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.

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Democrats

Cory Booker in the aggregate: Propagating the ’mass shooting every day’ deception

Published

on

By

Cory Booker In the aggregate Propagating the mass shooting every day deception

Witness the formation of a false talking point by continual repetition.

Presidential candidate Cory Booker et al. has repeated the same line of ‘a mass shooting every day, in the aggregate’ for the past few weeks in various town halls and interviews. Like most Leftist talking points, this absurd assertion has been carefully constructed to foment a pithy little saying unmoored from reality. The fact is, the Liberty grabber Left exploites every mass shooting to maximum effect, to the point that they have begun to regularly use ‘anniversaries’ of these tragedies to push for more controls over our freedom.  Even in this case, it has it’s own escape clause of ‘in the aggregate’ if anyone is ever called on this deception..

Just for reference, this is the Oxford English dictionary entry for the phrase ‘in (the) aggregate’

In total; as a whole.

Again, even here reality isn’t too kind to the Left. The fact is, there hasn’t been a ‘mass shootings in the aggregate every day.’ Or ‘mass shootings In total every day.’ As in this video at the 5:10 mark.

This is as yet another case where the Left doesn’t care about the truth of the matter, only the setting of a certain perception in the public consciousness. It doesn’t matter that each and every mass shooting is exploited from beginning to end. Or that even the hint of one taking place will see news bulletins instantly going out over the wire.

That plain fact doesn’t stop Leftists from trying to promulgate the false perception of gun violence being an overwhelming ‘epidemic’ that demands the immediate implementation of drastic measures.

Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.

Despite the admonitions from infamous Leftists Adolph Hitler and Vladimir Lenin, repeating a lie doesn’t make it the truth, but it is part and parcel for Leftists to traffic in lies. The fact is, mass shootings are rare, no matter what kind of creativity in defining these distinctive events to include just about anything imaginable.

The plain fact is that Leftists need ‘serious crisis’ in order to ratchet down our Liberty. When reality fails to meet their needs, they just make up their own ‘in the aggregate’. Never mind that there aren’t mass shootings every day, the national socialist Left would like that to be the perception so they can push their gun confiscation agenda. They push the ‘gun violence is a unique problem in the states’ even though other nations are far more violent, but as they drift further and further into insanity their grip on reality has become that much more tenuous.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Democrats

Bill de Blasio campaign launch sputters. Even his YouTube channel has under 100 subscribers.

Published

on

It’s been about 24 hours since New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio launched his presidential campaign, and it’s off to a strange start. First, the excitement level has been hovering somewhere south of none. Then, he was clowned in his own city by Late Show host Stephen Colbert.

Not to be outdone, Jimmy Kimmel joined in on the bashing.

The morning after his launch is treating the Democrat any kinder. He’s waking up to headlines like “De Blasio unites America — against his presidential bid” and “Doesn’t anyone like Bill de Blasio?

But arguably the most embarrassing indictment of how poorly his campaign is being received is on his own YouTube channel. As of the time of this article, a full day after he announced, he’s been able to accumulate 87 subscribers.

President Trump has been giving him plenty of attention, but perhaps it’s time to stop. Bill de Blasio is not going to be a contender for the Democratic nomination. Even 76% of people in his own city don’t want him to be President.

Bill de Blasio Campaign

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Democrats

Missed signals can lead to tragedy!

Published

on

Missed signals can lead to tragedy!

Major Nidal Malik Hasan was a U.S. Army psychiatrist who gave PowerPoint presentations opposing American war efforts in Middle East. On November 5, 2009 he went on a shooting rampage of his fellow soldiers killing 13 adults and one pre-born baby at Fort Hood, Texas.

Warning signs had been ignored.

Edward Snowden was a contractor for the U.S. National Security Agency at the tunnel in Hawaii. As an I.T. specialist, he tricked high-level superiors into revealing their passwords. He then stole national secrets and fled the country with them. If an NCIC warrant had been timely obtained, or if U.S. Customs and Border Protection had been alerted immediately, he would have been intercepted on a constitutional warrantless outbound border search at Honolulu International Airport.

Warning signs had been ignored.

Bradley Manning was a U.S. Army soldier convicted of violating the Espionage Act by revealing classified information to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. Manning’s “lawyers discussed a psychological assessment report that describes him as having ‘regressed stages of development’ and ‘narcissistic personality traits.'”

Warning signs had been ignored.

Major Tulsi Gabbard is a Commissioned Officer in Hawaii National Guard. She is simultaneously U.S. Representative for Hawaii’s 2nd Congressional District. She is now running for the Democrat nomination for President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief.

Concerns have previously been articulated concerning a possible violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Tulsi's YouTube screenshot

She has released two videos this week accusing President Trump and National Security Advisor John Bolton of provoking a war against Iran. She has also condemned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley.

“Trump ~ eager for war with Iran”

“The US must NOT go to war with Iran”

Over a month ago she released two videos regarding Julian Assange.

“Wikileaks/Assange. Be quiet or else.”

“Assange Arrest: Toe the Line or Go to Jail.”

Major Gabbard apparently does not understand why the United States government classifies sensitive information and controls who may or may not release it. If she is called to active duty in Hawaii National Guard and sent to fight Iran, can you depend upon her loyalty?

General Logan's contact info

Hawaii Adjutant General Arthur “Joe” Logan wears multiple hats. He was appointed by Hawaii Governor David Ige to serve as Hawaii Homeland Security Advisor with responsibility for Hawaii Emergency Management Agency. He is also in charge of Hawaii National Guard.

Major Tulsi Gabbard is under his Command. The onus is upon Maj Gen Logan to hold her accountable under UCMJ. It is also incumbent upon Governor Ige to ensure that this issue is addressed by her chain-of-command.

Warning signs were ignored with Major Hasan.

Warning signs were ignored with Edward Snowden.

Warning signs were ignored with Bradley Manning.

Warning signs with Major Gabbard must NOT be ignored.

Khamenei threat

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending