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.

Democrats

As USC sex abuse scandal grows to 500 complaints, #MeToo fixates on the GOP

Published

on

As USC sex abuse scandal grows to 500 complaints MeToo fixates on the GOP

The #MeToo movement was supposed to be about protecting and empowering women. Its origins were righteous and it delivered results. No, those origins weren’t with Alyssa Milano, though she’s become the face of the modern version of the movement. The original #MeToo movement started a decade ago. It wasn’t a hashtag. It advocated for victims.

Today’s #MeToo movement is one part women’s advocacy, nine parts political commentary against conservatives. The far left has appropriated the movement to no longer be about sexual misconduct by individuals. Instead, it’s about stopping Republicans in the upcoming election. But don’t take my word for it.

Milano, who helped bring Hollywood into the mix and did some great things a year ago to get the #MeToo movement ramped up for women, has tried to separate her #MeToo leadership role from her push for Democrats in the upcoming midterm election. These efforts have proven to be impossible. With the elections so close, she has leaned towards the latter. She hasn’t abandoned #MeToo by any means, but it’s clear her passion is for the political side of her agenda.

As such, the intermingling was inevitable even if it wasn’t intentional.

Here’s the problem. #MeToo needs her a heck of a lot more than the Democrats do. Political candidates have the resources and voice to get their message out. Milano’s reach is a drop in the bucket on the political front. For the #MeToo movement, her voice can actually make a difference, raise awareness, and inspire women to act.

Her desire to influence a few political races has drawn her away from a true calling that actually needs her voice.

You won’t see her talking about the massive USC sexual abuse incidents that have affected literally hundreds, perhaps thousands of impressionable women for decades.

Nearly 100 additional women sue USC over gynecologist’s alleged sexual misconduct

https://www.foxnews.com/us/nearly-100-additional-women-sue-usc-over-gynecologists-alleged-sexual-misconductMore than a dozen women appeared at a news conference Thursday to announce the new lawsuits on behalf of 93 women against the university, bringing the total number of accusations against Tyndall to about 500 current and former students.

“I am part of an accidental sisterhood of hundreds of women because the university we love betrayed our trust,” said Dana Loewy, who alleged that Dr. George Tyndall assaulted her during an examination in 1993.

Perhaps the worst part about Milano’s actions is that she willfully ignores abuse accusations made against Democrats. Why isn’t she calling for people to believe Sherrod Brown’s accuser? Where are the Tweets condemning Keith Ellison?

Why hasn’t she said a word about Katie Brennan?

Why isn’t Katie Brennan’s #MeToo accusation getting national attention?

http://noqreport.com/2018/10/15/isnt-katie-brennans-metoo-accusation-getting-national-attention/It’s the type of story that should have received national attention immediately. It was sourced by a respected major news outlet, the Wall Street Journal. Both the accuser and the accused are high-ranking public official in New Jersey’s government. The accused stepped down two weeks ago when approached by WSJ for comment. Katie Brennan’s story is a major newsworthy scandal.

As of Monday morning, a day after the story officially broke and four days after it was leaked to other major news outlets, both mainstream media and the #MeToo movement are essentially silent.

Being a good Democrat has taken Milano’s focus away from the #MeToo movement. She has helped turn it into a political tool at the expense of victims whose voices are not being heard. Sadly, politicians will use her while victims slip by silently.

Politicians have turned the #MeToo movement and Alyssa Milano into their proxies. They justify it by claiming they’ll be better for women in the long run. Sadly, the real movement is suffering because people like Milano bought their sales pitch.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Why won’t Hillary Clinton go away?

Published

on

Why wont Hillary Clinton go away

There’s a difference between persistence and an inability to take a hint. Former Democratic darling Hillary Clinton’s persistence is becoming an annoyance for the left because she won’t take the hint. Most Democrats don’t want her around but they’re unwilling to flatly say, “Go away.”

Or, perhaps they are telling her this but enough enablers are near her filling her head with false hope.

Or, maybe she’s so emotionally lost after years of the rigors of Washington DC that delusions are preventing her from accepting her fate as a two-time presidential loser whose only electoral accomplishment was winning a Senate seat in deep-blue New York. Lest we forget, her only two other “accomplishments” were being married to a President and being selected by another President to be Secretary of State.

We can speculate about her motivations, but whatever they truly are, they’re enough to put her at “not zero” for another presidential run.

A former Hillary Clinton adviser says there’s a chance she will run in 2020

https://theweek.com/speedreads/802785/former-hillary-clinton-adviser-says-theres-chance-run-2020Philippe Reines, who worked for Hillary Clinton going back to 2002 and was her senior adviser at the State Department, made the argument to Politico Friday that the former Democratic nominee might actually be the party’s best hope for defeating Trump in 2020. He said no other Democrat has “anywhere near a base of 32 million people,” especially not Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) or Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The party, he feels, shouldn’t dismiss her as a failed candidate because she’s “smarter” and “tougher” than most, and she “could raise money easier than most.”

But it doesn’t sound like this is just wishful thinking on his part. He really thinks it could happen, saying the chances of Clinton running in 2020 are “not zero.”

The left isn’t taking the news too well. Reactions on Twitter have been lukewarm at best while often getting abusive. No need to post the Tweets here. You can already guess what they’re saying.

I think I speak for Republicans across the country who would relish the thought of taking on Clinton once again. There are some potential candidates who look strong going into 2020. She’s not one of them. If she can manage to steal the nomination again, it would be a huge win for the President.

