WikiLeaks Confirms Democrat Conspiracy to "Plant Seeds of Revolution" in Catholic Church, Vindicates Catholic Blogs That Exposed Front Groups

In case you're wondering, the "middle ages dictatorship" that is the Catholic Church and her Bishops is right there in the middle of Hillary Clinton's so-called "basket of deplorables". And the Clinton team had a plan to rid themselves of these troublesome priests by "plant[ing] the seeds of the revolution" against the Catholic hierarchy and its teachings via infiltration and subversion.

Some of us caught on to this plan a decade ago...

John Podesta.  Image courtesy of the Center for American Progress  via OnePeter5 
(Creative Commons)

Vindication. Yes, an opportunity to gloat. To say "I told you so."

Not a very pretty sentiment, but that's about the only thing that could bring me out of blogging retirement (but only for this one post) in the electoral Annus Horribilis that is 2016.

So it turns out that what we knew ALL ALONG about the Soros-funded DemoCatholic front groups Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and its sister organization Catholics United was, in fact, 100% on the money. We have an admission right out of the horse's mouth (or, rather, out of the horse's leaked emails). I haven't the time nor the inclination to get into a long retrospective detailing the war of words that I and other like-minded bloggers waged over several years -- beginning a decade ago -- against Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United. Instead, I will direct you to the links below, which will more than fill you in and give you a taste of what was being said and what was at stake.

In short, my part in this drama began a decade ago during the 2006 elections, when Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good published a Catholic voter guide that played down the priority given by the Church to traditional life issues in favor of a hodge-podge of issues straight out of the Democrat Party platform. At first, I began by just blogging about and linking to what others were saying about this mysterious group who had suddenly appeared on the scene in the midst of a mid-term election. As the evidence poured in, especially evidence that linked the group to funding provided by none other than George Soros, it soon became clear that Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good was little more than a front group for the Democrat Party and its efforts to blur the lines on life issues with Catholic voters.

And then, the week before the November 2006 elections, our own Catholic Chronicle -- the usually fairly orthodox newspaper of the Diocese of Toledo, Ohio -- published a front-page puff piece on the efforts of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good in our own diocese to promote their vision and their voter guide (the story reported the efforts in a straightforward manner, without questioning the problematic aspects of the group and its voter guide).. The proverbial you-know-what must've hit the fan in the Chancery offices once the very orthodox then-Toledo Bishop Leonard Blair (now Archbishop of Hartford, CT) caught wind of it, because the article was gone from the Chronicle's website within a matter of hours after it was published. Alas, it was too late to remove the article from the print editions, which went out the weekend before the elections on the following Tuesday to parishes Diocese-wide. So, in response to the Chronicle's article, I penned a letter to the editor taking the Chronicle and the main protagonist of the article, Prof. Richard Gaillardetz, to task for the misrepresentation and manipulation of Catholic teaching. The Chronicle eventually published my letter, along with a few others disagreeing with the article and its timing, a couple of months later. Following the letter's publication, the response from the Catholics in Alliance crowd was swift and predictably unpleasant. You can read the comments here for a taste. This war of words against Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United (and various offshoots like Catholic Democrats, etc.) went on for several years and took many twists and turns, which you can read about in the links at the bottom of this post.

In the end, it is my belief that, ultimately, those of us leading the charge against these groups lost that war (at least in the short term covering 2006, 2008, and 2012). Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United accomplished their aims of convincing Catholics that voting for a party that views government-funded abortion on demand as a sacrament, and that views the destruction of the traditional family as a prerequisite to achieving its policy goals and destroying the institutions -- such as the Church and other religious people and organizations -- that might stand in that party's way of achieving said policy goals, was not only morally acceptable, but was, in fact, the MOST Catholic way to vote. See, e.g., Doug Kmiec.  "These groups are merely drawing attention to long-ignored issues of importance to Catholics," some said. "These groups are doing the Church a service by focusing on the need for a 'consistent ethic of life'," they said (never mind that these groups NEVER talked about such life issues as abortion, euthanasia, or the sanctity of the family). Entire blogs were established for the purpose of propagandizing the issues that the DemoCath groups argued were being ignored because of Catholic voters' allegedly "obsessive" focus on "a narrow spectrum of issues regarding family and sexuality" (i.e. the sanctity of life and the family). Sometimes, these blogs had well-meaning founders who definitely raised important issues for Catholics to consider when they were deciding how to vote, but these blogs often quickly devolved into DemoCath propaganda organs as certain bloggers and frequent combox commentators used those fora to press forward the agitprop that ultimately undermined the good of the Catholic Church and her teachings in favor of the pursuit of Democrat Party policy goals. Far too many Catholics who should have known better allowed themselves to be swayed by the arguments of those whose only purpose was to weaken the resolve of Catholic voters to stand for the Catholic Church's teachings on the primacy of life and family issues, and instead were duped by these malefactors to trade that birthright for a mess of feel-good leftist policy pottage. And that party repaid them by, among many other things, suing nuns to force them to provide birth control in their medical policies. And, in response, Catholic voters had so weakened their resolve to stand for traditional life issues, that they re-elected the guy who has consistently attacked their Church. Which was the goal of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United all along. Today, there is no identifiable "Catholic Vote" left to speak of thanks to the likes of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United.

