How Today’s Democrat Party has become a Cult
The U.S. Senate met last night on the Senate floor for a Saturday evening vote, somewhat similarly to the gathering on the House floor two weeks when the House version of Obamacare narrowly passed. Unlike the House vote, the vote yesterday in the Senate was a procedural measure, one to simply open debate on the Obamacare (or Harrycare, if you will) version in that chamber. A minimum of 60 votes were required to proceed with the bill. Exactly 60 votes were obtained with all 58 Democrats and two far left “independents” (Lieberman & Sanders) that virtually always work with the Democrats comprised the 60 yesses.
Given the fact that virtually no polls show that the majority of American people are clamoring for government run health care and given that the both chambers voted on their versions in the evening and on a Saturday to boot is clear cut evidence that the public by and large does not want this. We want jobs first so we can provide for ourselves and our families. National health care does not enable us to bring home the bacon. However, Democrats do not care and your 60 vote majority yesterday is clear confirmation of that. They want to shove this down our throats. Well, they sure are trying but I daresay few Americans are going to swallow it hook, line and sinker without the stiffest resistance possible.
There are plenty of sites to go to read about what lies ahead on government run health care and commentary on this whole issue in general. You can go to those if you want and I’m sure they will help educate you in some way.
However, I think it is important to establish that with this vote yesterday, I am of the firm persuasion that the Democrat Party is not so much a political party any more (though it most certainly is) as it is a cult. It is a one-sided party, notwithstanding that there are a small handful who are not toeing the whole line. Follow where I’m going.
There are numerous definitions listed at Dictionary.com for the meaning of the word “cult” but #6 is fitting, defined as “a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader“.
Perhaps a second definition that complements the one above is this one (see under “What is a Cult”):
“The modern definition of a mind control cult is any group which employs mind control and deceptive recruiting techniques. In other words cults trick people into joining and coerce them into staying. This is the definition that most people would agree with. Except the cults themselves of course!”
Gee, does this fit the Democrats to a T or what? The only difference I see between the modern day Democratic Party and a cult is that the Democratic Party has become very hostile to religion. But besides that, these definitions have the bases covered.
Let’s examine this portion of the first definition “a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist“. As for false, I’m hard pressed to think of any statements made by high ranking Democrat officials that are true. They think global warming is man made. They believe they need to regulate the air we breathe. They claim Medicare will be saved by trimming half a billion bucks in costs in this health care debacle. They believe abortions are good for mankind and that it’s OK for two men to marry each other. They believe it’s humane to let illegals cross our borders and become citizens without going thru the proper channels. They believe God and prayer don’t belong in the public schools and that evolution is how we humans come into existence. It goes on and on.
As for “unorthodox“, well, that one opens up a huge can of worms but let’s give just one example. Earlier this year, the U.S. House (and later the Senate) passed a hate crimes measure that essentially restricts free speech on moral issues. As bad as that was and is (and yes, it’s unconstitutional), the fact that this law essentially gives a thumbs up to crimes like pedophilia cannot be interpreted as normal other than the criminally insane.
So yes, Democrats are included among the criminally insane. And yes, we’ll add a few Republicans (18) to the mentally ill. They need help. But 90% or so of the Republican Party is supposedly sane (according to the House vote on this measure) where as almost 95% of the House Democratic Party is nuts.
OK, so we have 17 Democrats who don’t think preachers should be punished for speaking out on homosexual issues or Islam. Now subtract three of those 17, Indiana Congressmen Joe Donnelly & Brad Ellsworth and Ohio Rep. Chris Carney, for voting for the abominable Obamacare in the House (here’s the vote on that) and we’re down to 14 certifiably sane House Democrats thus far.
Now that we’re at 14, let’s look at the House vote on cap and trade which would impose an unsustainable tax on the American people, of which one Congress said on You Tube that it would be the highest tax, not in the nation’s history but the world’s history.
