The Liberal War on ChildrenBy Tom Trinko
It seems rather bizarre that President Obama, who has voted against requiring medical care for babies born as the result of failed abortions, surrounded himself with children while trying to nullify the Second Amendment to "protect children."
Liberals use the children as an emotional rationale for all of their political crusades. Because liberalism can't be defended based on either logic or phenomenological data, liberals have to always keep people from thinking about liberal objectives, and the best way to do that is to emotionalize any issue by bringing in children.
Liberals have even argued that abortion is good for children. When liberals were trying to legalize abortion, they argued that abortion would end child abuse because every child would be a wanted child. They no longer use that argument much, since child abuse has skyrocketed since abortion was legalized (no surprise -- if you can kill your daughter up to the moment of birth, why can't you punch her when she's three?). Those same liberals who were essentially saying that they had to kill children to save them mocked the U.S. military in Vietnam by citing the following supposed quote:
It takes chutzpah to say that we must kill children to save children, but that has never held back liberals. Of course, people who really care about children would never advocate killing some to save others; liberals are like the false mother in the story of Solomon.
The reality is that liberals do not care about the children. In fact, liberals have been waging a war on children for the last 50 years. In the liberal mind, children are a problem, not a blessing -- which helps explain why so many liberal policies victimize children.
That may sound extreme, but Margret Sanger, who is a highly esteemed member of the modern liberal pantheon, said:
If that's not a call for a war on children, it is unclear what would be. Yet liberals cite Sanger as an exemplar of liberalism.
The most obvious attack on children comes from liberals' support of abortion. Science shows that from the moment of conception, a new human being is present. Yet liberals declare that it's okay to kill that child so long as she's less than nine months old, counting from conception. Given that only 1% of all abortions are due to rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother, it's clear that liberals support killing young enough children for pretty much any reason. Liberals' lack of concern for very young children is shown by their opposition to outlawing sex-selection abortions; no one who cares about children could say it's okay to kill a young enough child just because she's a girl.
Liberals' support of abortion through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason is not really about choice, because liberals are generally silent about the forced abortion policy in China. If liberals really cared about children, they wouldn't support killing them before they are born, and they wouldn't support China's war on children, which includes forced abortions.
If liberals loved children, they wouldn't be constantly trying to get the brown women of the third world to kill off their children. One of the first things Obama did, to the cheers of liberals, when entering office was to restore taxpayer funding of abortion groups in the third world. Anyone who examines liberal foreign policy sees that a core principle is that the third world would get better if its inhabitants just had fewer kids. Liberals have no problem waging a war on third-world babies while invoking their love of children in debates in the U.S.
Liberal disdain for brown babies here in America can be seen in their silence over the fact that black women are nearly 5 times as likely to have an abortion than white women. It's obvious that abortion targets minorities, since 79% of abortion "clinics" are in minority neighborhoods. Jesse Jackson, until he had to change his position to mollify the white liberals who run the Democrat party, said that "[a]bortion is genocide."
Liberals' war on children does not end with attempts to kill children before they are born.
Look at divorce laws. Liberals have succeeded in making it easy to get a divorce for any reason, irrespective of the children involved. Children need two parents; being without a father is the single best indicator of a child's likelihood to do drugs, commit rape, or drop out of school, among a host of other bad things. Not all kids from single-parent families turn out bad, but the best way to ensure a troubled child is to put her in a single-parent family. But even when faced with these statistics, liberals continue to advocate for easy "no-fault" divorce. Liberals want to be able to dump their wives for a newer model, and they don't care about the consequences to the children. By supporting easy divorce, liberals are saying that the parents matter and the children don't.
Liberal welfare policies are hugely detrimental to the children because those policies discourage marriage and responsible parenting. Instead, the liberal welfare state sets up children to fail by putting them in broken families with little chance of success. Yet even after decades of evidence of the corrosive effects of liberal welfare policies on children, liberals keep pushing the same old failed solutions. Anyone who really cares about children would have tried to find new ways to help the poor, but liberals seems unfazed by the misery they inflict on poor children.
Liberals claim to support keeping honest citizens from having guns because liberals want to protect children. Yet those same liberals are constantly working to keep felons on the street. While everyone agrees that the police shouldn't be able to beat confessions out of suspects, it was liberals who distorted the legal code so that obviously guilty murders could walk free because of legal technicalities. It was liberals who pushed to amend California's "three strikes" laws, the result of which will be more violent offenders on the street. Similarly it is liberals who are forcing states to release convicts because the conditions in prisons aren't "good enough" for rapists and murders. Because it is people, not guns on their own, who kill children, liberals' constant push to keep violent men on the street is an attack on children. How many minority children have died in drive-by shootings because the modifications liberals have made to the legal system allow violent gangsters to stay free?
The liberal disdain for children can be seen in how liberals treat children in day-to-day life. Conservatives have 41% more children, on average, than liberals. Liberals appear to care for children so long as they don't have to actually be bothered raising them.
Similarly, listening to the liberal chattering class will reveal many attacks on "irresponsible" people with large families. The liberal chastisement is directed at families who pay their own way; one of the few liberal pro-children positions seems to be that liberals are comfortable with large welfare families, probably because those people vote Democrat in order to keep their welfare checks coming.
The liberal war on children also includes the various indoctrination policies liberals push in the public schools. Liberals use the schools to mold children into the liberal image, even at the expense of those children not learning what they need to get a job.
What else can we call the state of public schools in inner cities but a war on children? Sinecured union teachers constantly support liberal policies while liberals turn a blind eye to the misery that results from so many children, mostly minorities, not having the tools they need to succeed.
The liberal war on children is far more damaging to the young in America than guns are. Next time you hear some liberal invoke "the children" in support of gun control objective, point out that we don't need gun control; we need liberal control.
...That is, if we really care about the children.
You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog.
FOLLOW US ON