The new Democrat Party Chairman who loves to spit out expletives while addressing enthusiastic supporters, recently made it clear that the Democrat Party has no room for pro-life candidates. For those of you who did not get the memo, the Democrat Party is the defender of the down trodden and the party of tolerance, the party with the hyuuuge, wide open tent where everyone is welcome. They however hold the righteous position that in order to represent the party one has to support taking the life of infants developing in a woman’s womb. This is all in support of their pro-women agenda you see. Of course the girl children who can do absolutely nothing about the way that nature has designed for them to enter the world do not matter. As long as these little girls are still in the mother’s womb their lives which are totally dependent on these women for their survival can be callously snuffed out in solidarity to the Democrat Party sacrament of “choice.” Yes folks, this is the Party of tolerance. They have made it clear that every candidate must pledge their allegiance to the party’s dogma, and support the sacrament of abortion in order to prove they are good Democrats. They can’t afford to have any extremist candidate in their party who thinks that simply because nature made women the vessel through which life is birthed into the world, that that gives them the right to arbitrarily destroy the lives that develop in them. That is heresy! It is telling a woman “what to do with her own body.” To hell with the tiny body that is developing in her body. Anyone who thinks that this is wrong by default hates women, and cannot be a part of the party of tolerance, more so run as a candidate. That person deserves to be ostracized for holding such fanatical views, and must not be given a platform in the party of tolerance.
This is how Mr. Perez framed his party’s stance recently: Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health. That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state. At a time when women’s rights are under assault from the White House, the Republican Congress, and in states across the country,” he added, “we must speak up for this principle as loudly as ever, and with one voice. Observe how he frames it in the veneer of soft language that makes it more palatable to the listener’s senses. Who could oppose women making choices about their own bodies right? When put over that way, of course it makes sense. In that context it is indeed a principled stance. Throw in a good dose of demagoguery about women’s rights being under assault all over the country, and the conversation is over; no need to enter the arena where ideas do battle in that scenario. When the argument is postulated simply as choice, there is then no need to discuss the barbaric act of snuffing out the life of literally the most vulnerable beings, who, for their survival, are completely dependent on the women who bear them. Mr. Perez and the party of tolerance has no interest in a conversation that goes deeper than the surface on this issue. He made it very clear exactly where his party stands on this very important subject.
In an attempt to pull back on the controversial statement made by the chairman of the party of tolerance, Campaign Chief, Representative Ben Ray Lujan said that “There is not a litmus test for Democratic candidates.” A New York Times editorial offered a swift rebuttal to the Campaign Chief and in a column by Lindy West entitled “Of course There Should Be a Litmus Test for Democrats,” she declared that “Abortion is normal. Abortion is common, necessary and happening every day across party lines, economic lines and religious lines…abortion is not particularly controversial.” The columnist further advised “Come on, Democrats. Be something. Unite and move left. The center will follow or lose.” Former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean says that he will not donate to the committee if the party of tolerance funds any pro-life candidate. Despite the Campaign Chief’s declaration that there is no litmus test for candidates, there are serious rumblings in the party of tolerance, and some of the top movers and shakers are not pleased with the idea of providing a platform for pro-lifers in the party. They see an opportunity to really define themselves (not just as the part of tolerance) as the party of “choice.”
As the country battles for its soul, and the left and the Democrat Party becomes more and more unabashed in their depravity, no one should be embarrassed about a pro-life stance. You have nothing to be ashamed of, in fact; understand that you are on the right side of this issue. The reason that the party of tolerance, and the left in general must use euphemisms such as prochoice, a woman’s right to choose, a woman’s reproductive health, a woman’s right to control her own body, when discussing the savage, brutal and one of the most unnatural acts imaginable in nature; it is to soften the blow to and assuage their conscience. By using these terms they hope to somehow mollify that pesky voice that continues to badger them, telling them that it is wrong despite their best efforts to silence that voice. It is an act so heinous, that those who advocate for it must distract attention from the act itself, and change the topic into a discussion about women’s health, or any of the other euphemisms that they use. Let the party of tolerance embrace their radical agenda. Remember it is they who wish to change the country by trampling the values, institutions and traditions on which it was built. This is just another frontier in the ongoing battle for the soul of the county. Be respectful, be compassionate, be empathetic, be willing to listen, but more than anything, be willing to stand for what you believe in and for what is right.