Out of those 14 remaining Democrats, you have three, Heath Shuler of North Carolina, Bart Gordon of Tennessee and Collin Peterson, who voted with the majority. That knocks us down to 11 certifiably sane Congressmen who voted against all 3 bills. They are as follows:
- David Boren of Oklahoma
- Bobby Bright of Alabama
- Travis Childers of Mississippi
- Artur Davis of Alabama
- Lincoln Davis of Tennessee
- Parker Griffith of Alabama
- Mike McIntyre of N. Carolina
- Charlie Melancon of Louisiana
- Mike Ross of Arkansas
- John Tanner of Tennessee
- Gene Taylor of Mississippi
Out of the 11, Rep. Davis of Alabama is normally not viewed as conservative. He voted for the hate crimes bill in the previous Congress and even testified in favor of it. His opposition to all 3 of these atrocious measures this Congressional term is likely due to his planned run for governor of Alabama next year.
That leaves 10 Democrats for which I must ask the question – why are you still in America’s cultic political party? They’re all pro-life, anti-hate crimes, anti-Obamacare, anti-tax and I believe they are all pro 2nd Amendment.
If any of these guys are your Congressmen, ask them why they think the DC party (Democrat Cultic) is still worth a membership. They should be urged to leave the same way an avalanche of Texas Democrats just did – not that the Republican Party is the party of the Constitution – far from it, but it at least has some semblance of it. There is zip, zilch, zero, nada in the DC party.
So here we have 248 Democrats out of 258 who supported one or more of the three defining votes. Now contrast that to the 18 Republicans out of 177 who voted for the hate crimes measure. 6 of the 8 votes for cap and trade came from the 18 who voted for the hate crimes bill. One of those 8 is now the secretary of the army and the other is Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey.
Another of those 18 but just one altogether, Ahn Cao, voted for Obamacare. Add Rep. Smith and you have 19.
So we have 19 Republicans who supported one of the above 3 ungodly measures and who should be tossed from the party. An exception might be made for Rep. Smith’s, however. Although his vote for cap and trade is totally inexcusable, given that he is arguably one of the House champions for the unborn, it might be a mistake to boot him from the party. He should be read the riot act, no doubt. But expulsion for him might not be beneficial.
But back to the above. Let’s summarize. With only 10 out of 258 Democrats voting with common sense, only 4% of the DC party is certifiably sane. With 159 out of 177 Republicans voting against all 3 of these measures, 90% of the party is certifiably sane.
90% – 4% and someone is going to tell me there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties? Uh, I don’t think so. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure this one out.
Or let’s put it this way – 96% of the Democrats in the House are at least partially insane while only 10% of the Republicans are.
You can’t argue with those numbers. Who in their right mind wants to be a Democrat today? I guess the phrase “right mind” has to be emphasized.
Yes, I am well aware that some of the Republicans who voted against the original hate crimes bill voted for the subsequent merged version, which combined the bill with a defense spending measure. Although I firmly believe these few Republicans should have voted NO, I won’t hold it against them for doing so, given the bind they were in.
As for extremist, well, this one needs little explanation. Any Democrat voting for Obamacare and especially those who wrote the 2000+ page bills certainly qualifies. The Democrats like to say that pro-lifers, pro-marriage folks, evolution opponents and those who support border security and local control of our public school system are extremists.
If so, I’d like to know what normal is. I don’t think the general public would concur with the Democrats’ definition. How many books out there, aside from encyclopedias, are 2000+ pages long?
Watch this video and ask yourself who would write such a bill, let alone the garbage in it. Anyone of a sound mind would easily reject this measure.
But the DC Party is not of a sound mind.
On to the second definition, let’s refresh our minds. Here it is again.
“The modern definition of a mind control cult is any group which employs mind control and deceptive recruiting techniques. In other words cults trick people into joining and coerce them into staying.“
The key phrase here is “mind control”. The “charismatic leader“, as defined in the first definition, is Barack Obama, America’s putative president. The Democratic Party has refused on all counts to address Obama’s citizenship status, proving that all who embrace this political party and stay in it after knowing the truth about it have bought into the cultic nature of the party.
The “change” message that Democrats have bought into over and over not only captured unthinking minds of the general electorate but the politicians themselves. They didn’t look into Obama’s background, his connections, his experience and of course, his questionable at best natural born citizenship. They were mesmerized by his smooth talking with little substance behind it. He could do no wrong.