So, it turns out to be a rather bittersweet bit of gloating, at best, when I read the latest WikiLeaks email dump, which includes a 2012 email exchange in which HilLIARy Clinton's current campaign chairman, John Podesta, openly brags about being involved in efforts to infiltrate the Catholic Church and foment a "Catholic Spring" (i.e. a bottom-up rebellion against the Church hierarchy and its teaching authority akin to the "Arab Spring" -- albeit without the violence, one hopes -- that led to revolutions in Egypt, Libya, and Syria). The means of fomenting this takeover of the Church? Why, none other than Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United:

Hi, John, 
This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage even though 98% of Catholic women (and their conjugal partners) have used contraception has me thinking . . . There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church. Is contraceptive coverage an issue around which that could happen. The Bishops will undoubtedly continue the fight. Does the Catholic Hospital Association support of the Administration's new policy, together with "the 98%" create an opportunity? 

Of course, this idea may just reveal my total lack of understanding of the Catholic church, the economic power it can bring to bear against nuns and priests who count on it for their maintenance, etc. Even if the idea isn't crazy, I don't qualify to be involved and I have not thought at all about how one would "plant the seeds of the revolution," or who would plant them.

Just wondering . . .

Hoping you're well, and getting to focus your time in the ways you want. 
Sandy 

Sandy Newman, President 
Voices for Progress 
202.669.8754 
voicesforprogress.org

_________________________________


From:john.podesta@gmail.com
To: sandynewman@gmail.com
Date: 2012-02-11 11:45
Subject: Re: opening for a Catholic Spring? just musing . . .

We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up. I'll discuss with Tara. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the other person to consult. (emphasis added)

That there is what we call a "smoking gun". Again, we knew ALL ALONG what these groups were up to, but they always had some plausible deniability along with their apologists making the case that they were honest-to-goodness "Faithful Catholics"™️ just arguing for a "consistent ethic of life" (again, albeit one that never ever quite mentioned abortion). But this Podesta email is a validation and vindication of the efforts of myself and like-minded bloggers such as, for example, Rich Leonardi, to expose this infiltration of the Catholic Church by political subversives bent on "plant[ing] the seeds of ... revolution".

If you have the time, I encourage you to read as many of the links below as you can to get some indication of what these subversive groups were up to and the efforts to which bloggers were going to expose them. You might find of particular interest the links detailing how former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (a Democrat who is now challenging U.S. Sen. Rob Portman for his Senate seat) had a man at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good whom he also appointed to head up the Ohio Faith-Based Initiatives office and who was, at the same time, running a prostitution ring. Yep.

Others commenting on this story:

• Don McClarey at The American Catholic: Democrat Attempts to Control the Church 
• Steve Skojek at OnePeterFive: The Leftist Conspiracy Against Orthodox Catholicism 
• Rod Dreher at The American Conservative: Democratic Conspiracy Against Catholic Church 
• CatholicVote: [Ongoing Updates] Clinton Campaign Anti-Catholic WikiLeaks Scandal
• The Catholic Herald: Clinton Campaign Chief Helped Start Catholic Organisations to Create "Revolution" in the Church
• Archbishop Charles J. Chaput at National Catholic Register: About Those Unthinking, Backward Catholics ... 
• The Wall Street Journal: Anti-Catholics for Clinton 

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Prominent Catholic Professor Claims IRS Audited Her After Speaking Out Against Obama and Demanded to Know Who Was Paying Her

Soros-Funded Pro-Obama Catholics to Launch News Service?
 
Catholic Key Blog Asks "Is Catholics in Alliance Kaput?"

