Democrats Expose Themselves

I couldn’t sleep Wednesday night.

Normally I don’t go looking for fights, even though they often find me, but I was bored!

I decided to troll the leftwits at the Huffington Post forums.

Okay, that isn’t exactly true.  I was reading stories about the floor vote at the DNC convention to add the words “God” and “Jerusalem” back into the Democrat’s platform, and I wanted to see how the liberals were reacting to it.  It all started out as simple honest interest in how they viewed those events.  I didn’t plan to engage in any heckling, but, as I said, I was bored!

For me, the events of Wednesday’s floor vote sums up everything about the Democrats in one neat little package.  All you ever needed to know about them is encapsulated in one little video caught by C-Span:

1)      Racism is alive and well, and resides in the Democrat Party.

2)      Democrats will go to any lengths to deceive the public.

3)      The Godless do indeed make up a large contingent of the DNC.

4)      Anti-Semitism is rampant among liberals.

5)      Democrats use crass demagoguery to keep minority factions in line.

6)      Democrats will throw their own under the bus.

7)      Votes only count to Democrats if they like the results.

Racist Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (who thinks that he belongs to “the” race) was the perfect choice by the Democrats to represent them as their Convention Chairman.  He embodies the liberal notion of placing the color of one’s skin ahead of the content of their character, and, as if any further proof was needed, this event leaves no doubt that he is personally bereft of any such character.

This vote was a set up from the beginning.  It was a contrived effort to attack Mitt Romney for not being 100% in line with the Republican platform, which, in this case apparently calls for abortion to be restricted with no exceptions.  Romney would leave exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother.  Democrats spent a good part of last week trying to make some political hay out of that difference, but didn’t gain any traction.  Most everyone knows that a fresh political candidate has little control over their party platform.  Only incumbents, like Barack Obama, really have that power.

The Democrats concocted this political maneuver in order to try to slam Romney while portraying Barack Obama as a forceful leader.  They were deriding Romney for not having the “courage” to attack the Republican platform and force it to mirror his own views.  The original wording of the Democrats platform was written with the intent of setting the stage to allow for the “heroic” Obama to rush in and save the day by demanding that his own platform be changed to his will.

Unfortunately, for them, they let the cat out of the bag earlier in the week by letting it be known that Obama signed off on the original wording.

Also unfortunately, for them, the masquerade backfired in a spectacular and glorious fashion!

So, as Villaraigosa took the stage at the DNC, with his teleprompter already displaying the results of a vote he had not yet taken, he was met with something that he didn’t expect:

Resistance!

Everybody knows that happy little liberals are not allowed to disagree with the stated party line!  It doesn’t even matter how ridiculous the spin might be!  They’ll keep to it.  I guess they just weren’t prepared for the talking points to change, and Villaraigosa was DEFINITELY not prepared for the delegate’s reaction to those changes!

The delegate’s reaction to the notion of adding God back to the platform was very telling, as was the reaction that I saw among many liberals posting at The Huffington Post.  They railed at the notion of the “sky fairy” being mentioned in a political setting.  They revealed that they believe that anyone who believes in such “fairy tales” could not be rational or intelligent.

I pointed out to them that it was Obama himself that forced the wording changes.  So, either Obama believes in God, which, by their logic, would make him irrational, or Obama doesn’t believe in God, which makes his own platform a lie. 

By their own definition, Obama is either an idiotic lunatic, or a liar… or both.

They REALLY didn’t like to hear that much!  They weren’t able to refute the point, so many of my posts were deleted by the site moderators and deemed as “personal attacks”.  Apparently pointing out logical fallacies to a liberal equates to attacking them personally.

The Anti-Semitism among liberals and Democrats was evidenced by the people carrying “Arab-American Democrat” signs (like we really need more hyphenated “Americans”?) and shouting “NO!” to the notion of confirming Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  There is a huge contingent of Pro-Palestinian, Anti-Israel Democrats.  They may, in fact, make up the majority of that party.  Jewish people in America are finally starting to wake up to that reality, and more and more are “defecting” to the Republican Party every day.  I thought it very telling that the Democrats had to rush out to attempt damage control.

