Thread by @usacsmret

Baby Killers newswithviews.com/baby-killers/

Remember good ole boy Johnny Edwards––NC Democrat Senator (1998-2012), VP candidate in 2004, and presidential candidate in 2008? Edwards is hard to forget because he burst upon the national stage as the golden-tongued lawyer who was famous for defending the rights of the unborn.

Douglas Johnson in National Review: “in 1985, John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl. In his closing argument Edwards conveyed what the unborn child, Jennifer Campbell, purportedly had been feeling hour-by-hour as her distress grew.

“She speaks to you through me,” Edwards told the jury. “And I have to tell you right now––I didn’t plan to talk about this––right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She’s inside me, and she’s talking to you.”

Johnson writes that 13 years after the Jennifer Campbell lawsuit, Edwards was elected to the U.S. Senate from North Carolina, but “…somewhere along the line, John Edwards lost his ability to hear the voices of unborn victims.”

Yep…that’s what happens when the poohbahs of the Democrat Party dictate that anyone who wants “in” to their baby-killer cabal get rid of that empathic feel-for-the-baby stuff and embrace their kill-‘em-in-the-womb mantra.

And Mr. Smoothie did just that––became deaf to the pain of in-utero infants and got on-board with the baby killers.

It is chillingly accurate to say of the former pretty-boy senator––not to mention his affair with Rielle Hunter and the baby girl they had while his wife was dying of breast cancer––that he was a morbid harbinger of his fellow Democrats’ devolution

While abortion was always their Holy Grail––a virtual litmus test for admittance into the world of their perverse values...

....even Mr. Edwards and his flexible morality could not have imagined that in January of 2019, the entire Democrat New York State legislature would give a standing ovation to the passage of a law that sanctioned abortion up until the very moment of birth!

That’s right, a law that gave the right to a mother––exhausted by labor and in pain––to decide to snuff out the life of her fully-developed, perfectly intact full-term baby.

Did these Democrats recoil at the very idea of this kind of savagery? Did they weep or wring their hands at the barbarity of it all? Did they stage a protest against the infanticide that is forbidden in both Hebrew and Christian bibles?

No––they stood up and applauded!

Writer Wesley Smith, in Infanticide Makes a Comeback, recalls a recent Senate bill–– the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act”––that requires any baby who survives an abortion to be treated with...

....“the same degree of professional skill and care as [would be given] to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.” And the bill also would have outlawed infanticide

And who objected to these eminently reasonable and humane guidelines in Feb of this year? None other than 44 out of 47 Senate Democrats who blocked the Senate from voting on this bill, including presidential wannabes Harris, Sanders, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Booker, and Warren!

Since Roe v Wade was passed in January 1973, over 61 million babies have been killed––legally.
To underscore the vibrant lives of each of these babies, even and who these “pro-choice” candidates want to continue to snuff out, here is the clearest MRI of a pregnancy every recorded

americandigest.org/wp/news-youll-…

Every Democrat candidate for president has seen this or a similar film, and is also aware of the following irrefutable fact: Unborn babies feel! This is the conclusion of many studies––this one from Heidelberg psychotherapist Ludwig Janus, reported in February of this year.

“Babies in utero are happy…angry….fearful…and they like music,” Janus concluded. By eight weeks, the fetus has developed a sense of touch, by 13 weeks taste, at 17 weeks hearing, at 25 weeks sight, the miracles go on.

But none of this matters to people who think that the inconvenience of an unwanted pregnancy is worthy of infanticide.
And to think––one of these moral paragons wants your vote! Who will they target next––your disabled child, your elderly parent, your beloved pet?

Clearly dazzled by the beauty of the NY State infanticide law, the governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam––a pediatric neurologist no less!––decided to go one better.

Within days of the NY decision, he announced that, in his state, mothers whose babies survived abortion would and should have the right to kill their babies after they’re born.

breitbart.com/politics/2019/…

Northam said “I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother”

Disgusted yet? It gets worse.
If you had a measured conversation with a Democrat––in strict privacy and away from cell phones, microphones and cameras––and asked if he or she actually liked:

...High taxes
Regulations that require months or years simply to add a
room to one’s home
A weakened military
Billions spent on Sanctuary Cities to afford illegal aliens
free housing, food, healthcare, education, on and on
All of them would tell you a resounding NO!

But if you followed up and asked, then how on earth could you vote Democrat? Reflexively, they would answer: ABORTION!

Sebastian Gorka: “our existence as free men and women starts not with the right of association, or a free press, or freedom of conscience, ....