Soros-Funded "Catholic" Groups Still Running Cover for Pro-Aborts (Of Course, That's the Sole Reason They Exist)

"Nonpartisan" Catholics United to “Set the Record Straight” by Trying to Convince Catholics That New Healthcare Law is "Pro-Life"

Archbishop Chaput: A Bad Bill and How We Got It

Archbishop Chaput: Those Confusing the Catholic Stance on Health Care Will Bear the Blame for Anti-Life Effects of Heath Care Bill

CatholicVote Takes on Soros-Funded Catholics in Alliance and Catholics United

Sebelius and Kmiec Catholicism - the Catholic Left Declares War on Pro-Lifers

Apologists for Abortion-Loving Catholics Attack Archbishop ... Again

Catholic News Agency: Catholics in Alliance "Abortion Reduction" Study Found to be Faulty - Social Welfare Policies Have Little Effect on Abortion

What Did Gov. Strickland Know, and When Did He Know It (re: Eric McFadden)? [UPDATED]

Breaking: Catholic Democrat Who Once Headed Up Ohio's Faith-Based Initiatives Arrested for Running Prostitution Ring [UPDATED]

"Seamless Garment Has Lost a Thread"

Catholics in Alliance Voter Survey of "Little Value," Archdiocese of Denver Says

"Nonpartisan" Catholics United Attacks the Knights of Columbus

"Nonpartisan" Catholics United Hits McCain with Ad Questioning His Pro-Life Credentials

"Non-Partisan" Group of Catholic Obama Supporters Calling Itself "Catholics United" Gets Divisive

The Catholic Left Meets in Philadelphia

Convention for the "Common Good"

Bill Donohue: "How the Catholic Left Is Boxed in by Abortion"

"Catholic Democrats" Attack "Registered Republican Archbishop of Kansas City" for "Using Communion" to "Take Down" Sebelius

I Missed the Seminar [UPDATED]

Deal Hudson: "Catholics Organize to Elect Barack Obama"

Democrat Front Group Posing as Catholic Org Calls for End to "Christmas Culture War"

Fidelis Dismisses Religious Left Media "Report"

Democrats Set Their Sights on Winning Back Catholics

Mark Shea in National Catholic Register: "Richard Rich Lives"

Edwards Blogger Flap Discomforts Religious Left

Mark Shea: "Whores for Edwards Swings into Action"

Catholics in Alliance Respond With Letter to Editor

Continue to Raise Our Voices on Issue of Voting

In January's Catholic Chronicle - "Vote Your Values" Revisited

Vote Your Values

"NOT An Approved Catholic Voter Guide"

What's Missing?

Toledo Blade: "Catholic Voting Guide Gives Church Perspective"

Catholics Find Voting Guides a Test of Allegiance

Weigel: "An Electoral Battle of the Booklets?

More From Amy Welborn on the "Dueling Catholic Voter Guides"

Columnist: "Christian Right Driving Wedge Into U.S."

More on Catholic Voter Guides

Dueling Catholic Voter Guides

Did "Catholics Abandon Democrats" in 2014?

Folks, it comes as no surprise to you, given my absence, that I'm no longer blogging. Haven't been for a while. So, don't be surprised if this is the last post you ever see at this blog. But I felt like I needed to say something, and, given the overriding theme of this blog for the past 10 years, a post about the so-called "Catholic Vote", and whether such a thing even exists, seems as good a way to wrap things up as there is.

Today, the Catholic League put out a press release on the results of the 2014 elections:

Just two years ago, Catholics voted for President Barack Obama by a margin of 50 percent to 48 percent. On Tuesday, they abandoned Obama’s party: 54 percent voted for Republican candidates and 45 percent went for the Democrats (60 percent of white Catholics chose GOP candidates). What is most startling about the Catholic vote is that it represents an exact turnaround from 2008: 54 percent voted for Obama and 45 percent cast their ballot for Senator John McCain.

Catholics are pragmatic. Until the McGovernization of the Democratic Party in 1972, they were among the most reliably Democratic voters in the nation. Since that time, they have been politically homeless, which is why both parties vie for their vote so aggressively. Catholics are a bellwether: whoever wins their vote, generally wins the election. By contrast, Protestants vote Republican and Jews vote Democrat...

I'm sorry, but these particular numbers regarding "the Catholic Vote" just don't stand out to me. In fact, it's time we stop talking about "the Catholic vote" or "Catholic voters" because such a thing no longer exists. 

Bill Donohue says "Catholics are pragmatic." But when I look at these numbers, all I see is Catholics supporting the Democrats in 2012 by the same proportion as the rest of the country, and Catholics supporting Republicans in 2014 by the same proportion as the rest of the country.