Of course, being black had something to do with it as well. The Obama worshippers wanted a black man in office. And they did whatever they could to get him in. John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000 couldn’t hold a candle to him. As bad as they were, they would have been better than Obama.
Then you have the numerous You Tube videos of school children and teachers singing their praise to Obama (before and after the election) in classrooms in various parts of the country. I won’t link to them here because they are disgusting, let alone blasphemous, to the Lord I love and worship.
You also have the picture posted in a January World Net Daily article (which I also won’t link here because of its blatant blasphemy) which featured a New York City artist depicting Obama as crucified on a cross.
And you have Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize for absolutely nothing.
Perhaps in the eyes of Democratic politicians this was not the sign of a cultlike leader. But then again, most of them wouldn’t recognize one, especially the ones in Washington. They were already captured by him.
If that all isn’t convincing that Barack Obama is a cultlike figure, then I need an answer to this question: why would anyone in their right mind vote for someone who promised utility rates would “necessarily skyrocket” under his cap and trade plan?
Democratic politicians may dance around their comments and voting record about how they won’t tax the middle class or for that matter, tax anyone at all. But when someone outright says that their utility rates will go up under his (or her) energy plan, frankly, I’m at a loss to understand how anyone would want to vote for that person, no matter how much they thought about him or her on everything else. As bad as John McCain was, and he was a terrible choice for the Republican Party, he should have won the election by a landslide on this alone, despite his own warm and fuzzy feelings about global warming. He promised to take action on it and “reach across the aisle” but nowhere did he ever say Americans would pay more for their electricity use as a result of his plan.
Only a cultlike figure could get an electorate based on such a promise. Barack Obama “employs mind control and deceptive recruiting techniques“, which is how he got the votes to get him elected, along with a “little help” from some foreign entities. He gets people to be part of his team the same way Mary Baker Eddy did for the Christian Science cult, Joseph Smith & Brigham Young for Mormonism, Charles Taze Russell for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Rev. Sun Yung Moon, Herbert W. Armstrong, Jim Jones, David Koresh and others.
As for deceptive recruiting, well, I can’t say Obama is the founder of that but he certainly has made great strides in getting where he is. He certainly can thank his party for mind control terms like “climate change” instead of “global warming”, “a woman’s right to choose” instead of “abortion, “gays” instead of “homosexuals”, “undocumented immigrants” instead of “illegal aliens”, “gender reassignment” instead of “sex change operations”. In the House health care debate, the “public option” became the “consumer option“. The Democratic Party has done it all. They’ve led the way. No one can say the Republican Party had a hand in these switcheroo techniques. They may use terms like “gays” themselves, and they do, but they didn’t lead the way to the change. The Democrats did. And they brought people on board who would not have ever been persuaded to, had they not played bait and switch with our vocabulary.
So if you have a politician with no experience and shady character associates plus untenable positions like for partial birth abortion and infanticide that anywhere from 70-80% of the people reject, how can you recruit people into your camp? You lie and alter your language and you use vagaries like “change” to get your message across. That’s how Obmaa did it.
And that’s how Democrats are doing it.
Although Obama’s “Organizing for America” has had a role in bringing young people to his side, you can’t say the same about Democratic politicians, unless you automatically subscribe to what they say and believe and how they vote. If you have common sense and can rationally think things thru, you can’t vote for a Democrat. You may have difficulty voting for a Republican – and that’s perfectly understandable in some ways, given their recent years of backslidden behavior and ignoring the Constitution. You can vote third party. But sane people these days do not conscientiously vote Demcorat, assuming they understand a candidate’s political positions and votes.
It may be too late now but fortunately, scores of Obama’s supporters are finally deserting him and this story is devastating in terms of sheer numbers. You also don’t have to look very far, both in articles and on various website forums, to read how people who voted for him are sharing their “buyer’s remorse”. It’s growing by leaps and bounds as people differentiate what Obama said on the campaign trail and what he is doing today.
But even if he’s losing the people, he’s got Congress under his cultlike control.