....or the right to keep and bear arms. Everything begins with the right to life. But in 2019––the Democrat Party “has quite literally become the political party of death.”

Gorka documents the grisly statistics: “The U.S. abortion industry that Planned Parenthood champions kills at least 600,000 babies in utero each year. For perspective, the 70,000 plus deaths last year from opioid overdoses is deemed to be a national crisis

“But more than eight times that number are killed as a matter of choice, not addiction or accident, and the Left celebrates it and wants more….the arch-eugenicist Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler would be most proud.

In fact, writer Patricia McCarthy reminds us that Sanger “founded Planned Parenthood to purposefully dispose of black babies ––and the Democrat Party has at last embraced her cause openly and without shame.”

Pro-life advocates remind us that abortions are not only immoral but are racist, in effect decimating the black population.

According to Right to Life of Michigan....

♦ More than 19 million black babies have been aborted since 1973
♦ Black women have a significantly higher abortion rate than whites and Hispanics.
♦ 36.0% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2014 were performed on black women, yet only about 13.3% of the total population is black

And Professor William D. Rubinstein of the University of Wales posits in his stunning article, “Legalized Abortion and the Triumph of Eugenics,” that “the total black population of the United States is about 40 million.

...Including the children and grandchildren of these 19 million who were never born, it is reasonable to assume that, without legalized abortions, America’s black population would be in the order of 70 million or even more.”

And fake news calls Republicans racist! Typical projection––accusing your competition of what you yourself are guilty of!

Slavery was and is an abomination. It is an evil part of America’s past—as well as that of nearly every nation on earth. The fact that slavery has a universal heritage does not absolve American slave owners, but it does provide a necessary historical context.

. At the time the first African slaves arrived in Jamestown, the Spanish and Portuguese had been enslaving blacks and native peoples in the New World for more than 100 years. Native American tribes had been enslaving each other for who knows how long before that.

What’s notable about the United States is not that its citizens held slaves, but that the West’s crusade to end slavery began after Jefferson penned the aspirational words of America’s founding document.

Jefferson’s original final draft of the Declaration explicitly referred to black slaves not as property but as men and castigated King George III for suppressing parliamentary efforts to prohibit or restrain “this execrable commerce” (referring to slavery).

Letters written to John Jay show Alexander Hamilton hoping the Revolutionary War could lead to the emancipation of blacks and appraising them equal to whites in their abilities. Additional examples are plentiful.

The Founders were painfully aware of the cognitive dissonance of forming a nation under the proclamation that all were created equal while maintaining slavery.

They also had to face the political reality that the 13 colonies could not be united in a new nation if they immediately abolished slavery.

To insist that southern colonies immediately free their slaves would have been tantamount to demanding they destroy the economic livelihood of the entire region—a political fantasy and a suicidal non-starter.

As scholar Harry V. Jaffa once pointed out, “if they had attempted to secure all the rights of all men, they would have ended in no rights secured for any men.”

Once the nation secured independence, American statesman of the Founding Era slashed away at slavery as quickly as prudence and political reality would allow.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 prohibited slavery in the territory that would become the states of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. In 1794, Congress barred American ships from engaging in the slave trade.

Legislation in 1780 banned Americans from employment or investment in the international slave trade. Finally, the U.S. Congress officially banned the importation of slaves beginning on January 1, 1808, the earliest date allowed under the deal made to ratify the Constitution.

Far from the bastion of racism, hate and pro-slavery sentiment that the 1619 Project portrays, much of the United States was ahead of the world in ending the horror of slavery.

Shortly after the signing of the Declaration, northern states took the lead. By 1804, New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania had passed laws that immediately or gradually abolished slavery.

This broadside assault against the institution of slavery explicitly contradicts the history sold by the 1619 Project. If the American Founding was grounded in slavery, and the Founders didn’t believe the Declaration of Independence, how does one account for these actions?

According to NY Times' Hannah-Jones, one of the “primary reasons” Americans declared independence was to preserve slavery, fearful of the “growing calls” to abolish the slave trade in London.

However, a closer look shows the abolitionist movement didn’t have a truly organized presence in England until 1783 when the first petition was filed by Quakers. It wasn’t until 1787 that the influential Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was founded.

Ultimately, more than 750,000 men died in the conflict that finally ended the wicked institution of slavery in America once and for all. When it was all over, the Civil War claimed eight times as many American lives as a percentage of the U.S. population as the Second World War.

