The Hillary Democrats
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on" than Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton has told USA Today.
She cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
"There's a pattern emerging here," said Hillary. "These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that."
The Democratic Party can't win with just "eggheads and African-Americans," Paul Begala added helpfully.
What Hillary and Begala are saying is politically incorrect, but it is also patently true. Hillary was describing what may now fairly be called the Hillary Democrats—a.k.a. the ex-Reagan Democrats who did not vote for Obama and may defect to John McCain.
If Obama can win over these voters who gave Hillary big victories in Ohio and Pennsylvania, he is the 44th president. If McCain does not win a goodly slice of these Democrats, he will lose.
Who, exactly, are the Hillocrats, half of whom said in the exit polls from North Carolina and Indiana that, if she loses the nomination, they will stay home or vote for McCain?
They are white, working- and middle-class, Catholic, small-town, rural, unionized, middle-age and seniors, and surviving on less than $50,000 a year. They are the people most belittled by the condescending commentary of Barack behind closed doors out at Sodom on the Bay.
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, (where) the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. ... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
In 40 years, two Democrats have won the presidency, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, and both did so only after connecting with these folks.
People forget. In 1976, Carter ran as a Naval Academy grad and nuclear engineer, a born-again Baptist and peanut farmer from Plains, Ga., who, in Philadelphia, talked about preserving the "ethnic purity" of the neighborhoods. Clinton first ran as a death-penalty Democrat.
It was Ronald Reagan who cemented the GOP hold of these Nixon-Agnew New Majority Democrats, who are now headed back home.
And it was George H.W. Bush and Lee Atwater who turned a 17-point deficit as of Aug. 1, 1988, into an eight-point lead Bush never lost on Labor Day—by eviscerating Michael Dukakis on the social and cultural issues: Dukakis' veto of a Pledge-of-Allegiance-to-the-Flag bill, his opposition to capital punishment, his pride in being "a card-carrying member of the ACLU," his weekend furloughs for convicted criminals and killers like Willy Horton.
Bush lost the presidency in 1992 when, under fire, he retreated from the social and cultural issues and sought to win on foreign policy, and on the economy, where his approval rating was 16 percent.
In 1992, cultural, social and moral issues could have derailed Clinton, which is why James Carville told the War Room to stay laser-focused. "It's the economy, stupid!" Bush and James Baker deemed social and cultural issues unworthy of a president. And so it was that George H.W. Bush ceased to be president.
His son did not make that mistake. In the primaries and general election in 2000, Bush embraced the Christian conservatives and their agenda.
Since Pennsylvania, Barack has recognized this deficiency and sought to portray himself as a reflexive patriot who enjoys a bottle of Bud just like the next guy, a kid raised in poverty by a single mom, who turned his back on Wall Street offers to fight for steelworkers laid off when their mills closed in South Chicago and moved to China.
McCain, a war hero and POW, is a natural for Middle Pennsylvania and Middle Ohio. His problems, however, are these:
He is failing to energize the Republican base, one-fourth of which is still voting against him in primaries. On the great populist issues of 2008—outsourcing of American jobs to Mexico, Asia and China, and the illegal alien invasion—he stands foursquare with K Street—for amnesty and NAFTA—and against Main Street.
And like Gerald Ford and Bob Dole, McCain recoils from cultural and social issues. He berated Tarheel Republicans for linking Barack, the Rev. Wright and local Democrats, and denounced a conservative talk show host who introduced him for mocking Barack's middle name.
This may solidify McCain's standing with his core constituency, the liberal commentariat. But these folks will depart in the fall. And the Republican base and the Hillary Democrats had better be there, or McCain will do what moderate Republicans nominees do best. Lose gracefully.
Keep an eye on West Virginia. The votes Hillary gets, and the way she gets them, may provide a road map for how the GOP can hold the White House this fall, if they are not too squeamish to follow it.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
That was a real eye popper from the warrior queen white witch. "hard-working Americans, white Americans" - you know, in contrast to those lazy, shiftless, no account . . . . . Talk about playing the race card. Of course, Obama doesn't have to play the race card; he IS the race card.
Still, McCain will have a problem winning in the fall, but not for the reasons given by Pat Buchanan. What people mainly want is peace and prosperity and the Republicans have given them endless war and progressive impoverishment and as much as promised more of the same - at least as far as war is concerned. Obama may be the weakest possible candidate for the Democrats, but by November any Democrat might be able to win.
For my own part, I have to cast a vote that will let me respect myself in the morning and right now that looks like Chuck Baldwin or nobody.
Kirt you are exactly right:
"What people mainly want is peace and prosperity and the Republicans have given them endless war and progressive impoverishment and promised more of the same .."
The Repubs are done., The dems can ride anybody, including their stick donkey, and still find home in this race. Pat is misjudging the mood of his country. Nobody gives a damn about Rev. Wright and Rev Hagee, about "conservative" judges, about other people's tax rates, about McCain's war record compared to his largest supporters -- Frum, Kristol, Billy Bob Bennett or Gorgeous George Weigel. NO !!
What people want (and it deserves repeating) is " peace and prosperity and the Republicans have given them endless war and progressive impoverishment and promised more of the same .."
Obama is not yet the nominee, and while it is likely he will be, the final blood-letting in that party (at least for 2008) will be something to behold. The enormous miscalculation of the Democratic party occurred 40 years ago and this is the inevitable play-out.
