Connect with us

Democrats

HELP WANTED! Dems want pro-lifers to run for Congress

Published

on

Do pro-life Democrats exist? New Mexico Democratic congressman and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Ben Ray Luján announced on Monday that in an effort to win back the House of Representative the DCCC is willing to fund a pro-life candidate in the upcoming 2018 election.

This move by the DCCC is in stark contrast to DNC chairman Tom Perez’s statement that being pro-life is non-negotiable. Perez wants the DNC to be the party of unrestricted and unlimited abortion rights.

Now the real question is, does the DCCC want pro-life Democrats and do they exist? The answer is no and no. Pro-life Democrats don’t exist and here is the reason why. What the DCCC is advocating is the willingness to support pro-choice Democrats with more restrictions on abortion. First, we need to understand what pro-life means.

Being pro-life is believing unequivocally that no abortion can occur once life begins (I will go into when life begins later in this article). Pro-choice advocates like Perez don’t believe it is a life until the baby is born. Pro-choice light candidates believe it is life under certain circumstances.

So the reality is most Democrats, and even most Republicans are pro-choice. The fight isn’t over pro-life verse pro-choice, it’s a fight over the restrictions we are willing to accept. How do I know this? The historical data from Gallup shows that consistently people believe abortion should be legal under any circumstance stands at 29% of the time. Legal under most 13%. Legal only in a few 36% and finally 18% illegal in all cases. Gallup also states that when rape or incest caused the pregnancy, abortion should be legal, stands at 75% to 22% of the time. In the same poll, 46% considered themselves pro-life.

You see the problem. How can 46% of respondents think they are pro-life but only 22% believe it is wrong to abort a baby if caused by rape or incest.

It seems illogical and inconsistent. If you are pro-life, you believe that abortion is taking of an innocent life even under rape and incest. Now in the rape case, would you argue that it wasn’t consensual sex, therefore, that it’s okay because somehow the baby in the womb ceases to be a life. What if the incestual relationship was consensual would that be murder? Would it be logical to say that since most people don’t believe a woman should have to carry a baby to term in the case of rape or incest that most people are pro-choice with differing exceptions, and it isn’t about when life begins?

If it is about when is it right to take the life of the innocent for a genuinely pro-life person I believe that can only be when the mother’s life is beyond a doubt at risk, and no other choice exists.  At the same time, instead of aborting the baby we deliver the baby and use all our medical resources to save the life of the child.

As in war, we do everything we can to limit civilian casualties, but when we decide to take an innocent life, we do it to save others. The decision on how you weigh human life is a difficult question. Do I bomb a hospital or school which is used to store rockets which are used to launch missiles into civilian territories or do we not? These are always difficult question and decisions.

Just like in the case of rape and incest. I’m not this cold-hearted person that can’t imagine the horrors the woman went through. These acts are inhuman and some of the worse crimes a human can do to another person. I believe wholeheartedly that the woman is a victim and is not to blame. So why do I think abortion is still wrong in these cases when life has been determined?

The reason is as a pro-lifer, I believe unequivocally that the baby is a human being. The baby is the result of a terrible, unjustifiable act which the child and the mother had no part in it. We have already one victim the mother, by aborting the baby do we put the blame of the rapist on the baby and kill the child and thus create another victim.

You see that is why I’m pro-life and not pro-choice. I believe that babies in the womb are human beings and worthy of the same respect, dignity, and protection under the law which all of us enjoy.  So when the DCCC is talking about pro-life Democrats it’s not about pro-life Democrats it’s about supporting pro-choice Democrats with fewer exceptions.

If we are to say we are pro-life, we must understand what that means and at the same time when the DCCC talks about supporting supposed pro-life candidates we need to know what that means as well.

Now can there be differences between pro-lifers? The answer is yes and I believe there are two positions that are logical positions on when life begins and still be considered pro-life.

The first position is life begins at conception. So when asked when does life begin, in the beginning, is a logical conclusion. Life begins at the beginning and thus no termination of a pregnancy is permitted.

The second position is when a heartbeat exists. How do we determine if someone is dead? We determine that by an absence of a heartbeat. How do we determine if someone is alive? They have a heartbeat.

Therefore, it is an intellectually logical position to say that life begins when the heart begins to beat. This position would allow rape, incest, or any other type of termination of pregnancy before a heartbeat exists; any abortion after a heartbeat would be considered pro-choice because you are terminating a life.

The purpose of this article is to explain what pro-life really means. I hope this article has helped foster a discussion on the issue and helped you contemplate the issue and helped you think about the issue in a logical manner instead of simply an emotional reaction.

Let me know what you think.

Mr. Roditis a candidate for California State Controller. He is an entrepreneur and owns several companies. He graduated from UCSD with a B.A. in Political Science/International Relations. He's a former City Commissioner with the City of Anaheim, CA. He's a Conservative Constitutional Federalist. Follow him on Twitter @KonRoditis

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Video: So, You Think You’re Tolerant?

