By DEXTER DUGGAN
You want to know what Democrats would deliver to you if they win the White House in November?
Politicians always make promises during an election race, and sometimes even keep some of them. But it’s about guaranteed that we’d get a nastier dose of what Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) poured out as he ranted right outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on March 4.
Speaking to a roused-up, no-limits pro-abortion crowd within, ahem, a stone’s throw of that building, left-winger Schumer threatened the High Court’s two newest justices by name about the dire consequences if they don’t vote in a Louisiana case in the pro-abortion way he wants, even though Schumer’s way removes protections for women’s health.
Some excuse-makers for Schumer later said he just meant that Republican politicians would suffer in November’s elections if the justices don’t vote the pro-abortion way.
Number one, this excuse voices pro-abortionists’ silly lie, which Schumer doubled down on here, that permissive abortion expresses the majority will, and rejecting this majority mandate means election-time damage.
If that were true, Republicans would be in a tiny minority after being officially pro-life for decades. Instead, the Democrat Party has driven away millions of voters, which shows how popular its extremist abortion stridency has been.
Moreover, it’s not the justices who face elections; they serve on the court as long as they desire.
Number two, if Schumer actually had meant to threaten politicians facing November, he would have been yelling outside the Capitol building, where the elected House and Senate meet, and he would have been yowling toward Sen. Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) and Cong. Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.), not Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
In fact, rabid Schumer didn’t even exercise the courtesy of using the justices’ first names or titles in his rant. He just threatened, in a very direct and menacing way, “I wanna tell you, Gorsuch, I wanna tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Then Schumer proceeded to his lies about how popular cutting up and tearing apart preborn babies is with the American people. Every one of whom, of course, had been a preborn baby. Including loudmouth Schumer.
From Schumer’s own town, the rather conservative New York Sun editorialized on March 6: “This is a moment, in our view, for the Supreme Court to clobber the senator with Title 18 of the United States Code, section 401. Title 18 is the part of our federal law that deals with criminal matters, and section 401 grants courts the power to punish contempt.
“The Nine could move against the senator sua sponte, meaning on the court’s own motion, by issuing a heavy fine, say, or seizing his law license, or worse,” the Sun continued, noting that Schumer made his threats at the very time the court nearby was hearing arguments on abortion law.
The justices could order Schumer to apologize face-to-face to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, the Sun said, and if the senator didn’t sound truly contrite and discerning of his violation, then “a fine, disbarment, and a few nights in the pokey. Whirlwind to follow.”
Meanwhile, the Washington Examiner reported on March 10 that a black pastors’ group began a petition against Schumer.
“The president and founder of the Coalition of African American Pastors began a petition urging the Senate to censure Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for his threatening remarks aimed at two conservative Supreme Court justices,” the Examiner said. “‘This behavior is an affront to the dignity of the U.S. Senate,’ the petition reads.”
Anyway, as to our original point about what the national Democrats plan to deliver if they win the White House and all its administrative power — which includes every cabinet secretary and federal department — the answer is an angry, officially pro-abortionist government.
Even goof-talking “moderate” Joe Biden has sold himself out to the abortion screamers. And the inflamed Bernie Bros wouldn’t need a President Sanders whipping them up in a plaza before they’d get really rough at people opposing his agenda.
While kindred spirits get the official message that it’s OK to come out from under cover now.
Recall the violent, incendiary rioters in very recent times preventing conservatives from simply speaking on campuses? And what else have decades of illiberal education wrought in now lost-feeling, agitated graduates?
Remember the unhinged leftists disrupting Senate hearings and literally clawing, clawing away at the strong exterior doors of the Supreme Court building in 2018 when they were desperate to try to keep Trump nominee Kavanaugh from winning senatorial confirmation?
And that was when Donald Trump in the White House was joined by GOP majorities in both houses of Congress.
Among bad memories, recall Floyd Lee Corkins, the violent young leftist who opened fire in the lobby of the conservative Family Research Council in D.C. in 2012 because he didn’t like its stand against “gay marriage”?
Three years later, the U.S. Supreme Court broke precedent and imposed “gay marriage” on the nation.
Corkins was only one foot soldier in that particular battle, which actually had a lot more highly placed, effective veteran generals than soldiers on the long march. And the “gay rights” march hasn’t been around as long as abortion bushwhackers gaining troops.
What if the president next February is a Democrat — and by definition a pro-abortion radical — maybe joined by at least one house of Congress, and all the administrative state under his control?
Maybe the word quietly goes out that at some big D.C. February pro-abortion rally, the federal police aren’t to, say, get in the way too much of “direct democracy” just taken to a higher level by the same kind of clawing pro-abortionists aching to exercise vengeance.
If not enough gets done during the first strong-arm action, there’s always next month, along with a dominant media to whip them up, then cover up for them.