The miscalculation was letting the activist university lefties displace the JFK Democrats, who became the Scoop Jackson Democrats, later the Reagan Republicans. They are not all "working class/union" either, nor all Catholic, nor all smaller-town or rural. Not hardly. This is the sort of simplification which cost Pat any serious chance for the Presidency after his well-earned New Hampshire win years ago. Irish and/or beltway American Catholics & conservatives just don't get it, however generally sound their views on paper. Give them an inch and they start wearing cowboy hats & ludicrously going native.
Truth is, the Democratic party could have easily held the white house most of the years since 1968 with any number of attractive figures welcome to their true constituency, but despised by its inner activist elite. Only zombies from the planet Mongel could have conceived of candidates like George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis -- go figure. Unfortunalely the Hillocrats largely were conceived & formed as part of the so-called "greatest generation" & mostly waited around like H.G. Wells' Eloi for the noon bell from CBS/NBC/ABC to be eaten alive. Some of the contempt now openly held for them by presidential candidates is well-earned.
The pivotal figure in the dispalacement of what is now termed "Hillocrats" was Robert F. Kennedy, who capitalized upon his brother's cold war cool and traded it in for the politics of frenzy. The Nixon election was the first strong "no" to this. The "no" may be decidedly weaker today but it is still there to tip close elections, like the Indiana primary which ought to be seen as this year's most subtle litmus test -- although it is only apparent to those not brainwashed in university towns or via too much internet opinionating. It must be remembered that even if "no one" cares about Rev. Wright etc., "no one" (in the sense of nobody you would really like to know or think about) votes, and does so in numbers far outweighing the population of college towns. Obama here in Hoosierland never appeared outside the safe confines of a high school gymnasium or one of our uniformly bonehead universities. Hillary went everywhere & the final closing of the margin via Lake County was via perhaps the most corrupt urban political machine remaining in America. This major population center has no local TV, either, unique in its backwardness in another critical respect. Neither it nor anything similar will aid Obama anywhere else.
As in most close warfare of any kind, a remnant of the nature of th Hillocrats is more dangerous on the defensive than the offense. However sorry a figure McCain is, Obama has quickly driven this group into the equivilent of a bull's guernica, where they will stand and gore whomever approaches their position (which many deny even exists, which only demonstrates the tender years and rage of our new Messiah's "many").
Of course the Hillocrats' own beloved figures, RFK and Teddy Bare, sold them quite willingly into slavery long ago, doubtless yet another justified source of the contempt exhibeted by both Obama & McCain for them. Geraldine Ferraras, John Kerrys, Nancy Pelosis, and even Barney Franks were their repeatedly repaid ransom. But that mainly happened "back east" (or very far west) anyway. McCain of course is a turkey who will gratify none of the Hillocrats' "issues", however mass modern elections aren't about that, anyway. Nor,certainly are they about "peace and prosperity" which these folks -- and many others -- no longer believe in if they ever did. What they (like the black vote dissed by Bill Clinton in SC) are about is repect. Modern elections in this country are about mass fantasy fulfillment, and paradoxically no one knows this better than Obama who has no more reality than Batman, Mr. Clean, and Gil Grissom.
The bottom line: Obama is being sold into slavery by the white liberal elites as the last ransom price of their guilt, which has lost them 40 years of elections they should have won. Not that they understand why. But even the thickest eggshell skulls are apparently, finally, subject to the ruthless reality of a genuine B.F. Skinner punishment box. Too much pain, no more pellets. The bozo Obama will lose big time, as invisible "nobodies" vote in record numbers.
The Hillocrats promise to return in 2012 (the party is more flexible unlike 100+ years of dunderhead Republicans, & actually can learn from a Skinner box). The blacks will be temporarily bitter but they're used to that. They will be back to vote for born again Hillary. The Obama childrens' crusade will learn the rest of us don't love them anymore than their yuppie parents; they will also return, chastened, to vote for Big Sister in 2012. And the people Pat celebrates will be ecstatic to defeat Barack this year, & positively orgasmic in 2018 to anoit Big Sister (with a few choice bishops & nuns around).
Dear Jacko Asso ,
You have said what you needed to say. I said what I needed to say. Now since this is not the Free Republic, can we leave the opinions where they are and return to them the first tuesday after the first monday in November. As for cowboy hats and natives, I am one. I rope and ride as well and like it that way. In these parts we still raise our kids to ride and shoot and speak the truth before they leave for the under belly of decadence you describe in terms of some mystic Everyman of the Americas who supposedly will vote in droves for McCain like they did for Bush I against " The Economy Stupid,"Comeback Kid.
This endless political debate and predicting is not my specialty, I may be wrong as hell. You may be right, but I don't think so. People with anti-catholic bias running in their veins and brain are almost never right about human nature although they tend to talk a good game in pre -judged or "prejudiced"company.
Let us all calm down and consider Buchanan's words.As in 1960,West Virginia will tell us a lot. In 1960 of course it told the Kennedys the White House was in deed for sale and they bought Illinois and Texas.In 2008 West Virginia will return a 65% or more victory for the preposterous Hilary.Why? Guns,God and gold.Obama is a anti-Second Amendment,pseudo-Christian(pro-abortion,"black theology"),tax and spend liberal.West Virginia gets it-will McCain?