In other words, there doesn't appear to be anything unique to or distinct about Catholic voters that differentiates them from the rest of the country at large. Catholic voters appear to be merely a mirror of the rest of society in their voting patterns. And that's just sad.  

Catholics appear to have become what many of our forebears, culminating in the election of President John F. Kennedy, seem to have wanted - to just fit in. To be seen as "normal Americans". To not be seen by the rest of the country as in any way beholden to our Faith (certainly not be be seen as beholden to a "foreign power", i.e. the Pope).

But "fitting in" isn't what is required of us. We're called to be in the world, but not of it. We're called to be counter-cultural. We're called to be witnesses of our Faith. We're supposed to change the world, NOT let the world change us.

So, no, I don't believe that "Catholics abandoned Democrats" in the 2014 elections. The VOTERS abandoned the Democrats in the 2014 election, and Catholics just went along for the ride. By contrast, our evangelical brethren voted against the Democrats in a proportion that FAR exceeded the proportion of the electorate at large. THERE's an instance where faith seems to make a difference in voting patterns. With us Catholics, not so much. Again, sad.

The Passion of the Kmiec Revisited: WTF?

Doug Kmiec has, apparently, gone off the deep end. Seriously, I got nothing. In fact, this latest cry for attention is ... well ... just sad:

... Since he has returned, I’ve followed his curious posts on Facebook and Twitter. He consistently refers to himself in the third person as Ambassador, and posts these odd videos and photos of himself in his Ambassadorial role. But a few months ago, it got really weird. He started posting images promoting himself as Vice President in 2016.

At first I thought it may be some kind of joke, but it wasn’t. Then on October 6, 2013, he announced his “decision to run for vice presidency in 2016,” and noted that he had a “steering committee.” ...

Read more at "Pepperdine Law Prof, and former Ambassador to Malta, Doug Kmiec Seeks To Be Clinton’s VP. Huh?".

Please tell me I'm not going to have to start blogging about this guy again.

(Hat tip: Michael Denton via Facebook)


UPDATE:
Kmiec's Facebook page bears every indication that he's taking himself seriously in this regard. Sad, really.

And his support for Hillary's candidacy proves that Kmiec's decision to venture into the party of abortion-on-demand - the party that forces Catholic organizations like the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their Faith - wasn't just a one-time fling with The One. 


UPDATE #2 (27 January):
My friends Matthew Archbold at Creative Minority Report and Donald McClarey at The American Catholic have posted recent commentary on Kmiec's bizarre behavior:

Heh. Doug Kmiec Wants to Be Hillary's Running Mate

Doug Kmiec Jumps Shark



The Passion of the Kmiec - A Pro Ecclesia Timeline:

January 2014 
The Passion of the Kmiec Revisited: WTF?


February 2012
Doug Kmiec Back in Obama's Embrace

Doug Kmiec Thinks He's Breaking Up With Obama, But Obama Already Jilted Him First


September 2009
Kmiec Lies Again: "Obama Has Taken Some Steps Towards [Protecting Life], Perhaps Not as Fast as Some Would Like"


July 2009
"The Passion of the Kmiec" ... The Saga Continues


May 2009
Kmiec Tells Another Lie in Service of Obama

Robert P. George on "Obama and His Pro-Life Apologists"

Robert George vs Douglas Kmiec: How Should a Pro-Life Citizen Respond to Obama? [UPDATED]


April 2009
Cardinal Rigali Calls Out Kmiec on His ESCR Lies

A New Front in the Church's Civil War

Fr. Z Fisks Pathetic Sycophant Kmiec on Notre Dame's Obama Invite

Prof. George Schools Prof. Kmiec ... Again


March 2009 
Scholar vs. Hack: Prof. George Schools Prof. Kmiec re: "Did Obama Allow Human Cloning?"
 
