Jimmy Akin

. . . which I’m not interested in as it has to do with saving the Democratic party and consists of something other than (a) flip on abortion, (b) stop dissing Christians, and (c) embrace traditional moral values.

But he does want to sound a wake-up call to the Democratic Party:

Since the beginning
of the Civil War and the election of the first Republican president,
Abraham Lincoln — with the exception of the sainted Franklin Delano
Roosevelt — only two Democratic presidents have won a majority of the
nation’s popular vote, Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 and Jimmy Carter in
1976.

That’s right. Elected Democratic presidents Grover
Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Bill
Clinton all failed to win a majority of the popular vote. By contrast,
in the same span, Republican chief executives have 17 times been
elected with a majority of all votes cast. The GOP majority list:
Lincoln, Ulysses Grant (twice), William McKinley (twice), Teddy
Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge,
Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower (twice), Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan
(twice), George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.

Bluntly put, Democrats are historically not the natural
majority party in the United States — Republicans are. That means the
most totally efficient get-out-the-vote campaign of all Democratic
voters won’t, by itself, ever be enough for the party of Jefferson to
recapture the White House.

Other than waiting for another Great Depression like that
which first elected FDR, or your opponents’ nominating an ideologically
unelectable candidate like Barry Goldwater, or a constitutional crisis
like Watergate when an un-elected Republican president pays a huge
political price for pardoning his resigned predecessor, or the good
fortune of a self-financed, third-party maverick challenger like Ross
Perot, whose strong support comes disproportionately from Republicans,
Democrats have no choice but to conclude that — in spite of their
obvious charm, intelligence and high-mindedness — they need to make
some changes.

SOURCE.

I’d have some questions about whether Shields is right about whether the Republicans were really were the majority party during all of this time (particularly in the early period), but concerning the present it appears that he’s right, and the Democratic Party need to be educated on the need for "change."

That’s what they’re big on, right?

You may not have heard, but in a fit of political correctness (and kowtowing to Islamofascists), the U.K.’s Labor (Labour?) Party is set to inflict on its populace a bill that will have a chilling effect on free speech by banning speech (and print) that could (even unintentionally) stir up religious (or anti-religious) hatred based on whether the targets of such speech feel they are being hated.

What a load of useless bloody loonies!

A lot of folks in the U.K.–from all parts of the religious and non-religious spectrums–seem not to be happy about this, which suggests that some sanity still resides in the Isles, but because of the way their parliamentary system works, it appears that the measure is set to become law.

A BLACK DAY FOR BRITAIN!

Yet that day seems to be coming unless the remaining sanies over there muster the courage to raise such a storm of protest that Mr. Blair’s government is forced to face the light of day.

Here’s a seemingly not-at-all religious commentator who points out:

There is a huge danger at the centre of the
thinking which grounds this measure. What counts as hateful depends
very much on the sensitivities and tolerances of the complainant. As we
never tire of reminding ourselves, you can get away with verbal
aggression towards Christianity which would be considered unacceptable
if directed towards Islam. It follows that the less tolerant any
religious group is of criticism or mockery, the greater the protection
the proposed new law will offer them. But these may be the very faiths
or sects which ought to be confronted — confronted and attacked for the
very intolerance and self-righteousness which, if this measure becomes
law, will be adduced as evidence of their “sensitivity”. In the 1970s
this used to be defined as “self-defined” oppression: the notion that
it is for you to say what oppresses you. It is a nonsense.

READ THE REST OF WHAT HE SAYS.

N.B. This guy quotes multiple examples of hatred-stirring speech, including some directed at Catholics, and his own views seem quite anti-religious, but he is right on the core principle: One cannot attempt to micromanage religious discourse in this way. Today’s marketplace of ideas needs free discussion and argument when it comes to religion, and that means tolerating (in the sense of not prosecuting) people when they get rude. You can’t ban rudeness without shutting down serious religious discussion and debate.

Makes me glad that over here we have a First Amendment that at least reigns in the excesses of politically correct censorship. The measure Mr. Blair’s government is intending to inflict on the British populace is sheer unadulterated lunacy.

Brits: Y’all urgently need to stop this law or, if it is enacted, get it unenacted as swiftly as possible. The survival of your few remaining freedoms depends on the defeat of laws such as this. If measures of this nature continue to be enacted, you will be living in the kind of 1984 society that George Orwell warned about before you can say "Jack Robinson." The lyrics of Rule Britannia to the contrary, Britons at present are perilously close to becoming slaves.