Leo,
Do not misunderstand the nature ot tenor of my assertion. I am not saying Obama is a good candidate, I am saying it doesn't matter.
Ecce Homo . "a anti-Second Amendment,pseudo-Christian(pro-abortion,”black theology”),tax and spend liberal." Indeed, which differentiates him from who exactly ? He is the candidate America has been preparing for for the last five decades and is no stranger to any educated American under fifty or any democrat under sixty five.
In 1984 I can remember being on the campus of a rather large midwestern university in which folks like Louis Farakham and Rosemary Ruether were promoted and drew large crowds of "interested " and "open minded "( boy were they ever ) students while the old Austrian gentleman, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, drew protests and so little interest, his sponsors opted to take him to view the Davis gun collection a few hundred miles away instead of delivering his scheduled talks. We are now reaping the harvest from decades of sewing decadence, strife and discontent in our politics and education.
My view is that of a pessimist -- clouded, dark and confident that our culture will grow worse and fail before its intelligence and faith in itself is restored. I do not believe in this mystical, silent and moral majority of Americans that will suddenly appear and assert its will because Mr. Obama, instead of Ms. Clinton, is running on the democratic ticket. And there can be no serious doubt that the democrats will win in November given the times and history of the last eight years. Do not mistake the upcoming results of West Virginia for hope, it is in the same category of taking your shoes off at the aiport, or wondering if our old friend, Pat Buchanan will endorse McCain, useless !
Sorry,don't live that way. If we lose,so be it.But damn it go down fighting and send as many of them to Hell as possible.That's a victory,too.
Need to add one final thought and then I'll stand down.Pat is a veteran of 1968-the campaign that began to roll back the liberal consensus.Nixon may have been a disappointment but his brilliant campaigns 0f 1968 and 1972(with the underappreciated Agnew) were not.McGovern's defeat eclipsed Goldwater's.Even today one is revered and the other pitied.In other words I'm skeptical of McCain,too but I'm more interested in the campaign and battle against godless,anti-Western liberalism.McCain can't stop us from tearing the bark off the abominable Obama.Pass the ammunition and go to war!(kudo to the late,great Lee Atwater for the "bark" quote).
Dear Reavis ... or is it Beavis?
Funny thing about my anti-Catholic bias ... well the heck with that. In short sum while you might be surprised to know my practice, beliefs, & lineage, that makes no difference anyway & doesn't advance either your or my argument at hand. But the square root of a lot of the present anti-Catholicism in this country is the apostate American Bishop's conference, brought to us by the same people who brought us RFK & his heirs. It functions in real life (outside its endless mind-numbing documents) as the Catholic wing of the Democratic party, and presently teaches (as virtual dogma) that half of Mexico belongs where you are currently at, which I gather is where the buffalo roam.
This thread is attatched to a PB article that is about political prediction from start to finish, sorry.
Mystic Everymen voting against Obama in droves? Please check close breakdowns of the demographics in all primaries to date, especially since Obama's recent stunts. No, you're technically right -- the people I describe won't be voting for McCain, but against Obama -- something infinitely easier to do. But Mystic Everyman is a great term and yeah ... they're out there ... voting for Obama who is indeed still carefully inventing himself as the culmination of the last 5 decades into Mystic Everyman updated, more accurately Ultimate Diversity Man.
Of course those same last 5 decades are quite high on the national hate list, & which hate is hardly limited to the Hillocrats. Having worked a decade among dear friends with (real) cowboy hats (not posing for a photo op) with real horses, I have serious doubts that places like Wyoming, Montana etc will go for Obama, either. But McCain is also a much more appealing figure than W in the "underbelly of decadence."
We both might pray that the term "underbelly of decadence" be picked up by the Ultimate Mystic Diversityman Savior next time he is with his buds in San Francisco, & be applied to an entire 2/3 of the continental USA. If I read you wrong and you do not so pray, I will put in a good word with Saints Philomena and Christopher for you.
Hope to meet you and continue this after the last ride into the sunset
Dear JAcko,
"If I read you wrong and you do not so pray, I will put in a good word with Saints Philomena and Christopher for you."
I appreciate the prayers to Sts. Philomena and Christopher. You might be right about the Catholic bishops and immigration which to my estimation is about the same policy position ( absent their infrequent recommendations of raising families of our own in a lifetime committemnt between a man and woman ) of Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama and the Sen. McCain/Kennedy proposals. I just can't get excited about proposing any of these candidates as good for Middle America, although I suppose the current conservative sham is easier to sell in the less affected areas you describe. Most of "fly over country" still has a remnant of local culture, although the three current candidates under discussion can't wait to change that and bring us all into the "global economy." Just like they brought civilization to the countries of Lee and Jackson, and are now bringing democracy to Iraq and coming soon through a recruiting office near you, Iran . St. Christopher, protect us.
Leo,
"McCain can’t stop us from tearing the bark off the abominable Obama. Pass the ammunition and go to war!"
Yes, and please feel free. Then after Obama is defeated, I would endorse General Patton's advice after the fall of Berlin: turn your Army east and drive the McCainiacs from future office as well.
