Texas Democrat Party Aborting Itself to Oblivion: No Life, No Future, No Hope UPDATE: Hope, Change, Feces, Urine

Posted on Comments

Last week, we learned Planned Parenthood offered to hire protesters for their “pro-choice” campaign in Texas. Evidently, they’re an equal opportunity employer and hire the mentally ill:

This is what hopeless political failure looks like, people. Democrats in Texas have been losing so long that, in an insane and futile bid for relevance, they desperately seized hold of the losing side of a divisive issue. Polls show 2-to-1 support for the pro-life (Republican) position. Only evil hate-filled weirdos like Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood are in favor of Gosnell-style late-term abortions.

FACT: Republicans hold 95 of the 150 seats in the Texas state House of Representatives and 19 of 31 seats in the state Senate. Twenty-four of the state’s 36 U.S. Representatives are Republican. No Democrat has held a U.S. Senate seat from Texas since 1995 and the last Democratic governor of Texas was Ann Richards — Cecile Richards’ mother — who lost to a guy named George W. Bush in 1994.

Hey, you stay classy, Texas Democrats!

UPDATE: Donald Douglas has compiled even more “You stay classy, Texas Democrats” episodes, including . . . civility!

Katie Pavlich reports from Austin:

If you’re thinking the Occupy movement must be making a comeback through pro-abortion rallies, you’re not wrong. Many of the same people involved in the Occupy movement are based in Austin and deeply connected to radical, far Left movements.

She links to a Texas Tribune report about bricks being confiscated. This reminds me of an ancient proverb:

Quem Deus Vult Perdere, Prius Dementat.

“Whom the gods would destroy, they first make Democrats.”

More of a paraphrase than a translation, really . . .

UPDATE II: Because liberals are all about civility:

Officers said in the course of their inspections, they discovered “one jar suspected to contain urine, 18 jars suspected to contain feces, and three bottles suspected to contain paint.”

The fundamental logic is flawless, really. If you believe that it is a good thing to kill innocent babies because of “choice” or “equality” or some other political abstraction, then how can you say any mere tactic — e.g., throwing urine and feces at those who disagree — is wrong or unethical? This is what the radical slogan “By Any Means Necessary” is about. And when you organize a political movement devoted to murder, perversion and confiscation of private property (the core Democrat issues of abortion, sodomy and socialism), quite naturally you will attract hateful hearts and deranged minds to your cause.

Republicans are the party of Faith, Freedom and Patriotism, and should speak out to shame Demo0crats for the foul monsters they are.

Hat-tip: Ace of Spades.

 

135 comments

  1. “Deus Vult Perdere, Prius Dementat.”

    I’m not a latin expert but doesn’t that say something about demented prius drivers?

  6. I don’t think I would use the same terms to describe the Republican Party. My description would be more along the lines of “go along to get along” and “please, please please love me MSM” party (and I’m in a generous mood at the moment because it’s early).

  9. Of course they do. Republicans are no less fallible than their opponents.

    And still we hear howls from “conservatives” opposed to term limits, as though there really are saints among us who can actually be trusted with power for decades upon decades.

  11. The people who think their unborn kids can be dispose of like so much trash would probably have no problem using the ones they deigned to be born as political props.

    Am I passionate about politics? Yes. But if I go to a protest or an event, you know where my three kids are? At home with a babysitter or by grandma’s. My children are not political props.

  12. And the decision won’t favor the baby. Eventually, they’ll decide two kids (or one) is enough and you’ll have no “choice”…bet these people won’t be protesting then.

  14. Yeah, the argument seems to be, “but we need expertise!” (And, interestingly, this sentiment plays a major role in the Federalist Papers.)

    Except, how much expertise do you really need to vote on stuff that you didn’t read?

Comments are closed.