Kmiec Brushes Aside Another Non-Negotiable by Coming Out Against Prop 8


February 2009
Kmiec Calls Pope's Comments "Intrusive"

Catholic World Report: "Douglas Kmiec and His Misinformation Offensive for Barack Obama"


January 2009
Kmiec Claims He's In the Loop for Vatican Post

 American Papist's Open Letter to Prof. Kmiec

Kmiec the Martyr

Prof. Kmiec Eulogizes Fr. Neuhaus in a Manner That is All About Prof. Kmiec and Justifying his Obama Vote [UPDATED]


December 2008 
Prof. Bainbridge on Doug Kmiec and U.S. Diplomatic Relations with the Holy See


November 2008 
Vatican Official Says Kmiec Will Not Become New Vatican Ambassador

The Kmiec Catholic Re-Education Camp

Former Student of Prof. Kmiec Calls Him Out on "Revealing His True Colors"

A Modern-Day "Vicar of Bray"

Douthat Smacks Kmiec

Amy's "Wrap-Up" of Pre-Election Abortion Coverage

Pathetic


October 2008 
George Weigel on Kmiec's "Flawed Thinking"

Archbishop Chaput: Kmiec Doing a "Disservice to the Church"

Mainstream Media Compliant in Obama's "Faith Outreach" Pitch

Bill Donohue: "I'm Catholic, Staunchly Anti-Racist, and Support David Duke" [UPDATED]

Debate Over at Amy's: Should Catholics Work for Legal Restrictions on Abortion?

Deacon Fournier Puts Smack Down on Prof. Kmiec

Kmiec's Payoff? [UPDATED]


September 2008 
The Obama-Kmiec Magical Mystery "Faith Tour"

Deacon Fournier: "Doug Kmiec’s ‘Can a Catholic Support Him?’ Asks the Wrong Question"

Ponnuru Raps Kmiec for Defending Obama's Born-Alive Vote

"Separate But Equal" Redux - Pro-Life Edition

Mark Stricherz: "Why the Democratic Abortion Strategy is Worse"

Whither the "Catholic Vote"? Some Interesting Posts at the Fidelis Blog


August 2008 
Darwin Catholic: "Douglas Kmiec, Master of Dissembling" [UPDATED]

Prof. Rick Garnett on Kmiec's "Missing the Point"

A Former Student of Prof. Kmiec Speaks Out ...

Prof. Kmiec Shifts the Goalposts

Kmiec's "Bridge Too Far"? Obama's Attacks on Justice Thomas

Without Further Ado: Doug Kmiec on McCain v. Obama at Saddleback [UPDATED]

Paging Prof. Kmiec ...

Doug Kmiec Claims Democrats Making "Steps Toward Honoring Life" in Platform

Prof. Garnett Takes on Prof. Kmiec ... Again

Casey Jr. to Get Prime-Time Slot in Denver to Appease Catholics [UPDATED]


July 2008 
Fr. Neuhaus Responds to Doug Kmiec

Deal Hudson's Open Letter to Doug Kmiec

National Catholic Register on Catholics, Kmiec, and Obama

Prof. Hadley Arkes: "Political Distraction Among the Catholics"


June 2008
 Doug Kmiec - What He Said Then vs. What He Says Now Re: Constitutional Jurisprudence

What is the "Pro-Life Position" Regarding Abortion?

Traumatized

Unrequited Love

Doug Kmiec: "After Meeting with Barack" [UPDATED]

Cranky Conservative: "But At Least He Says It with a Smile"

Doug Kmiec Again Places Platitudes Above Policy [UPDATED]

Prof. Bainbridge on "Obama, Abortion, & Catholics"

Prof. Rick Garnett on Kmiec's Latest Nonsense

Deacon Keith Fournier: "Why I Disagree with Doug Kmiec, Once Again"

Give It a Rest Already, Prof. Kmiec!

Doug Kmiec's Newfound Celebrity Status Among Those on the Left

Doug Kmiec Soon To Be Sorely Disappointed

E.J. Dionne on Kmiec Being Denied Communion [UPDATED]


May 2008 
Deal Hudson on Prof. Kmiec and Blurring the Lines Between "Pro-Choice" and Pro-Abortion
 
Did Doug Kmiec Just Now Catch On That Obama and NARAL Are Politically Conjoined? [UPDATED]

Deal Hudson on "How Obama's Catholics Will Dodge the Infanticide Question"

Kmiec's Dishonesty [UPDATED]

Catholic Teaching and Political Risk Taking: When Credit Isn't Given Where Credit is Due [UPDATED]


April 2008
 Kmiec's Wishful Thinking on Obama and Abortion


March 2008 
The Curt Jester: "Shameless Garment" [UPDATED]

So-Called "Catholic Reaganite" Doug Kmiec Endorses Obama [UPDATED]

No'bama for Me, Thanks"

Can a Catholic Vote for Obama?


February 2008
 Obama's Pledge to Planned Parenthood: "I Will Not Yield"

"Why American Catholics are Supporting Barack Obama"

How the Catholic Left Will Tackle McCain

Why Does Kmiec Criticize McCain for Positions on Which He Gave Romney a Pass?
 