Diesel fuel, needed to run many pickups and trucks necessary to get to, and do, work, is at $4.39 per gallon. I know many folks, blue collar, that are so sick of mismanagement of the economy (driven by a war that won't end, making McCain giddy) by the Republicans, and sick of the lies told by the Republicans on the "social issues," that they don't care about Rev. Wright. As a long-time supporter of Buchanan, I will now vote for any alternative to the Republicans and the police state they are trying to create at the expense of our economy and national security.
Alias Jacko
Funny thing about my anti-Catholic bias … a lot of the present anti-Catholicism in this country is the apostate American Bishop’s conference, brought to us by the same people who brought us RFK & his heirs. It functions in real life (outside its endless mind-numbing documents) as the Catholic wing of the Democratic party, and presently teaches (as virtual dogma) that half of Mexico belongs where you are currently at, which I gather is where the buffalo roam.
Actually, there are some strains of Reconquista that want all of North America in 'Indian' hands, including Quebec.
It's worth noting that all of the policies advanced by Ted Kennedy over the last 45 years are geared toward destroying the White race. Abortion reduces the native birthrate, so does excessive taxation. Gun control makes families feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods, again lowering the will to have children. Mass immigration, by Catholics, lowers wages also reducing the White birthrate. This is combined with anti-discrimination laws that prevent the native population from segregating itself from the incoming horde. Finally, Welfare is used to subsidize the new 'Americans' so that they can be firmly planted in the community they are colonizing. His policies truly are aimed at the removal and destruction of the White race which in 1965 was 89% of the population.
This then begs the question, why hasn't Ted been excommunicated from the Roman church? At the very least his support for abortion ought to render him persona non grata among the American bishops, who at least push that one issue as central to being a Catholic. Think of the policies I listed above:
1.Abortion
2.Native displacement (mass immigration)
3.Anti-discrimination laws
4.Welfare
5.High taxes to redistribute wealth
6.Gun control
The Roman church is opposed on paper to the first, but it won't excommunicate the Catholic politicians who promote it. The church is actively promoting the second with the Mexican invasion. The third, fourth, fifth and sixth all are part of 'Catholic Social Teaching' or else they should be, because the church actively promotes them as part of its campaign to promote 'Social Justice'. This explains why Ted has never removed from the church, he reflects what they believe, and so promotes their 'New Morality.'
However, if you conclude that Ted does indeed reflect the beliefs of the US hierarchy then that raises another question:
Is the Roman church in America a reprobate organization?
And if the church is indeed this corrupt, is the entire global organization of the church also this corrupt? Liberation Theology has almost ruined many Catholic countries and would suggest the corruption is not just American.
This raises the biggest question of all:
If the church is this corrupt globally, has it been so in the past, and if so does this mean the Protestant reformers were right?
A lot of people see the present corruption of the church and instead of turning to another denomination, simply become atheists, rejecting all faith completely.
Mr. Ronduck,
These are good questions. No, they are excellent questions and should be the topic of a whole thread of discussion and conversation. The catholic principle of sudsidiarity has been overwhelemed by corrupted notions of collegiality in many provinces of Catholic life in America. Stick to the Southern catholic writers in order to understand this difference better. The Southern yeomen and European peasantry have alot more in common with humane living than the polyglot boarding house culture that modern day "council of churches" and sentimental eccumenist are attempting to shape today. Reading Clyde Wilson or Sam Francis is a treat for any tradtitional catholic today just as acquiring the friendships of other protestant Chronicle readers is. If I had to sum up the doctine of susidiarity in laymens terms, it would be " leave other people and their things alone and don't tear things completely apart in order to improve them."
But as I said this is too broad and important of a subject to be exhausted in one exchange. But I do appreciate the logic and apparent honesty in your post.
13robert reavis
Mr. Ronduck,
But I do appreciate the ... apparent honesty in your post.
It was the post on the 'Dictatorship of Relativism' that got me to write what I have been thinking for the last 2 weeks. Even what I have posted above is only part of what I am thinking.
Thank you for your compliment, and for not objecting to my mention of Whites.
I'm afraid that Robert Reavis is more charitable than I am. I find it hard to take seriously an argument that boils down, in its essence, to this: The fact that Teddy Kennedy hasn't been formally excommunicated may prove that the Protestant Reformation was correct.
I suspect that the Protestant reformers, who had much more weighty matters on their minds than the portly senator from Massachusetts, might find the argument a bit unintentionally amusing.
Ted is a manifestation of a larger problem, his continued presence in the church is a rebuke to any claim that they have any moral stand.
Even if Ted were to die tomorrow the church would still be the cesspool that it currently is and would probably find someone else to take Ted's place. Also, I believe that given time the Hispanic population will generate a new archliberal, who will feed on the hispano-catholics the way Ted feeds off the Irish and Italians in Boston.
The post about the 'Dictatorship of Relativism' set me off because it seems that the church has taken a symbolic gesture against an unpopular sect instead of making substantive changes.
Amazing how a declining part of the electorate continues to get so much attention. Perhaps Hilary is truly regretting NAFTA, and not competing serious in Wisconsin where she could have won.
#17 Ronduck - "Ted is a manifestation of a larger problem, his continued presence in the church is a rebuke to any claim that they have any moral stand. "
You mean the Catholic Church is full of sinners? Imagine my surprise. Yeah, I guess that sure proves that the Protestant "reformers" were right all along. No sinners in their churches.
