As Japan’s defeat during World War II became obvious, many of its soldiers performed harakiri — a ritual suicide by disembowelment using a sword — as an honorable alternative to surrendering. Perhaps one of the most notable moments of a U.S. presidential candidate performing political harakiri occurred in March 2004.
Explaining his vote in support of $87 billion for our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) responded, “I actually voted in favor of the $87 billion before I voted against it.” His words famously became reduced to “I was for it before I was against it.” Critics had a field day with this, accusing Kerry of wanting to have it both ways in trying to be everything to everybody. The flip-flop effectively derailed his campaign.
Over the past three decades, the Democrats have quietly shifted their position on two major issues that suggest they were for them before being against them. These issue changes are most telling about where the soul of the Democratic Party leadership lies.
First is the issue of illegal immigration.
In 1995, President Bill Clinton touched on the matter during his State of the Union address, providing his party’s position — one Democrats enthusiastically supported — saying:
“All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.
The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.
That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.
In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workforce as recommended by the Commission headed by former congresswoman Barbara Jordan.
We are a nation of immigrants but we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years and we must do more to stop.”
Clinton left little doubt where he stood on the issue. Everything he said about it 30 years ago is still accurate today. Yet, during the past four years, Democrat Party witnessed the crossover of nearly eleven million illegals. And today, these leaders oppose efforts by President Donald Trump to deport them.
Second is the issue concerning a national audit to identify government waste.
Interestingly, in 1997, the “Creating a Government That Works Better & Costs Less” report was released by Clinton, detailing ways in which Washington could curtail waste. Clinton announced his intentions to act upon its recommendations. And, in 2011, President Barack Obama signed an executive order initiating a campaign to root out wasteful spending, doing so as Congress was proving slow to act.
Both Clinton and Obama promised to do what the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) began doing the day after President Donald Trump began his second term in office. There was no opposition by fellow Democrats as to what Clinton and Obama announced they would do; hypocritically, there has been plenty of Democrat opposition to what DOGE is doing.
On February 12th, a hearing called “The War on Waste: Stamping Out the Scourge of Improper Payments and Fraud” was held by the House Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency “to investigate the hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars wasted annually on improper payments and fraud.” During his remarks, Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) showed a video of both Clinton and Obama announcing their cost-cutting measures above. Burlison did this in an effort to drive home the point to Democrats of “what your party believed in.”
The change in policy positions by Democratic Party leaders on the two issues above defies logic. Positions they fully supported during the tenure of Democrat Party presidencies they do not support during the tenure of a Republican Party president. Like Kerry’s naive statement in 2004 suggesting he voted for a political position before he voted contrarily, the Democrat Party leadership is taking a similar position on two major issues.
But it raises the question as to where the soul of the Democrat Party lies? Do Democrats believe their loyalty is owed to their party’s serving president, regardless of his political stance on issues, or that it is owed to the country? The evidence strongly suggests the former.
Another recent example supporting this occurred on a state rather than a national level.
Trump nominated Rep. Elise Stefani (R-NY) to be the U.S. Representative to the United Nations. If confirmed by the Senate, she would vacate her congressional seat, mandating a special election be held to replace her.
Last year, Stefanik’s district voted her in for a sixth term, the result of winning a wave of independent voters. Knowing Republicans hold a very slight majority in the House and that the district may well go Republican again, New York’s Democrat Party leaders introduced a bill to delay the special election. There was no logical reason to do so. Fortunately, state Republican leaders were able to block the bill. But this action by Democrats further evidenced their party’s focus on maintaining power, willing to leave over 700,000 voters in the district without representation.
The soul of the Democrat Party’s leadership lies solely in its lust for power — not in preserving power for the people.
Image: Pixabay
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.