Deal Hudson on "Douglas Kmiec and the Lure of Obama"

Douglas W. Kmiec on "The Moral Duty to Inquire"

Professor Bainbridge: "Will Catholic Reaganites Go for Obama?"

Deal Hudson: "Preacher Man: Barack Obama and the the Gospel of Liberalism"

"Sorry, Doug Kmiec, But This Catholic Isn't Buying Obama"

Ramesh Ponnuru on Douglas Kmiec and "Catholic Reaganites for Obama" [UPDATED]

Romney Advisor Says Obama "a Natural for the Catholic Vote"

Habemus Papam!

White smoke already!

The "Holy See Gull" was a sign.


UPDATE:

Whoever is Elected Pope ...

... simply MUST have a seagull somewhere on his coat of arms.

Got Pope?

Nope.

Vincenzo Pinto / AFP / Getty Images

Be Afraid, Democrats. Be VERY Afraid.

No, not afraid of Mitt Romney (although hard-core leftist Michael Moore is now, in the wake of what appears to be a highly successful GOP convention, warning people to "start to practice the words ‘President Romney’"). If I were the Democrats, what I would find FAR more frightening than the prospect of a "President Romney" is what comes afterwards.

More than anything else, what the GOP Convention primarily displayed this past week was the depth of the Republican bench. There is a good possibility that AT LEAST 3 future Presidents may have spoken during the Republican Convention, and a good number of others who very well could find themselves at either the top or the bottom of one or more future presidential tickets. And the Democrats have very little to offer at the moment to match that.

WHO do the Democrats have to put up to rival a Paul Ryan, a Marco Rubio, a Susana Martinez, a Bobby Jindal, a Nikki Haley, and a Rob Portman? And what about the GOP's keynote speaker who very well could've been a contender this go-round if he had wanted - who on the Democrat side of the aisle can match the heft of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (pun only slightly intended)? And then there's Condi Rice (yeah, I know, she has some issues) and that delightful and beautiful mayor from Utah, Mia Love. Shall I mention the Republican's strong farm system that consists of some very outstanding, enterprising, and up-and-coming governors?

In contrast, when you look at the Democrat Party’s scheduled line-up, all you’ll see is a bunch of has-beens and never-wases, wallowing in their “victim” status. I ask you: Who is the “future” of the Democrat Party? The clear-cut answer is Hillary Clinton !!! Talk about “Back to the ‘Future’”. After that, who do they have? Debbie Wassermann Schultz? Sandra Fluke?

Seriously, if the Democrats are smart (yeah, I know), THAT will be their take-away from this Convention. Be afraid of “President Romney” as Moore aptly warns. But be EVEN MORE afraid of what comes after, ’cause you got nothin’ to match it, and, what’s worse, you’re not even aware of it. And your strategy of going back to the so-called “war on women” well yet again (it might’ve worked 20 years ago in 1992, but, again, we’re talking about the future) PROVES that you got nothin’ and that you’re not even trying to build a decent farm system with solid prospects for the future.

That smell you should be smelling would be the smell of Democrats dropping a collective pantload if they had any notion of what the lineup of speakers at the GOP Convention portend for their future.

You've Come a Long Way, Baby! [UPDATED]

How about you show some respect for yourself?

Ed Morrissey has a post today describing the potential for a backlash against the "war on women" meme the Democrat Party has planned for their upcoming national convention:

If they do, I argue in my column today for The Fiscal Times, they may well find themselves hoist with their own petard, after a week of watching accomplished Republican women speaking from the dais in Tampa.  Not only does the emphasis entirely miss the issues about which voters care most in this electoral cycle, the entire argument diminishes women to, well, to exactly what Code Pink reduced them in protests at the GOP convention...

I've made it abundantly clear that I will not be voting for the Republican ticket this year (choosing instead to support my friend, Virgil Goode, on the 100% pro-life-without-exception Constitution Party ticket). Nevertheless, I will acknowledge that, when it comes to "strong women", the GOP beats the Democrats hands down.

When I see the women at the GOP convention, I see a strong, independent, self-made African-American woman who became Secretary of State through her own efforts and merit, and not because her husband used to be President. I see a strong, independent, self-made former Vice Presidential nominee who fought her way to the top against corrupt, entrenched interests in Alaska - a man's state if ever there was one, and yet who manages to be the mother of 5 kids, making her relevant to the millions of working moms who try to balance work life with home life. I see the strong, independent first Hispanic woman governor - of either party - who, after her speech last night, will surely be on most people's short list for a spot on either the top or the bottom of a future GOP presidential ticket. I see a strong, independent woman of East Indian descent who managed to get elected Governor of arguably the most conservative state in the union, South Carolina. I see a strong, independent African-American mayor from Utah who will no doubt be a future star - in her own right - in the GOP.