There was even the claim that conservative Christians only care about Israel because, according to Palm Beach County Democratic Chairman Mark Alan Siegel, “The Christians just want us to be there so we can be slaughtered and converted and bring on the second coming of Jesus Christ”.

Disgusting.

But what I thought was the funniest part about this whole ordeal was how the vote was rigged from the beginning, and I was delighted as I watched Villaraigosa throw his own party’s delegates under the bus!  The look on his face was just pure comedy gold!

Two-thirds of the delegates would have been required to accede to the changes for the vote to have passed, but there is no way that anyone residing within a realm with the slightest connection to reality could claim there was a 2/3 vote in favor of either side.

But the fix was in.

Thanks to video taken at the event, we know now that Villaraigosa’s teleprompter was already set up for him to read the results as being in favor of making the changes.  This demonstrates beyond any doubt that the Democrats only care about votes if those votes are going their way. 

If they will ignore the votes of their own delegates to fix an election at their own convention, how can that leave any doubt about what they would do in a general election?

This one event nearly sums up the entire case against the Democrats and liberals.

Aborting Obama

Some time ago, I wrote about the issue of abortion and I posited that there was a spectrum of views that could be measured–with a 0-100% ratio–where 0% was the view that abortion should be illegal under any circumstance, and 100% was the view that abortion should be legal under all circumstances.

It looked something like this:

100% Legal  [—————|—————]  0% Legal

I argued that any view on the subject of abortion would fall between those two extremes.

For instance, the view that abortion should be legal only in the case of rape, incest, or endangerment of the mother’s life would fall on the scale roughly at 15%.  The view that abortion should be legal until the third trimester would fall roughly at 85%, and the support of so-called “morning after” pills would fall somewhere near 30% on the scale.

One could quibble with the percentage points that I assigned to any particular viewpoint, but the overall theory was sound.

I further submitted that there were not two sides of the abortion debate, but three; pro-choice, pro-life, and pro-abortion.

My own position on abortion is such that I have had many debates with people representing views from nearly every point along the scale.

I am a conservative with a very thick libertarian streak.  I personally believe that abortion is heinous and despicable.  I mourn every child lost at the hands of an abortion doctor.  However, I still believe that the decision to carry a pregnancy to term must remain in the hands of the woman, and not in the hands of government bureaucrats.

This position doesn’t win me many friends, to say the least.  Most of my fellow conservatives disagree with me vehemently, and, although I believe that they respect me, this disagreement has led to some pretty heated debates.

Most liberals disagree with me too, because I would restrict abortion access to the first trimester, if it were left to me.  However, it is nearly always a distinct faction of liberals that hotly debate against my position, and they are the ones that I would describe as pro-abortion.

It seems counter-intuitive that there would be a class of people who believe that abortion is a positive thing, but I assure you that they do indeed exist.

Certainly Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was pro-abortion.  In fact, Sanger was a noted eugenicist.  She believed in abortion as a means to cull the population of “undesirable” races.

But even Sanger’s extreme views fell within the abortion scale that I created.

I have debated the abortion issue with many people on all sides of the spectrum for many years.  I thought that I had heard it all.  I believed my scale to be an absolute representation.

Until I met Barack Obama.

President Obama’s views on abortion are so very extreme that they do not fit on the scale that I created.  He doesn’t just believe that abortion should be legal under all circumstances…

He actually voted that a baby who managed to survive the abortion process could be denied medical care outside of the womb.

That, my friends, is not pro-choice.  It isn’t even pro-abortion.

That is MURDER.

Infanticide.

With the Democratic National Convention gearing up, and all of the political winds pointing to their focus on women’s reproductive issues, Obama’s extreme position is something that should not be left ignored.

We need to hammer this home; over, and over, and over again.  The Democrats simply can not be allowed to set themselves up as the champions of women’s rights with this kind of blood on their hands.

Not now, and not ever.