. We need to focus on the issues that the voters of Texas care about and we need to do it in a way that is worthy of the noble cause and the innocent lives we are defending.

I am not saying that Senator Davis is going to win. I am saying that we will not defeat her in this election by sliming her.

Stop with the malice. It maims your higher thinking faculties and defames our cause. It is also a sin.

Slander is murder with words, even when the victim is pro abortion.

Do not use Satan’s weapons to fight Satan.

 

What is it with MSNBC and Sarah Palin?

Why do the folks at MSNBC keep jabbing themselves in the eye with the Sarah Palin stick?

Are they mental?

Or, are they just so utterly and completely drunk with group-think expressed as hatred that they are verging on the non-functional?

In just the past few weeks, one of their commenters, Martin Bashir, has had to resign because of public outcry over an attack on Governor Palin. This particular rant was a deeply offensive mix of pornography, misogyny and just plain revolting vileness. Here’s the link, if you have the stomach for it.

If that was the only Governor Palin attack piece, it would be enough to discredit this news network as a legitimate journalistic body. Resignation or not, they put this on the air.

But Mr Bashir’s vicious speech was only the cherry on top of what amounts to an on-going Sarah Palin hate troupe passing for a news organization.

The latest salvo (that I know about) first came to my attention by way of a post from fellow Patheosi, Bristol Palin. The attack comes from a reporter named Joy Reid. This particular anti-Palin blast moves the news organization from the vicious and pornographic to the laughable and absurd.

YouTube Preview Image

Ms Reid’s comments about the Governor appear to be primarily a side-step into a rather snotty attack on her faith. I don’t agree with many of Governor Palin’s political ideas. But I do agree with her about her faith.

Governor Palin is a Christian. I am also a Christian. If you want to know what I believe, look at the Apostle’s Creed.

While I have never seen a specific outline of the particulars of Governor Palin’s personal understanding of Christianity, I tend to think it aligns with the Apostles Creed that I believe. So, the Governor and I have our faith in common. We are also both women. More than that, we are women who have held elective office.

That gives me a lot in common with Governor Sarah Palin. I don’t, as I said, agree with all her political positions. But if you attack her as a woman, or if you attack her as a Christian, I am going to stand with her.

I think these constant attacks on her — which are totally unprofessional from a journalistic standpoint — are driven by a couple of things. First, she’s a woman who got close to the center of power in our country. Every time that happens, whether the woman in question is conservative Governor Palin or liberal Senator Clinton, the MSNBC misogyny team cranks up their attacks.

Does anyone besides me remember the 2008 presidential campaign? President Obama — President Abortion — used misogyny to get himself elected. One of his number-one spokesmen for the misogynist attacks against Senator Clinton in the nomination fight and then Governor Palin in the presidential election was MSNBC, in particular Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann. For instance, guess who made the legs crossing comment Katie Couric refers to in the video below?

YouTube Preview Image

I think that the continued attacks on Governor Palin are partly due to the overt misogyny of that news organization.

I think the second motivator in MSNBC’s obsession with Governor Palin is that she is a traditional Christian. Notice the way Ms Reid turns this attack on the governor’s family Christmas reminiscences into an attack on her faith. Notice also the last line challenging what Ms Reid seems to assume is the Governor’s belief that there is “one meaning to Christmas.”

That’s pretty ignorant. It is, after all, Christ – mas, as in Christ Mass. It is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. That’s the meaning and reason for Christmas.

There is no law in this country and never has been forcing anyone to believe that. I have never seen a Christian try to deny those who don’t believe it their enjoyment in the tinsel, great food and presents of Christmas.

But those who don’t believe it seem hell bent (I meant that literally) on forcing Christians to stop talking about the birth of Christ. They even go so far as to make fools of themselves attacking Christians the way Ms Reid does in this video.

This is not the only time Ms Reid has exhibited an anti-Christian bias. In the video below she discusses the “homo-erotic appearance” of Jesus’ relationship with the 12 Apostles with — get this — a professor at Georgetown University. Georgetown University claims to be a Catholic school, run by Jesuits. Notice that the reason for this drubbing is that “bigoted” Christians support traditional marriage as it has been practiced for the past 2,000 years.

YouTube Preview Image

Even a casual watch of these videos should raise the question as to what is going on at MSNBC.

More specifically, what is it with MSNBC and Governor Sarah Palin in particular and Christians in general?

Are they mental? Or are they just so full of hate that they don’t care about how shoddy and cheap they make themselves and their news organization look?

 


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X