Worldwide Abolition Lagged Behind the Northern States
Slavery wasn’t abolished until 1834 in the British Empire, 1848 in French colonial possessions, 1858 in Portuguese colonies, 1861 in Dutch Caribbean colonies, 1886 in Cuba, and 1888 in Brazil.

Barbary pirate slavers from North Africa enslaved more than a million Europeans until the end of WWI, three times the number of Africans sold to America

Slavery wasn’t abolished in China until 1910 (but was still practiced until 1949) and didn’t completely end in Korea until 1930.

Qatar allowed slavery until 1952, Saudi Arabia and Yemen until 1962, and Mauritania until 1980—nearly 200 years after it was abolished by the state of Massachusetts.

Using the latest reliable figures from 2016, the Walk Free international human rights organization estimates that on any given day 40.3 million men, women, and children will be victims of modern-day slavery in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

Tragically, that number is a low estimate, given the lack of reliable data from Arab states and the prevalence of slavery that still exists there.

The entire framing of The New York Times’ effort deserves to be questioned. Reconstructing the American founding to the date of the first slave is a standard the Times is only placing on the United States.

Is America’s “newspaper of record” about to embark on a grand venture of politely telling every other nation its celebratory founding is to be recalibrated to the date of its first instance of slavery? No, the Times’ project is deliberately—and solely—aimed at the United States.

Leftists have been engaging in this sort of deception for generations. Between the 1930s and 1980s, every perceived shortcoming of the United States was put under a microscope while the left was largely silent on the atrocities of communist tyrannies.

The left holds contempt and disdain for America’s ideals. In their heart-of-hearts, honest leftists cannot deny the unbelievable success of the United States and its institutions nor the appeal of its founding principles abroad.

So, the left’s only recourse has been to mount its arguments by comparing American history to a Utopian standard they never use with any other country.

Self-criticism can be helpful, especially when it leads to improvement or the discovery of “blind spots” in one’s thinking. Yet as The Federalist’s David Marcus points out, the 1619 Project isn’t breaking new ground or telling Americans anything they haven’t already heard.

Public-school textbooks have extensively covered the evils of America’s past for decades.
The central message of Howard Zinn’s popular textbook “A People’s History of the United States” is the Marxist narrative of “oppressed” versus “oppressor.”

In the past 20 years, Hollywood has frequently reminded moviegoers of America’s past sins, the (undisputed) evil of slavery, and the long struggle to realize a more perfect union.

In 2017, the Smithsonian magazine warned against giving too much importance to the 1619 date, cautioning that doing so “distorts history” and places undue emphasis on “us” versus “them” narratives. You don’t say.

The famous Roman orator Cicero held to a useful dictum: When you witness large forces on the move or scandal fills the air, ask yourself one question: Cui bono? To translate, “Whom does it benefit?

All Americans should ask themselves the same question about the Times’ ambitious revisionist history endeavor. Who benefits? For what good?

The 1619 Project Won’t Heal the Nation, it Will Sow Discord
The 1619 Project is politically driven 2020 posturing dressed in the veneer of a historical “exposé.”

By warping history, it hopes that dopamine hits of anger and injustice will prevent readers from engaging in objective analysis. Just in time to paint America as racist for the upcoming presidential election.

Leftists are ready to swoop in on any criticism of the project, especially from conservatives. It’s hard to see how the entire effort won’t serve to rupture America’s partisan divide even further, and that this wasn’t part of the plan all along.

More problematically, its conclusions—that the United States was built by evil men and founded on a lie—lead to the sort of fundamental transformation leftist radicals have sought for a century

If America is as insidiously evil as the 1619 Project paints, what other recourse but to rip out its cancerous foundations root and stem?

Leftists are banking that the outrage caused by the 1619 Project will provide them the political capital required to move to the next stage: a full reconfiguration of America into their image.

We Can’t Change the Past, But We Can Improve Tomorrow
America does not need further tribal rhetoric tearing up what little societal cohesion remains. The nation certainly doesn’t benefit from Times writers conducting a growing chorus of anger and grievance.

The New York Times used to at least feign impartiality. Yet the last two years give reason to question its reputation for sound judgment, especially where history is concerned.

The New York Times published, for instance, one pillow-soft piece lauding mass-murderer Mao Zedong and another opining that sex was better under communist rule.

So, what if we stopped focusing on “racial identity” and the sins of men committed 400 years ago? What if, instead, we followed Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s advice and judged one another by the content of our character ....

....here and now—today—not in 1619, but 2019? Cui bono? To whom would that benefit? Everyone who prays for unity in our fractured republic.

@threadreaderapp unroll