Published

on

By

Leftists like to fancy themselves as being tolerant and Liberal, but they fall way short in both qualities.

Leftists will tell you that they are the most tolerant people who have ever lived, they will also scream at you for being a racist, xenophobic troglodyte if you happen to mention that you’re a conservative. They are supposedly ‘Liberal’, being in favour of Liberty while demanding it’s polar opposite – socialism.

Yes, if there is one constant in the universe, its that Leftists cannot be honest about who they truly are. This is what we love about our wonderful opponents on the nation’s socialist Left, for they are nothing like another group that went by the same nomenclature who also screamed at people in the streets with the motto: Common Good Before Individual Good. [Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz]

But let’s not talk about the epithets they project on their enemies, let’s talk about how they get along with everyone who just happens to agree with everything they say. A new PragerU video featuring Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report looked at who is really tolerant. He is a true Liberal that discovered that it is actually the Pro-Liberty Right that is more tolerant, go figure.

Dave Rubin
Jul 9, 2018
Are you tolerant? You probably think so. But who is tolerant in America today? Is it those on the left, or those on the right? In this video, Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report analyzes this question and shares his experience.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Trump celebrates the victory of a Democratic Socialist to feed his ego

Published

on

Following Tuesday’s primary races, Donald Trump tweeted his glee after ten-term NY Rep. Joe Crowley—a Democrat many thought would replace Nancy Pelosi as the party’s leader in the House—lost his primary race to a Bernie Sanders supporter, Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Besides proving himself to be a textbook narcissistic sociopath, Trump’s happiness concerning Crowley’s misfortune misses the point that the Democratic Socialist movement within the Democrat party is on the rise.

Back in January, Louis Farrakhan’s favorite Democrat and the Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee Keith Ellison (MN) praised the work of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and its positive impact on the Democrat party—even adopting parts of the DSA agenda into the Democrat party platform.

In the May 16 primaries, we witnessed four openly Socialist candidates supported by the DSA win their campaigns in Pennsylvania state House races. Since three of the four winners are running unopposed in November, the DSA is guaranteed to be victorious.

With New York’s 14th Congressional District leaning Democrat +29, Ocasio-Cortez is also assured of winning her race in November, meaning that Socialism will have another voice in Washington.

There are those who will argue that the DSA will fail to advance its agenda because it’s too extreme, but recent evidence would appear to contradict that claim. For example, Bernie Sanders nearly beat Hillary in 2016—losing to her due to rules that rigged the primary in her favor—while running on a platform chock-full of socialist ideas.

By the way, some of Bernie’s socialist ideas were adopted by Trump.

With Bernie’s run for President and victories like Ocasio-Cortez’s under its belt, the DSA is experiencing dramatic growth. Since the 2016 election, nationwide membership has increased from 5,000 to 40,000, with 1152 of those members joining the day after the NY primary.

Younger voters are embracing socialism in ever-increasing numbers. According to a November 2017 report by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, nearly half of millennials (44 percent) polled at the time preferred socialism to capitalism.
It’ somewhat fashionable, even more so in the age of Trump, to laugh at Democrats when they show their socialist colors, but with conservatives also embracing parts of socialism, Democratic Socialists could have the last laugh as we quickly approach the day of becoming the United Socialist States of America.

Ronald Reagan once warned, “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.”

It looks like that generation is here.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Democrats

High-Speed Rail: Incompetent & corrupt bureaucrats

Published

on

The California train-to-nowhere has proven once again that incompetent bureaucrats run California. In a recent article by the Fresno Bee, these incompetent bureaucrats have to tear down a bridge that they are building due to safety issues. And the Fresno Bee rightfully states:

how do we know if anything it has built is safe?. If the rail authority can’t build in the flat lands of the valley, how can they be expected to build safely in the seismic areas of Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area?

This could have been prevented, and one person that could have stopped this boondoggle is the incumbent Controller and my opponent Betty Yee. Unfortunately, Betty Yee is not interested in protecting taxpayers but protecting her political backers that have filled her campaign war chest with over a million dollars in contributions.

The Controller must protect the taxpayer, and that is why the Controller has independent audit authority and can cut funding when a project or program doesn’t comply with the law; which the HSR project doesn’t comply with Prop. 1A funding parameters requiring 1/3 from the federal government, 1/3 for private investment, and 1/3 from the state.

As Controller, I will investigate and audit this project to expose the waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption and will stop payments until the project complies with the law.

Almost four years in office she has done nothing to protect taxpayers. She has failed to do her job, so much so, that the federal government has begun an audit investigation into this project.

We can’t afford four more years of Betty Yee. It is time to replace her and elect Konstantinos Roditis as California’s next State Controller.


Konstantinos Roditis is a candidate for California State Controller. You can learn more about his campaign at cacontroller.com, and you can follow him on Twitter & Facebook.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.