Even if Ted were to die tomorrow the church would still be the cesspool that it currently is and would probably find someone else to take Ted’s place.
Mr. Doane has gone from making an argument that was, at best, a bit of a stretch to now seemingly claiming that the Church wants Ted Kennedy to do what he does and that She, therefore, would find someone else to do it when Kennedy goes to his eternal reward.
The post about the ‘Dictatorship of Relativism’ set me off because it seems that the church has taken a symbolic gesture against an unpopular sect instead of making substantive changes.
And yet, Mr. Doane professes to be neither a Mormon or a Catholic, so I'm uncertain why my post would "set" him "off" in that way.
Listen, I don't think anyone here need apologize for Ted Kennedy. All human institutions inevitably become corrupt, and I think the Catholic Church is in better shape than just about any mainline Protestant denomination today.
Back to the article; the contributing author makes a number of interesting observations, but while reading it I kept thinking of the fourteen-year old I once knew who still thought that the WWF was "real."
The current moral depravity of the Roman church is a necessary step towards the building of a Catholic America. The program that I outlined above as being common to both Ted and the church work to destroy the native non-Catholic population and replace it with a majority Catholic one. It is worth noting as well that seeing a major church misbehave propels many people away from God altogether, making them atheists, which is also a guaranteed way to lower their birthrate.
So yes, I believe that Ted is not entirely the result of natural decay in the church, but part of the Roman church's plan to remake America in its' image. If he did not exist then another way would have to be found to achieve the agenda I outlined above, including the promotion of a pro-abortion, open borders and anti-white politician. In fact, Ted is constantly re-elected by his Catholic constituents who have their worldview shaped by the church, both in its schools and in its pulpits; they would demand a Ted if he did not exist.
However, despite the above plan the church still wishes to retain its' right wing and does so with symbolism instead of reform, such as by closing its parish rolls to Mormons. I deeply suspect that many right wing Catholics would be more than willing to see America transformed by Mexicans if the church remained moral, they would just see it as the judgment of God on schismatics carried out by a moral church, leading to a Catholic America.
@19Kirt Higdon
The difference between a Catholic church and a Protestant one is the presence of an ancient hierarchy in the Catholic ones whose purpose is prevent decay by expelling those who defile the body of Christ and to teach the flock in the ways of the church. But if the hierarchy has gone bad and salvation is possible without this organization in your church, then what is the point of having it in your church at all? Right wing Protestants have been the force behind every major push to keep America moral, without them America would be Massachusetts: Catholic, pro-abortion, and open to homosexuality. Over time this has seeped into the rest of America, but the resistance to this has largely been Protestant.
You and others may mock the low evangelicals or the High protestants but people turn to them because they offer a simple explanation of how to be saved, work to correct their members moral faults and generally try to promote morality in their congregations. The Roman church on the other hand is divided into Tridentine vs Vatican2 mass groups who can't agree on which version of a ritual to use.
As a sidebar, I don't believe that Pat Buchanan will leave the Republican party until he leaves the Roman church. He has spent his whole adult life in both organizations believing that each has a commission from God to save America. He has criticized the church much as he has criticized the party, but has left neither so far. Until he leaves Rome, he won't leave the party trying to turn us into Rome.
# 13 Ronduck writes : "Think of the policies I listed above:
1.Abortion
2.Native displacement (mass immigration)
3.Anti-discrimination laws
4.Welfare
5.High taxes to redistribute wealth
6.Gun control
My thoughts on Ronduck's post are similar to what Clyde Wilson has indicated about some conservative's desire to substitute one Big Bad Government for One Big Good Government. I gave Mr. Ronduck the benefit of the doubt that he was raising this type question in regards to the universal nature of Catholicism and its teachings.
My point is that the principle of subsidiarity is rarely spoken of today and in its place has developed the inflated notion of collegiality in the form of national Bishops conferences that have attempted to turn themselves into a kind of national house of representaives for a nation's catholics, --- which they are not and can never be. The reason why Ted still hangs around is that the Bishop of Boston is not the the Bishop of Nebraska. To show that all of the disciples abandoned Christ accept the one he loved and a few women who stood at the foot of the Cross, has no bearing on any Christian denomination existing today , accept to illustrate the weakness and cowardliness of human beings in the face of crowd hysteria.
This was my point about individual Bishops ( subsidiarity ) and "crowd control" ( collegiality ) with popular folks working for "the people." like Ted, Rudy, Kerry, Geraldine and the rest.
The current moral depravity of the Roman church is a necessary step towards the building of a Catholic America. The program that I outlined above as being common to both Ted and the church work to destroy the native non-Catholic population and replace it with a majority Catholic one. . . . So yes, I believe that Ted is not entirely the result of natural decay in the church, but part of the Roman church’s plan to remake America in its’ image. If he did not exist then another way would have to be found to achieve the agenda I outlined above, including the promotion of a pro-abortion, open borders and anti-white politician.
Thank you, Mr. Doane, for confirming that you do indeed subscribe to wild-eyed anti-Catholic conspiracy theories.
@23robert reavis
My point is that the principle of subsidiarity is rarely spoken of today and in its place has developed the inflated notion of collegiality in the form of national Bishops conferences that have attempted to turn themselves into a kind of national house of representaives for a nation’s catholics, — which they are not and can never be. The reason why Ted still hangs around is that the Bishop of Boston is not the the Bishop of Nebraska.
