Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Democrats - The Party of Intolerance and Bigotry

Do you get the impression that the Democrats are getting desperate? The shrill rhetoric is only getting louder.

Last week, Howard Dean revealed that Republicans have never done an honest day's work in their lives. Not a one of them. Yesterday, he clued us in to the fact that the Republicans all look alike. He said that it was the party of white Christians.

I can guarantee that Dean's statement was not meant to be a demographic analysis of the party's constituency, but was rather an attempt at an avuncular reference to people of a religion which Dean detests. In other words, "Christian" is a bad thing. If you doubt me, here's another post I did on the matter.

Presuming that Dean speaks for his party (they elected him to do that after all), given this new distinction he makes about Christians and Republicans, and given that only a notable few Democrats have distanced themselves from his fairly rich history of socially unacceptable remarks, with John Edwards lessening that distance of late, am I to assume that the Democratic Party is the repository for the irreligious and anti-religious whites?

The attacks by their members in the Senate against judges who call themselves Christians because they identify themselves as such lends credence to that philosophy. John Kerry's exclusion from Catholic communion services because he believes more in abortion than what Christianity teaches about it doesn't help the image.

But what about the "white" reference? As I doubt that it's fair to say that the Democrats are the party of blacks, despite the fact that blacks overwhelmingly cast votes in that direction. Rather, they are the party that needs blacks way, way more than blacks could ever need them.

Here is an example I discussed about Democrats and their penchant for racism. Even more tasteless was the fact that the Dems chose Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), former Grand Kleegle of the KKK, known as "Sheets" to Tip O'Neill, to smear Condoleeza Rice before she was confirmed by the Senate as Secretary of State. Classy. The irony wasn't lost on any of us. And Charles Schumer's remarks yesterday regarding the nomination of Judge Janice Rogers-Brown (who is black and conservative), invoking what he intended to be a Klan reference, were the kind of thing that should result in his expulsion from the Senate. He doesn't like Rogers-Brown, an accomplished jurist, because she is conservative, and person of faith, but more than anything, he despises her because those qualities are held by a black woman. I'll let Mychal Massie address this issue. The entire article is a must read, but he makes a devastating final point. By noting that blacks once heavily favored Republicans, and noting also that people like Chuck Schumer are aware that a repeat of that pattern would spell certain doom for his party, Massie says of the Democrats:

Their racism is transparent. They were against the late uber liberal Thurgood Marshall's appointment to the high court. They filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They opposed the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the high court. They opposed Dr. Rice, Rod Paige, Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers-Brown and Alberto Gonzales, and, less we forget, Democrats killed every single anti-lynching bill introduced in Congress.

To be certain Schumer is able to offer up flaccid excuses for their actions, especially when it comes to opposing both liberal and conservative high court nominees who happen to be black. I can appreciate Chuckie's fear of the past, but in the present in which we reside – besides racism and abortion – just what do these people stand for?
Aside of abusing the power of the judiciary in order to foist an unpopular atheist-socialist agenda on Americans, nothing else really comes to mind.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home