Although he doesn’t have Republicans on most issues, Obmaa does on his lack of constitutional eligibility. However, he has got the Democratic Party in lockstep on his agenda (perhaps minus the roughly dozen or so Democrats noted earlier) and is no doubt using Rahm Emmanuel and David Axlerod to do the brainwashing, along with “help” from House & Senate Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi and “Dirty” Harry Reid, respectively.
And nowhere is that more evident than in the government run health care iron fist debate. Obama, Emmanuel, Axlerod, Pelosi, Reid and company used every little trick in the book to get the voting majority in the House. They made promises (read “bribes”) to get recalcitrant Democrats on board, “promises” including reelection dollars and district projects.
And with the 60 votes yesterday in the Senate with no Democrats saying NO to opening debate, there is no doubt that there is a spell over this party and the only way it will be broken is with an unearthing of Democrats in Congress and perhaps a 30 million person march on Washington.
When pro-life Democrats like Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson (he’s really the only one in the Senate) join everyone else to begin debate on Obamacare, and knowing that the Senate bill allows for abortions, yes, there was arguably some arm twisting to get Nelson aboard. But I have to also believe that it was his cultlike allegiance to the Democratic Party, and maybe to a lesser extent his party’s ineligible leader, that he signed on with the rest of them.
Same with Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, who was allegedly offered money (again, read “bribed”) and Sen. Blanche Lincoln, who is up for reelection next year and who is being reported in a poll as being trounced if she winds up for voting for this bill (probably the final version).
So regardless of whether there were incentives (bribes), strong arm tactics or blind allegiance to persuade these Democrats, plus perhaps Sen. Lieberman to join a unanimous 60 non-Republican vote to open debate, it takes mind control to force these individuals and any others to adopt their agenda. And Obama has the mind control to do it, even if his resume is empty (which it is). And that’s why they signed on, for the good of party and Obama.
So Sen. Nelson can claim he’ll vote against Obamacare in the final bill but it doesn’t matter. He sold out his pro-life principles for Obama instead of doing what is right by his constituents. And since he’s been known to be the most conservative Senate Democrat (no one else is really close, especially on social issues), if he can be bought (under Obama mind control), so can the rest of them. They all voted for almost all of Obama’s nominees for cabinet and other appointees requiring Senate confirmation. You can count on maybe two hands the number of Democrats voting against their leader’s appointees.
The coercion is there. The public is pulling away from Obama. But not the politicians in Congress. They are beholden to the cultist Obama as though he can do little or no wrong. They won’t challenge his eligibility to be president and the tiny handful of Republicans who would don’t have a prayer. Obama is their cult leader. And sadly, I see little to get them away from the brainwashing.
Meanwhile, the above 10 Democrats who largely oppose Obama’s agenda should switch parties and send a message. There were many who did after the “94 election after Democrats got trounced. There are none at the national level now, meaning they are either afraid or brainwashed.
Personally, it’s hard for me to see Obamacare/Harrycare go down in the Senate. If it is defeated, it will be when it goes to conference committee where I expect the pro-life Democrats in the House who voted for the bill, along with the other 39 Democrats (many who are pro-life but not all) who voted against the original version, to stick to their principles about abortion and keep the Stupak Amendment in the final bill. I could be wrong but I think they will stand by their life stance. However, I do believe a political blood bath will ensue from the pro-deathers who will insist on scrapping the Stupak Amendment and force public funding of abortion. But if that occurs, I think the pro-life Democrats will revolt and say NO to Pelosi and the pro-aborts. Yet in the end, even if the bill passes with the amendment intact, it would be tough for the usurper “president” to sign it, considering his 110% oppostion to anything pro-life.
Nevertheless, if Obamacare becomes law, I can assuredly say that there will be hell to pay and it may not just be at the ballot box.
And it may occur even if Obamacare/Harrycare does not become law. The American people are fed up with the Democratic Party.
As to what that hell would be, well, let’s just say the Boston Tea Party may well pale in comparison, not to mention the more recent tea parties.
It may be the only way to end the Obama cult and occult, not to mention the real voodoo economics of Obama and the Democrats.