My personal take on that is that the US church needs a single Cardinal as its national head, not many cardinals, bishops and conferences. That way it would be very clear that one man appointed by the Pope is the head of the church instead of having the forest of cardinals, bishops, archbishops and conferences. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops could then be terminated.
Hell, as far left as the conference is it should be terminated anyway, the church might function better headless.
24Scott P. Richert
Thank you, Mr. Doane, for confirming that you do indeed subscribe to wild-eyed anti-Catholic conspiracy theories.
I live in Mesa, AZ and can see the Catholic invasion with my own eyes.
And I know that this is the second wave that has come to the US and transformed an entire region of the country into a culturally Catholic area, the first being the northeastern US.
You calling me a conspiracy theorist without rebutting my claim is like a Black screaming 'racist' when he doesn't get his way. Quite a few people think the same way I do and they will have to choose between America and Rome. Do you condemn the current invasion or have you decided that at least the new arrivals are more conservative, being that they are Catholic and all?
Do you condemn the current invasion or have you decided that at least the new arrivals are more conservative, being that they are Catholic and all?
Mr. Doane, if you were familiar with anything I've written, you'd know that I'm in favor of a complete moratorium on immigration for the foreseeable future. Moreover, I've written columns about the growth of the Hispanic population in Northern Illinois, in which I have discussed the very clear evidence that Mexicans who immigrate to the United States (as a group) very quickly lose whatever traditional moral values they held while in Mexico.
You calling me a conspiracy theorist without rebutting my claim is like a Black screaming ‘racist’ when he doesn’t get his way.
You're right: I have no possible way of rebutting the ridiculous claim that the Catholic Church has deliberately promoted Ted Kennedy to a position of political importance in the United States in order to facilitate the opening of the borders so that millions of Catholic Mexicans can flood across in order to "remake" the country in a Catholic image. And that, moreover, when Teddy kicks the bucket, the Church will create another national politician just like him.
You might ask yourself, however, whether the burden of proof falls on you--to offer proof for your claim--or me, to rebut a claim that you haven't even attempted to prove.
As for this:
I live in Mesa, AZ and can see the Catholic invasion with my own eyes.
You live in Mesa, Arizona, and can see the Mexican invasion with your own eyes. Contrary to what you seem to think, calling it a "Catholic invasion" does not prove that the Catholic Church is directing it through the unsteady hands and glassy eyes of the senior senator from Massachusetts.
Scott, you may want to inform your tormenter that the Mexican government has been radically anti-clerical from the Mexican Revolution to the 1990s and that the Catholic Church was under siege for much of the 20s and 30s. Mexican Catholicism is, for the most part, shallow and nominal, especially amongst the men who make up the bulk of the northern migration.
Ronduck @25
"Quite a few people think the same way I do and they will have to choose between America and Rome. Do you condemn the current invasion or have you decided that at least the new arrivals are more conservative, being that they are Catholic and all?"
Oh ! for heavens sake Mr. Ronduck, I thought you were a normal blogger attempting to enter serious discussion on one of the few serious cultural blogs left in America. I had no idea I was responding to a delusional, bigot who sees a serious Catholic conspiracy behind every crook and cranny -- from the poor disipated Senator from The Peoples Republic of Mass. to the betrayal of the Christeros almost a century ago. Look, I can respect an honorable bigot , a separatist bigot, a bigot informed, a mad, intolerant bigot, a desperate bigot, an old school protestant bigot or even the old apostate Catholic bigot, but a stupid childish and ignorant bigot needs to find another blog. Most of us are grown ups around here, so may I suggest the kiddy blog at Toys R Us or else one of those up scale Las Vegas blogs featuring Catholic strippers sent by the Pope to undermine American culture.
Mr. Ronduck, are you saying that the RCC is a powerful ally in the sinful invasion of America, since most all the invaders are RCC, and so changing America from Protestant to RCC? Or are you saying that the RCC is in fact the principal organizer of the invasion?
29PcH
Mr. Ronduck, are you saying that the RCC is a powerful ally in the sinful invasion of America, since most all the invaders are RCC, and so changing America from Protestant to RCC?
I believe the church is guilty because it intends for this to happen, not because millions of Mexicans are crossing independent of its' will.
Intent then flood, not flood without intent leading to guilt. Or else intent and flood occurring simultaneously.
Or are you saying that the RCC is in fact the principal organizer of the invasion?
It is a principal organizer of the invasion, one of a few. But the RCC's desire here is clear, it wants more Mexicans to be in the US.
*****
On what basis does the Catholic state that violating the nation-state is sinful, since in some cases it could be considered holy?
Todd,the energy policies of the Democratic Party are more responsible for the price of diesel than the war in Iraq.We can't build refineries,we can't drill in Alaska,we can't drill offshore ad infinitum.If this imbecilic Democratic Congress pulled its head out of its "green" rearend and actually unshackled Big Oil(ooooh...scary Big Oil!!!) you'd have no more pain at the pump.But you play the sucker and vote Obama ...and see the price go up as this idiot tries higher taxes and price controls to solve a pure supply problem.