Meanwhile, from the other side, all I see are women whining because "it's a scary time to be a woman" (as if it's not a scary time to be anyone), and asking for government to take care of them and give them free stuff, or worse, asking the government to force other people to provide them with birth control and other free stuff. On the other side, what we see are so-called "feminists", as in the photo at the top of this post, essentially making women out to be the sum total of what's between their legs. So much for fighting against the "objectification" of women. Which leaves one shaking one's head and responding to what's left of the so-called "feminist" movement as embodied in the modern-day Democrat Party: "You've come a long way, baby!"


UPDATE
It appears these silly people REALLY ARE intent on making this election a referendum on what they see as their own sex's weakness and dependency. (Well, they've spent 4 years not addressing the most pressing concerns of the American people, so I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that they'd spend the election season doing the same thing.) Not content to wait until their own convention, two of the least substantively important people imaginable have brought the so-called "war on women" meme to Tampa by crashing the GOP convention.

Sort of a breach of protocol, but given what these two individuals are famous for, I think class is probably asking for too much.


UPDATE (31 August 2012)

What an absolutely asinine comment from an absolutely ridiculous and utterly unaccomplished woman. Lady (and I use the term charitably), what you saw on the stage at the GOP Convention were the future leaders of your country - all of whom got where they are through their OWN merit, hard work, and perseverence. Deal with it.

Meanwhile, the Dems will be offering up as a key speaker a similarly unaccomplished 30-year-old perpetual student whose only claim to fame is that she wants the government to force the Catholic Church to pay for her contraception and that Rush Limbaugh called her a nasty name.


Yeah, I'd hold her up as a shining example of a "real" woman, too ... if I were as pathetically tethered to an outdated view of women as government-dependent "victims" as the Democrat Party is.

Romney's Sister: Romney Administration Would Not Work to End Abortion; “Not His Focus.”

From one of the women who knows Romney best, his sister:

Mitt Romney’s eldest sister, who has backed prominent Democrats for office and is in Tampa showing support for her brother, had some reassuring words Wednesday for women concerned about the Republican Party’s hard line on abortion.

Mitt Romney would never make abortions illegal as president, Jane Romney said when National Journal asked her about the subject after a “Women for Mitt” event. "He’s not going to be touching any of that,” she said. “It’s not his focus.”

[...]

But as Jane Romney put it, “Mitt’s much more in the middle” when it comes to abortion.

Mitt Romney has said he supports legal abortion in cases of rape and incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger. As for the fate of abortion rights, “Recognize this is the decision that will be made by the Supreme Court," he said in an interview with CBS News this week. "The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts. It's been settled for some time in the courts."

Jane Romney said she believes “life is sacred” and suggested those seeking abortion should be required to undergo counseling. But she also said that abortion should “absolutely” be safe and legal. “Every woman needs to be left to make her own choice,” she said.

A ban on abortion is “never going to happen” under a Romney administration, Jane Romney said. “Women would take to the streets. Women fought for our choice, we’re not going to go back."

[...]

With the way Romney has backed off in the last few days from the pro-life stance he pretended to hold in order to win the GOP primary, does anyone REALLY doubt that Romney's sister is entirely correct in her assessment of him? She's right about Romney. And what's more, we all KNOW that she's right about him.

And, yet, pro-lifers are falling all over themselves to get this guy elected, even going so far as to say that those of us who will not vote for Romney because of his weak position on life are not authentically "pro-life". [NOTE: It was this piece that caused me to drop LifeNews from my Facebook feed.]

I have been saying for years that Romney is a fraud on the pro-life issue, trying to be all things to all people. But when it comes time to fight for anti-Roe judges, or for defunding Planned Parenthood, or for any other controversial right-to-life initiative, does anyone really believe that Romney will go to the mat in the same way the Dems are willing to fight to the death for abortion? Of course not. It is my heartfelt belief that pro-lifers will come to rue the day they ever supported Mitt Romney's bid for the presidency.

And, yet, the pro-life movement continues to make preposterous claims on Romney's behalf. Just stop. It is one thing to say that Obama is just so much worse that supporting Romney is a necessary evil. But pro-lifers just need to stop claiming that there is otherwise a pro-life argument in Romney's favor. There's just not. And, if he's elected, pro-lifers will eventually ask themselves "What were we thinking in supporting this guy?"

Allegedly "Pro-Life" Romney Holds Fundraiser With Abortion Drug Manufacturer; CatholicVote Sells Soul in Response

DO NOT VOTE FOR THAT FRAUD MITT ROMNEY !!!

MIAMI, FLORIDA, May 17, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney scheduled a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser at the home of Phil Frost, the executive of the company that makes the Morning After Pill, on Wednesday night. Plan B One-Step is produced by Teva Pharmaceuticals, Frost’s company.

The pharmaceutical executive’s residence was one of several stops scheduled to increase Romney’s war chest during a two-day swing through Florida.

“It’s a huge disappointment,” Brian Camenker, director of the Massachusetts-based pro-family organization MassResistance told LifeSiteNews.com. “You wouldn’t see someone who was really pro-life doing a fundraiser with somebody who helped the abortion industry.”

Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote.org, didn’t seem troubled by the fundraiser saying, “What matters is whether a President Romney will end all taxpayer support for abortion-inducing drugs, repeal unconstitutional mandates that force private institutions to cover such drugs, and whether he will make progress in building a culture of life.” [ED.: But isn't this a fairly good indication that Romney is NOT what he proclaims himself to be on life issues? On what basis are we to conclude that Romney will follow through on the pro-life initiatives that CatholicVote proclaims are "what matters"? On what basis are we to believe that Romney is going to cut off federal funds from flowing to a guy who just hosted a $50,000 per plate fundraiser for him?!?!?]

[More]

... But for Wales, CatholicVote? Look, we know you're in the tank for the guy now that Santorum is out, but at least have the decency and consistency of principle to call the guy out in no uncertain terms when he does crap like this.

Folks, don't listen to the professional Catholics who inevitably expose themselves as Republican-first-pro-life-second political hacks. You DON'T have to settle for the fraud Mitt Romney. You DO have a pro-life choice in this election.

Vote the 100% pro-life (with no exceptions) Constitution Party and its 100% pro-life (with no exceptions) nominee for President, Virgil Goode.

Save America. Vote Virgil Goode for President.

The Differences Are Clear ...

... between Virgil Goode and the two major-party liberals he's running against:

Fight the Goode Fight!

Vote Virgil Goode for President.

Dear Pro Lifers ...

Virgil Goode... the ONLY 100% Pro-Life 2012 Presidential Candidate running on the ticket of the only 100% Pro-Life (anti-abortion with NO EXCEPTIONS) political party in the country..


(With all due respect to Ron Paul, who is also pro-life and still running in the GOP race, but is highly unlikely to win that party's nomination.)

Don't Vote for "Lesser" Evil... Vote for Goode

Reject the Obama-Romney Ticket - Vote Virgil Goode for President

Obamney/Robama in their own words:

 

There's barely a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Romney, and NEITHER will fight for the principles and priorities that are most important to you.

Don't get stuck choosing between the alleged lesser of two evils. You have a REAL choice, if only you'll escape from the two-party box in which the Republicans think they have trapped you into voting for whoever they nominate just because the other guy is allegedly worse.

 Vote for someone who shares your values, priorities, and political philosophy.

Vote for the only candidate with a 100% pro-life voting record running under the banner of the only 100%-without-exception-pro-life party.


Vote for Constitution Party nominee

Virgil Goode!!!

Fight the Goode Fight!!!

Official Endorsement Time: Virgil Goode for President

Well, it appears as if Willard Mitt Romney (aka Dullard Flip Rino) has all but wrapped up the GOP nomination for President. His coronation at the convention is inevitable. What is NOT inevitable is conservatives having to vote for someone who they don't like, who they don't trust, and who doesn't share their values, principles, or philosophy, simply because his is allegedly the lesser of two evils. There is always the option of voting 3rd party.

That is why tonight I am officially endorsing former Congressman and current Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode Jr. for President of the United States. I encourage all disaffected conservatives who now feel alienated from the GOP to join me in supporting a true conservative who takes the Constitution seriously. Vote Virgil Goode.





Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
More on Virgil Goode for President

An Open Letter to the Members of the Constitution Party from a Roman Catholic Pro-Life Independent

Established Politicians Going Third Party in 2012 Race

Virgil Goode for President [UPDATED]

Virgil Goode: Mr. Independent

Is Virgil Goode Running for President?