Democrats seem to have embraced hate

Advertisement

The Democratic Party has crossed the line from political party to a hate organization. The institutional and systematic hatred directed toward white men and Christians, in general, is obvious.

The U.S. Justice Department has become a what seems like a criminal organization with the leadership of Attorney General Eric Holder and Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, running a protection racket for the Black Panthers, campaign bundlers such as John Corzine, and Mexican drug gangs receiving free guns.

President Obama has surrounded himself with people who appear to have racist viewpoints, including Mel Watt, Van Jones, Malik Zulu Shabass, Derrick Bell and Jerimiah Wright. Their names have all appeared on the White House visitors sign in book.

I didn’t vote for Obama, but was hoping he would bring some healing to race relations. He has only created more division and hate with his small and bitter performance as president. His administration has become a de facto extension of the Nation of Islam.

But the worst cases of intolerance have been directed towards Christians and their religious freedoms. The Catholic Church has been attacked by Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. military has attacked soldiers for their Christian beliefs and I believe that any opposition to homosexual marriage will eventually be made a criminal act (if Obama has his way).

The homosexual lobbyists have an extreme hatred and intolerance of religion. A recent case where a homosexual extremist attacked a family values group in Washington, D.C., attempting to murder as many people as he could because their views were different then his.

He was motivated by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that encourages hate toward groups that it labels as hate groups. There isn’t enough room in this paper to list all the hate and intolerance of the Democratic Party, but would encourage people to read the Drudge Report and other uncensored Internet sites to find out what is really going on.

I know many liberals who aren’t haters, and would encourage them to re-evaluate their support for Democrats. I also urge people to continue to vote down bond measures and starve liberal hate groups of their money until they understand how wrong they are.

The Union-Bulletin is appreciated for allowing all points of view to be heard.

Greg Sterling

Walla Walla

Advertisement

Comments

loplover says...

Hatred and bigotry dressed up in religious clothing, including the Pope's funny hats, is still hatred and bigotry. As Jon Stewart so elegantly stated on one of his shows, not having everything continue to go the way you want it to is not the same thing as bigotry against christianity, even against the narrow-minded, judgmental brand of religion that the republican party has allied itself with, and that faux "news" keeps trying to claim there is a "war" against. The teachings of Christ included absolutely zero mention of homosexuality; to find bible quotes that support the hatred so apparent in the Westboro "Baptist Church" and the rantings of Pat Robertson and James Dobson, you have to go back to quite early in the Old Testament and pull it out of Deuteronomy. Where you will also find instructions for the size of rocks required to stone unruly teen-agers and "fallen women," calls for the death penalty for the eating of shellfish and the wearing of different fabrics at the same time.

Nothing was said by Christ regarding a woman's right to control her own fertility, either. Catholic proscriptions against birth control and termination of pregnancy came to be long, long after the days of Christ. As a matter of fact, Christ's teachings were that we should give away our wealth and follow him---something I don't see much of in the republican wing of the christian religion---that we should take care of the poorest among us, and that judgment of one another was the job of God himself, not earthly preachers and certainly not political pundits.

President Obama has tried mightily to create unity, but he has been stymied over and over by the republicans. And yes, they are old white men who see their position of power fading as the rest of the population---non-whites, non-christians, gays and lesbians, and most of all, free and independent women---step up to claim their equality and economic and political power. The more people who are equal, the less power each member of that group has. White males have had it great for centuries by keeping everyone else in thrall to them, especially women, who are more than half of the population. The republican party and their allies the right-wing media, are doing everything in their power to keep the rest of us down and powerless, mostly by controlling the engines of wealth, but it can only work for so long. We are claiming our position as equal leaders of this country, and will not be subservient any more. If those in power look at our determination and see hatred, they are simply mirroring their own feelings. We don't hate anyone, but we are no longer going to allow ourselves to be kicked to the curb and lick the boots of our "masters" any more.

Posted 8 May 2013, 2:33 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

loplover, the Republican Party hasn't 'allied' itself with any religious perspective. As an atheist, I feel mostly pretty comfortable there, although there are a few things I disagree with, and even when surrounded by 'fundamentalists' concerned principally with abortion or gay marriage, on which I disagree, I find them more tolerant of me than the average gathering of Democrats is of an unapologetic defender of capitalism or small government.

"White males have had it great for centuries"? Have you heard of indentured servitude, the Civil War (650,000 dead or wounded, just on the Union side), the coal mining industry, WWI (320,000 dead or wounded) World War II (over 1 million dead or wounded Americans, not to mention dead or wounded Germans, Poles, British, French, Italian, etc.), the construction trades? Mostly white men.

Do you realize that men are 4.5 times more likely to kill themselves than women, and white men at a higher rate than black men? In spite of the great attention paid to problems of domestic violence and other violence against women, men are also far more likely to be the victims of homicide and assault than women. For the hundred and fifty years or more, since the problem of childbirth infection was overcome, men's life spans have always been shorter than women's.

The truth is, hardly anybody has "had it great for centuries." We have it so great now it's easy to forget, but life has been really tough for almost everybody throughout recorded history.

Posted 9 May 2013, 3:04 p.m. Suggest removal

chicoli says...