So when Florida's republican governor Charlie Crist and California's Republican governor Arnold Schwartzenegger refuse to alllow offshore oil drilling in their states (as their Republicand predecessors also refused), how do you react then Leo? With bi-partisanship?
I'm not sure why this got started, but the idea that Mexicans will destroy "racially pure White America" is laughable.
In 1930, the Census Bureau recorded the lowest percentage of Blacks in America, at 9.7%. Notice this was at the end of the previous "Great Wave" of Catholic immigration; which consisted mostly of "non-White" Italians, Polocks, and Irish. Up until that point, the USA had been trending to more Whites, with the Black population peaking at the beginning, in 1790, at 19.3%.
Since 1930, the Black population has increased as a percent, up to 12.4% today. Meanwhile, the Hispanic population has increased from a negligible amount in 1790 to approaching 15% today. Many of those Hispanics (but probably not the 53% of them that claim it) could be classified as "White", considering how the definition has changed to include formally "non-Whites" such as Italians, Polocks, and Irishmen. To draw a page out of the Whig's play book: if you didn't want America to become less White (read: "English"; read: "WASP") then expansion across America, the "Manifest Destiny" of an "Empire of Agrarians" is to be opposed. That being said: if you don't like what America has become, fight it; go hole up in an all-White enclave and struggle to impose the WASP culture on the "dirty masses" of America. Be forewarned: the Whigs managed to elect exactly two American Presidents: William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor.
Irregardless, the decline of "White America" is not the result of immigration, but lower birth rates. The only people White Americans have to blame for their decline is themselves.
Ronduck proves something I've said all along: much of the anti-immigrant backlash is "cover" for their hatred of the Catholic Church, which is "cover" for their hatred of hierarchy, that is, their love of egalitarianism.
26Scott P. Richert
Mr. Doane, if you were familiar with anything I’ve written, you’d know that I’m in favor of a complete moratorium on immigration for the foreseeable future. Moreover, I’ve written columns about the growth of the Hispanic population in Northern Illinois, in which I have discussed the very clear evidence that Mexicans who immigrate to the United States (as a group) very quickly lose whatever traditional moral values they held while in Mexico.
Would you be opposed to immigration if the Mexicans kept their morality, or would you accept them as allies in a culture war?
33Patrick
Ronduck proves something I’ve said all along: much of the anti-immigrant backlash is “cover” for their hatred of the Catholic Church, which is “cover” for their hatred of hierarchy, that is, their love of egalitarianism.
Do you even oppose immigration?
Patrick, your argument regarding immigration is with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom wrote about limiting immigration. Either they are right or Kennedy, McCain, Bush and you are right.
I thought anti-Catholic hysteria died with the Know- Nothings. Oh well, we have another amusing conspiracy theory raising it's silly head.
It's not really the Catholics, you know, it's the Orthodox. They control the Pope and it's a sinister conspiracy to conquer the republic for that nasty Emperor on the Bosporus, so the Serbs can build a Balkan empire by killing off those poor, helpless Albanians, and Orthodox Russia can conquer the West in revenge for the collapse of the Berlin wall. If we don't stop this, they'll force us to cross ourselves in a strange Greek way, live under the rule of ruthless Anatolian nobles, and to speak Old Church Slavonic!
Seriously now, why should Ronduck expect anyone here to take him seriously? If the Catholic church would clean it's own house, it could become one of the greatest forces for the revival of a sane social order in America. Call that a conspiracy if you want to.
Would you be opposed to immigration if the Mexicans kept their morality, or would you accept them as allies in a culture war?
What part of "I’m in favor of a complete moratorium on immigration for the foreseeable future" do you not understand?
<>
You should specify "to", "from", "who" and "whom".
____________________________________
"Patrick, your argument regarding immigration is with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom wrote about limiting immigration. Either they are right or Kennedy, McCain, Bush and you are right."
____________________________________
No, my argument is as such: as long as America continues down it's path of Revolution (which it has), it is shackled with Propositional Nationhood.
37Scott P. Richert
What part of “I’m in favor of a complete moratorium on immigration for the foreseeable future” do you not understand?
It was a hypothetical question, you stated that you wrote that about the moral decay of Hispanics in northern Illinois, not about how they are displacing the native born. Even if they have lower crime rates than those already here, I still don't want them here.
It was a hypothetical question, you stated that you wrote that about the moral decay of Hispanics in northern Illinois, not about how they are displacing the native born.
Mr. Doane, what part of "Moreover" (which appeared after my views about the need for a moratorium, and before my mention of my column) don't you understand? The points were clearly separate.
But, since I've apparently been unable to make my point clearly enough for you, let's try it one more time: I wasn't saying that the problem with Hispanic immigration is that Mexicans lose whatever traditional moral values they still had while in Mexico. The problem is the transformation of our culture (and, with it, our government and our economy).
I only brought up the moral question at all in answer to your question: "have you decided that at least the new arrivals are more conservative, being that they are Catholic and all?" Obviously, if I have written about the loss of traditional values by Mexicans once they immigrate to the United States, I certainly can't believe that they are "more conservative."
I think that most of the morally corrupt Mexican immigrants were already morally corrupt before they came here. That's been my experience. We seem to be getting relatively more of Mexico's corrupt and perverse elements and relatively less of it's decent ones. Central American immigrants often dont like Mexican immigrants, and that dislike is based partly on moral considerations, but not necessarily on the sexual aspects of morality.