Conservatives generally aren’t violence-prone like the leftists who think their earthly political paradise is just around the corner if they can only get rid of, as they define them, Neanderthals blocking the future.
If pro-abortion dominant media serving an agenda can make a half-million pro-lifers peacefully marching through D.C. just disappear from their “news” coverage for years, why can’t just 3,000 violent leftists rampaging around the national capital also disappear, lest the rest of the nation become alarmed at what this “direct democracy” means?
And after these thugs teach hesitant federal workers to get in line, federal agencies around the country start receiving alarming orders from D.C. on the new way of doing “the people’s” work. The knock on your home’s door won’t be soft. And the coverage in your local “news” media won’t be loud.
A few years pass and Schumer’s loud-mouthed successor senator stands near the Supreme Court building, telling his own rabid audience that it’s time to teach a real lesson to Trump’s pro-life justices inside, and this time the court doors won’t be locked.
Meanwhile, federal workers in your own town have received new regulations about how to deal with stubborn citizens like, in fact, pro-life you and your churchgoing family.
Your local newspaper hasn’t been giving much publicity to the 10,000 pro-lifers who annually gather downtown. Why should its liberal “news” desk want to embarrass 500 tough local pro-abortionists who want to ram you, as they see it, into the twenty-first century?
Sound unlikely? Not so long ago, even national Democrats proclaimed that permissive abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Now any and all abortion, tax-paid at that, should be okay. And Schumer, the U.S. Senate minority leader, now stands near the High Court, preaching to an upset crowd and threatening the new pro-life justices with: They “won’t know what hit” them.
Despite Schumer’s overheated rousing on March 4, the Supreme Court wasn’t about to overthrow permissive legal abortion when it heard June Medical Services v. Russo. The Louisiana law simply is to provide more protections against unreliable practitioners for women having abortions.
But the pro-abortion agenda has stretched to where virtually any regulation of abortion at all is regarded as denying abortions. Schumer wasn’t howling that women’s lives are endangered by bad abortionists, but that pregnant mothers should be enticed into about any abortion back alley. How times have changed.
You know what abortion clinics get away with all over. They tell ambulances not to use their sirens around the clinics because this would scare away more of their customers. Why do ambulances use sirens? To deliver pizza faster? Sirens are to speed up care in emergencies.
There’s an emergency because the abortuary damaged a customer. And the abortuary wants more customers to remain unwarned and to fall into its dangerous grasp. And the dumb ambulance crews comply.
The national pro-life Operation Rescue (operationrescue.org) regularly documents the tragic scenes of ambulances outside abortion clinics. But how many clinics that try to hide what’s going on in their rear parking lots are eager to supply full information to official record-keeping agencies?
Lacking full knowledge, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg feeds her foolish fans’ ignorance by blabbering how safe abortion is. Why, it’s “far safer than childbirth.” But why are all those women in those ambulances, Madame Justice? They just wanted specially delivered pizza?
Too Late
The Wanderer asked three sources for their reaction to Schumer’s rant.
Northern California conservative commentator Barbara Simpson said: “Chuck Schumer has finally pushed his luck to the limit with his verbal attack against two sitting Supreme Court justices. As Senate minority leader, Schumer has never played the role of a ‘nice guy,’ but his blatant, literal threats against the justices is unprecedented and unacceptable.
“Coward that he is, he now says he didn’t mean his words to be a threat,” Simpson added. “Sorry, Chuck, it’s too late. The move to censure Schumer is growing but, in my view, he should be made to resign, and the sooner the better.”
National conservative commentator Quin Hillyer said: “Schumer and people like him talk about being concerned with women’s health, but their real agenda seems to be to actually promote abortion as if it is something desirable.
“To oppose something as basic as requiring access to hospitals in case abortions go bad is to show a horrible callousness and a deep lack of concern for the well-being of women,” Hillyer said.
Conservative GOP political strategist Constantin Querard said: “Political battles are getting increasingly personal and shrill, and having someone like the minority leader in the United States Senate personally threaten sitting Supreme Court justices just to satisfy a radical constituency is a sign of the times, and a reason for grave concern.”
Querard mentioned Katrina Jackson, a pro-life Louisiana Democratic state senator.
Yes, it’s still possible to have a pro-life Democratic politician in Louisiana, even though the national Dems have stamped most of them out elsewhere.
Jackson’s is the Louisiana law that the Supreme Court heard arguments about on March 4.
Querard said: “Katrina Jackson is an elected Democrat, and even she recognizes that abortion is a medical procedure that is invasive and dangerous, so it is entirely reasonable to ensure that patients who choose the procedure are entitled to the same level of medical care as anyone else.
“If you are going to be the party that claims to be pro-woman, which is a Democratic mantra, then keeping them safe and alive ought to be a priority and goal you can support,” Querard said. “Unfortunately, the establishment in the Democratic Party serves the abortion lobby and the billion-dollar industry behind it, not women.”
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress