The 1 stance you can't have to be a Democrat

WND ^ | 04/24/2017 | Greg Corombos

[ForYourChildren]

'There's a huge disconnect here'!

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez says all Democrats should line up in favor of abortion, and he calls the position “not negotiable,” a clarification for which pro-life groups are exceedingly grateful.

The issue arose after Perez publicly backed the pro-life Democratic Party nominee in the race for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska. After criticism from pro-choice forces, Perez released a statement insisting he and the party were not straying from their stance on abortion.

“Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health,” stated Perez. “That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state.”

{..snip..}

[GraceG]

“Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health,”

I guess a female fetus cannot decide if they want to live long enough to be born and grow up to even have an opportunity to make that choice, right????

[blueunicorn6]

So the Democrat National Committee Chairman is a liar?

That’s why they gave him the job.

[Gay State Conservative]

I guess a female fetus cannot decide if they want to live long enough to be born and grow up...

It would be *very* interesting to hear the response of the lesbians who lead the "feminist" movement to a proposal that male children could be aborted without restriction but female children could only be aborted in a "life of the mother" situation.

[antidemoncrat]

I think God can use this as one way to sort out Christians from Non-Christians. Non-Christians believe infanticide is OK.

[angry elephant]

To be a Democrat one must believe in abortions and cliterectomies.

[WMarshal]

Moloch demands his sacrifices. The Democratr Party is pure evil.

[Seruzawa]

Great. Then women should be able to smoke drink and sell sex without interference from the govt.

[Seruzawa]

Oh please. Only Christians oppose abortion? I’ll bet a higher proportion of Muslims oppose abortion than Christians. Entire synods of Christians are perfectly fine with it.

[loveliberty2]

Perez's stance is consistent with Hillary's, as stated by her during the campaign, and Hillary's flat-out merge with Bernie's Socialist agenda "outed" an oft-overlooked imperative for the Democrat Party's hard, unbending stand on abortion, as declared in the first paragraph of a late-1800's analysis of "The Impracticability of Socialism." In that paragraph, the writer's point seems to be that under Socialism, ordinary human population growth cannot be economically supported.

The following is quoted from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":

Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:

"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. . . .
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON

With the Democrat Party, isn't this the choice we must make--a path to tyranny or a possible path back to freedom in America?

[MeganC]

I firmly support the retroactive abortion of Tom Perez. Hope that makes him happy.

[Rastus]

Dammit. I can’t be a Democrat now. :(

[HiTech RedNeck]

I like to mess with the minds of tyrants either on left or right.

[antidemoncrat]

You might be right about Muslims opposing abortion. But Christians don’t rape and kill toddlers like some ISIS members do and they also don’t send their 9 year old daughters off to marry an adult man and don’t allow husbands to rape and beat their wives and stone women who are gang raped. So I guess they have one good belief.

[FlyingEagle]

Well that certainly clarifies things: no Catholics welcome in the Democrat party.

[okie 54]

To be a Democrat on must be one of the following
1) Pervert
2) Clit clipper
3) Non Christian
4) Homo
5) Illegal Alien
6) Welfare recipient
7) Communist
8) Non Worker

If one cannot ascribe to one of they mention categories the need not apply