Some Mexicans here have converted to one or another of usually degenerate protestant sects. That makes no difference. They can take their degenerate protestantism back to Mexico, where they likely would lose it in short order just as they lost their catholicism here. The religious and moral character of Mexicans in the U.S. are unimportant and nothing more than sidebars to the issue of the demographic and cultural destruction of the U.S.
The first sentence of my post at 42 should be modified so that it applies to first generation Mexicans in the U.S.
Then, as Mr Richert has indicated, there is the moral decline of decent Mexican immigrant families, who lose their traditional moral values within a generation or two.
How anyone can accuse Mr Richert of wishing for the immigration of Mexicans because they happen to be catholic is beyond comprehension.
How can anyone really believe that there is a Vatican, or even an American catholic conspiracy behind the allowing or encouraging of Mexican immigration?
For anyone interested in the moral decline of Mexicans living in the US, I would suggest reading what Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute has written on the subject. It seems to me that many neo-conservatives(ie. Barnes, Kristol, and Bennett) and Wall Street Journal types(Kemp, Gigot, Moore) get their views regarding Mexicans soley from having viewed "The Magnificent Seven" at one time or another in their lives.
43Allen Wilson
How can anyone really believe that there is a Vatican, or even an American catholic conspiracy behind the allowing or encouraging of Mexican immigration?
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/04/congressman_tan.php
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/04/pope_urges_open.php
Here is a link to a story about the Pope calling for America to welcome immigrants into the US.
Mr. Doane (@45), perhaps you should try reading Pope Benedict's own words, and not the partial report of the Houston Chronicle, further edited by the folks at American Renaissance. You can find the text here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080416_bishops-usa_en.html.
You'll still be unhappy, but Pope Benedict made no recommendations regarding American immigration policy, nor any criticism of restrictions on immigration. He referred to "the immigrants who join your ranks today," and essentially reminded the bishops of the United States (and their flocks) that Christians are called, by our Lord, to welcome the stranger.
Christ's injunction is binding on us, individually and in Christian communities, when the stranger comes among us. But again, Pope Benedict did not say, "You must convince your Congress to allow massive immigration, so that you have strangers to welcome." To say even that he was "calling for America to welcome immigrants into the US" is reading into his words.
One can believe, as I do, that we need a complete moratorium on immigration for the foreseeable future, and yet also live up to one's responsibility as a Christian to provide aid to the stranger, when the stranger is in need.
And just in case it's not clear, the aid in question is not governmental aid--as Pope Benedict's lack of any mention of immigration or welfare policy should make clear--but aid by individuals and Christian communities.
Trust me--if the bishops of the United States restricted themselves as Pope Benedict did, we'd all be much happier.
I agree, the line from the Vatican website is at best ambiguous, but not outright endorsing mass immigration. I'll accept that that statement was not meant to advocate the Mexicanization of the US. However, I still don't trust the US church and prefer to build my future outside of it.
As for your comment in #47:
Trust me–if the bishops of the United States restricted themselves as Pope Benedict did, we’d all be much happier.
I would like them to remain silent on this and most every other issue as well, they were why I asked in #13: Is the Roman church in America a reprobate organization?
If the Roman church in America wants to turn itself around it will have cut off its gangrenous limbs so that they do not infect the rest of the church, either here in America, or in the rest of the world. However, I can't see Benedict doing that directly as Pope, too many of the speeches that I read on that Vatican page seemed apologetic to the American people. He needs to appoint a single head to the American church and cut the other cardinals to bishop. This man needs to be a conservative who would be at the center of media attention as the head of US Catholics. Since he would be the paramount leader he could begin the task of removing the high profile reprobates who pollute the church, both within and without the hierarchy. Secondly, he needs to state that the US church no longer has a position on immigration, but only ministers to people where they are.
The fact is the Vatican needs a surgeon who can start cutting of the dead tissue that is killing the rest of the church and inspiring thoughts like mine.
Unless the church is turned around, I will have no sympathy for it as it dies. And I will happily work to see it expire sooner, because in its decrepit state it is a threat to the morality of those I love and the continued existence of my country. As I noted in #13 Ted represents what the church in America believes, he is a symbol of the modern church, therefore his continued presence proves that the organization is harmful to me, my neighbors and my family.
"Unless the church is turned around, I will have no sympathy for it as it dies. And I will happily work to see it expire sooner, because in its decrepit state it is a threat to the morality of those I love and the continued existence of my country. As I noted in #13 Ted represents what the church in America believes, he is a symbol of the modern church, therefore his continued presence proves that the organization is harmful to me, my neighbors and my family."
Let us begin today by shutting down all the catholic hospitals, then all the catholic schools, then all the Catholic Universities, then all the catholic charities that provide food and shelter, then all the houses of charity who provide solace and charity for the destitute, diseased and dying , all the remote houses of contemplation that are the trees preserving and slowly promoting the fruit of all you hold dear. And then let us begin to confiscate their property and sell it to high ranking members of Government to be more efficiently run and more fair in its distribution of doctrine, goods and services.
Let us do all of this destruction,like we have in Iraq,under the guise of making the world a safer place for freedom loving folks like yourself. As Barry Goldwater once said to the enthusiasts of his generation, " Grow Up !!"