Last week, the House of Representatives passed the "Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act," which designates lynching a federal hate crime,"[s]ixty-five years after 14-year-old Emmett Till was lynched in Mississippi."  The vote for the measure was a lopsided 410 to 4.  The Senate passed its version of the bill in February, and President Trump is expected to sign the final version.  Anti-lynching laws had been proposed in Congress going back over 100 years but always failed.  The ever-eloquent Senator Cory Booker said the act can't undo the damage of past lynchings, but "we can ensure that we as a country make clear that lynching will not be tolerated."

Did that need clearing up?  If lynching were still being tolerated, why do Democrats have to go back to the first Eisenhower administration for a victim to name their law after?  Even the act's own findings stipulate that the era in which blacks were being lynched was "between 1882 and 1968."  The act is an empty and unneeded reminder of a threat to blacks — horrible as it was in its time — that ended more than half a century ago. 

If the threat of lynching had any currency, then the senators who introduced their version of the bill, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, wouldn't need a character like Jussie Smollett to stage his own "attempted modern-day lynching" to boost it.  Nor would there be any need for the glut of staged racial hate crimes.

But Democrats are desperate to prevent any more black voters from waking up and voting for Trump, and that means incessantly raising the specter of Republicans re-instituting Jim Crow.  This has been their go-to plan at least since Barack Obama's first campaign in 2008.  The only problem with the plan is that Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan, and lynching were all institutions born, nurtured, and protected by Democrats in the solidly Democrat South.  The true history of Democrat racism has been carefully kept from those who get their facts from social media or public education.   They've been lied to for decades that all the old Klan Democrats turned Republicans, and the Republican Party is now inexplicably responsible for the ugly history of Jim Crow.

It's nonsense on stilts.  All those thwarted anti-lynching bills going back 100 years were thwarted by Democrats — like when Republican congressman Leonidas C. Dyer introduced a bill in 1918 "to protect citizens of the United States against lynching in default of protection by the States."  It became the blueprint for subsequent anti-lynching bills promoted by the (Republican-founded) NAACP: it made lynching a capital crime and provided for heavy fines on county and law enforcement officials who disregard the law when it comes to blacks.  Dyer's bill died in committee in the Democrat-controlled Congress.  A later bill offered when Republicans gained a majority in Congress barely passed the House against ferocious Democrat resistance: "[a]mong the 119 who voted 'no' were four future Speakers of the House, each a southern Democrat who eventually presided over the chamber," including a hero of modern Democrats, the "iconic" Sam Rayburn.  Senate Democrats killed that bill, too.

Congressional Black Caucus chair Rep. Karen Bass now says of the new bill that "a legislative body that once included slave owners and Ku Klux Klan members will belatedly 'stand up and do our part so that justice is delivered in the future'" (emphasis added).  But it wasn't actually the "legislative body" of Congress that made a home for those slaveholders and Klansmen; it was the Democrat caucus — and the Democrat Party has yet to own up to its sorry history of racism.  

Instead, Democrats are cheering one another for passing a bill that might have done something to get justice for Emmett Till, or even saved him from being murdered in the first place — if only it weren't 65 years too late.   

But the really interesting thing about Congress passing the Emmett Till Act is that it came only two days after Senate Democrats thwarted a pair of bills that would have saved thousands of black lives now.  They blocked one bill that would prohibit late-term abortions, saving "as many as 18,000 unborn babies from abortions each and every year."  Then they blocked a second bill requiring medical professionals to care for infants born alive after botched abortions.  Democrats were worried that saving babies already born would interfere with "the 'reproductive rights' and 'choices' of women."  A disproportionate number of the babies doomed without these two laws will be black.

For perspective, consider the NAACP's report that there were 4,743 lynchings in the United States from 1882 to 1968, of which 3,446 of victims were black.   

Mississippi had the worst record, lynching 581 people, 90% of whom were black.  When Emmett Till was offered the chance to travel out of Chicago and spend the summer of 1955 in Mississippi, his mother worried because she believed that that state wasn't a safe place for blacks.  She was tragically right.    

It's still not safe there.  Numbers published by the Centers for Disease Control show that "39,052 black babies were killed by abortions in Mississippi between 1995 and 2010."

And it's not just Mississippi.  Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, more than 19,000,000 black babies have been aborted nationwide.  

The website Black Dignity records that "80 percent of abortion facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.  About 13 percent of American women are black, but they receive over 35 percent of the abortions."

That shouldn't be any surprise, because Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, developed The Negro Project in the 1930s to bamboozle blacks that their only hope for progress was to reduce their own population through birth control — willingly provided by Sanger and her associates.  Aware that blacks might well be suspicious of this white woman's motives, she wrote to a colleague that word mustn't get out "that we want to exterminate the Negro population," urging "we should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities," because black ministers can best "straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." 

When Martin Luther King's niece, Alveda King, learned that "[a]n astonishing 60 percent of African-American pregnancies in the five boroughs of New York City end in abortion," she put up a billboard in Manhattan announcing, "The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb."  That message got Negro Project minister Al Sharpton mad enough to threaten one of his trademark protests, and threats of violence from other groups infuriated by the truth convinced the billboard's owners to pull the message down. 

After they censored her billboard, Alveda King wondered over people being angry about the wrong thing: "black people in New York and all over the country should be outraged at the numbers of black babies we lose every single day to abortion." 

On average, there are 1,876 black babies lost every single day.

Think about this: in just the two days from Monday, when Senate Democrats obstinately linked arms to oppose even the mildest restrictions on this ongoing carnage, till Wednesday, when House Democrats congratulated one another for an anti-lynching law that won't save a single black life, more black babies were slaughtered in the United States than all the blacks who died from lynching in U.S. history.

Alveda King is right.  When will blacks get outraged at how many of their babies are dying every day by abortion?  When does the Congressional Black Caucus stop uniting against every effort to stop the black genocide that's happening right now in every one of their districts? 

Margaret Sanger planned well for this day.

T.R. Clancy looks at the world from Dearborn, Michigan.  You can email him at trclancy@yahoo.com.