I sometimes feel sorry for Hillary Clinton, but usually I’m just amused. She’ll always remind me of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Continue Reading

Democrats

As Bernie Sanders fades, 3 leftists (quietly) vie to pick up his mantle

Published

on

As Bernie Sanders fades 3 leftists quietly vie to pick up his mantle

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) just turned 77-years-old last month. The Democratic-Socialist movement, which he essentially brought into the mainstream and helped make popular following his 2016 presidential campaign, is made up of young, enthusiastic leftists. They need new leadership. Bernie can’t be that guy.

Two-years removed from his rise to prominence, his people are already searching for successors. Nobody’s saying it openly and Sanders still enjoys a great deal of support, but his inability to endorse leftists into primary victories showed he still couldn’t beat the Democratic establishment even after their stunning 2016 loss. But the real nail in Bernie’s presidential coffin was not endorsing soon-to-be Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

He picked losers and failed to recognize a surprise winner.

It should come as no surprise that Ocasio-Cortez is unwilling to endorse him for a 2020 presidential run.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez isn’t endorsing Bernie Sanders’ 2020 bid

https://nypost.com/2018/10/18/ocasio-cortez-isnt-endorsing-bernie-sanders-2020-bid/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow“She’ll see what the field looks like,” Corbin Trent, Ocasio-Cortez’s communications director, told Politico. “She’s focused on 2018, [Bernie’s] focused on 2018. We’re all focused on 2018.”

Sanders did not endorse Ocasio-Cortez in her stunning primary defeat in June of longtime Queens political boss Rep. Joe Crowley.

Nobody on the left seems willing to flatly admit what most of them already know. Sanders is nothing more than a symbol now. He’s the ideological leader of the socialist wing of the Democratic Party, much like Barry Goldwater was for the conservative wing of the Republican party. He lit the fire. Now it’s time for his successors to step up. Who will it be?

Before we discuss who’s going to be the next Bernie Sanders, let’s talk about who isn’t. Despite the far left getting all the buzz, the Democratic establishment of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama (sorry leftists, yes, he was and is part of the Democratic establishment) still holds sway on the direction of the party. They’re more than willing to tap into the excitement of the progressive movement and get Democratic Socialists to vote for Democratic mainstream candidates, but they’re smart enough to recognize if the far-left gets their way, the party and probably the nation will crumble.

These establishment types will not pick up Bernie’s mantle:

  • Joe Biden – He’s the current frontrunner, but I seriously doubt he’ll run. Why would he? He doesn’t really want to be President and would be 80 by the time his first term came to a close. Regardless, he’s more moderate that Clinton and will not be the next Bernie.
  • Elizabeth Warren – Despite wanting to be the next Bernie and having the progressive credentials to match his far-leftist rhetoric, her star is already fading fast. Democrats and mainstream media are trying to pretend like her DNA debacle never happened, but her competitors will be sure to remind the world of her horrible judgment. Wanting it and being accepted by the fragile far-left are two different things. They won’t turn on her as a Senator but they won’t let her be Bernie.
  • Beto O’Rourke – His star-power will fade when he loses to Ted Cruz. If he’s somehow able to win, then we’ll have to watch what he does in the first year of his term as Senator to see if he can be the guy. As of now, he’s a MSNBC contributor in the making following his loss.
  • Michael Bloomberg – A rich old white guy might have brought the socialist movement into the spotlight, but a super-rich old white guy can’t pick up the mantle.
  • Michael Avenatti – LOL. No.
  • Eric Holder – If anyone on this list could sneak into the Democratic Socialist camp, it’s Holder. He is progressive enough and speaks the language of socialism, but he’s also closely tied to the establishment.

With those non-Bernies out of the way, let’s look at the three most likely candidates to lead the far-left in 2020. You’ll notice they’re all Senators, a la Barack Obama’s path. I don’t see a governor or mayor who has a legitimate chance of being a socialist hero. Andrew Cuomo and Eric Garcetti are interesting prospects, but not high enough on the radar at this time.

That leaves private citizens, some of whom could be the next Bernie if they choose to throw their names in the hat. Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney stand out, but we won’t put them on this list until they actually get political.

One thing to note is that they’ll all be cozy with Sanders until the time is right. None of them have the street credibility they’ll need to challenge Sanders directly until he’s ready to embrace one or more of them on his own. Quietly, they’ll be pitching him on why they’re the right person to continue what he started. They might even offer him a nice cabinet position like Treasury Secretary in exchange for his coveted endorsement.

The next Bernie will likely be one of these three Senators:

Kamala Harris

The California Senator is the obvious choice. She has built up the most progressive voting record in her short time on Capitol Hill and definitely talks the talk of socialism.

If any socialist has a real shot at the White House, it’s Harris.

Kirsten Gillibrand

The funny part about Gillibrand is that she’s been considered a moderate in the past. Some even called her a “conservative Democrat” when she was in the House because she represented a red district of New York. Once she became a Senator, her true colors came out.

Deep down, Gillibrand is among the most socialist Senators there is. Her voting record is actually to the left of Sanders, according to Progressive Punch. She is likable by the far left while still holding sway over moderates. If her name-recognition increases in the next year, she could be a real contender.

Cory Booker

Spartacus has problems with his image at times, but there’s no doubt he could easily pick up Bernie’s mantle. He’s currently stuck in the middle trying to be everything to every progressive up and down the scale, but when push comes to shove he can be the socialist he wants to be.

Whether or not he picks up Bernie’s mantle will be determined by how well the previous two listed socialists do. If he’s ahead of them and his primary competitors are to his right, then he’ll drift towards the center knowing he’ll end up with Bernie’s people anyway. If he’s running against stiff competition from Gillibrand and/or Harris, he’ll try to lurch to their left to steal their thunder.

2020 is a make-or-break election for socialists. If they fail to get their choice as the nominee for a second straight presidential election, it could be enough to bury their horrible ideology as fringe leftist junk. Then again, it could make them double down.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report