Loplover, just the other day (in history 100 years is nothing), blacks could not vote, women were not allowed to vote. Right up until 1955 Puertoricans were segregated in the US military. Until recently women were not allowed to obtain membership at the Elks club! In many ways gays are still marginalized from the American mainstream society. But we have achieved many victories with incredible sacrifices, sweat and blood, and we ain't goin' back! Oh, no...And this time, more than ever the poetry of the soul will say it better: "Like the tree that's planted by the water, we will not be moved".

Posted 10 May 2013, 8:33 a.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

It's hard to know where to start in responding to such a letter as this.

When you are trying to get more people covered with health care and your efforts step on the toes of one branch of Christianity (the Catholics) on an issue (birth control) where most American Catholics disagree with the church leadership, THAT doesn't constitute hatred of Christianity. It just shows why politicians have ignored the health care crisis for decades: it's not easy.

When you recognize a group of citizens (gays), many of whom are in long-term partnerships and who suffer from the lack of being seen as equal under the law, taking action to make their lives better is NOT an attack on the Christian church. Yes, it can get complicated, but it is not done out of hatred. (I have a number of gay Christian friends, by the way.)

Over the course of four years in the White House, when you look at who has visited (which is a new transparency) and find 10 people you don't like on that list, that is not proof that Obama has "surrounded himself with...racists." (To the contrary, I think Obama has been amazingly race-neutral during his time in office.)

It is possible to disagree with policies without turning your opponent into Satan. For those of us who have followed the very moderate course of this president, and who have been frustrated by his repeated attempts to work with a Congress that has rebuffed him at almost every turn, this letter shows a real lack of understanding of those whom it is attempting to characterize as hateful. It just isn't true.

Posted 8 May 2013, 4:24 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter how many Catholics agree or disagree with church doctrine. It's not a democratic institution, but more of a consultative monarchy, isn't it? (Although to the extent it must operate as a business, I'm sure there are bean-counters keeping tabs on 'customer satisfaction'.)

Posted 9 May 2013, 2:32 p.m. Suggest removal

wallyworldguy says...

To the contrary, I think Obama has been amazingly race-neutral during his time in office.

you can't be that blind or stupid, can you???

Posted 10 May 2013, 8:21 a.m. Suggest removal

namvet60 says...

A very good letter Mr Sterling - you hit the nail right on the head. Obviously you will be having some people take your letter out of context and not only denigrate but demean your character only as progressive liberals know how to do. I must agree that this Administration has caused the biggest divide in racial relations and through the total lack of leadership has destroyed this countries foreign and domestic policies and economic values. This certainly isn't the GREAT USofA of old and cherished as it has been in the past. Very sad when a soldier can not be laid to rest with honors but a gay basketball player espouses his sexual orientation and gets a call from the President. Maybe thats what happens in a third world country?

Posted 9 May 2013, 10:23 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Well, I disagree with all of you.

I know many Democrats, including many who are Christians, and they are not motivated by hate, but by what might be called a distorted kind of love. Love, because they truly want to solve problems of poverty and need, but distorted because they often misperceive both the nature of and the solutions to problems of poverty.

Unfortunately, tolerance can be one of the first things to go when you are acting out of love, at least tolerance for those who resist the encroachments you plan to make in their lives in the service of bad solutions.

I think it is intolerant to insist that Catholic institutions must submit to programs that are contrary to their religious doctrine, like including birth control in their insurance packages or hiring people whose lifestyles are contrary to Church teachings. I happen to be basically an atheist, so I think those teachings are wrong, but I'm not entitled to demand that someone surrender their religious views just because I want to go work for them.

All the same, there are certainly many Democrats who let their zeal for collectivist 'solutions' morph into demagogy and even hatred. Some of the people Mr. Sterling mentioned stand out, such as Jeremiah Wright and Malik Shabazz.

And I disagree that Obama has made any REAL efforts at unity; his efforts have been purely rhetorical in aid of his demagogy of his political opponents.

Look, some collectivists have ended up killing off large numbers of their opponents, which makes it easy to assume that all collectivists are motivated by hate. Likewise, many individualists resist supposed solutions to poverty, which makes it easy to assume that they are motivated solely by selfishness and don't care whether the less fortunate even survive.

The truth is both groups believe their perspective offers the best hope for the greatest number of people. Both groups WANT society to be better, more people to be successful, more people to be happier. One of them is wrong about how to do that, and I happen to think it's collectivists. fatherof5 and loplover think it's individualists.

Doesn't make any of us haters. loplover is a little more intemperate in language, but I suspect that's a function of her (?) relative youth. (I'm guessing. I used to express myself the same way when younger.)

Posted 9 May 2013, 2:25 p.m. Suggest removal

namvet60 says...

Geez - did somebody P in your Wheaties this morning :)

Posted 9 May 2013, 6:51 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

You could say that. I'm just tired of people constantly accusing each other of bad motives. Obviously, when there's a huge disagreement, someone's likely to be wrong in their ideas, but calling them names doesn't make it easier to reason with them. Not everyone will be convinced by reason, but it's the only real alternative to bringing out the guns or the machetes or whatever.

Posted 10 May 2013, 6:10 a.m. Suggest removal

namvet60 says...

Very true.

Posted 10 May 2013, 6:18 a.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment