Young Girl Wiser Than Aged Biden… Dems Hug Close The Misdeeds Of Abortion And Socialism
By DEXTER DUGGAN
When a 13-year-old girl with most of her life ahead shows more knowledge and valor than a 76-year-old man who had decades to develop those virtues but signally failed, something seems amiss in this land.
Barely teenaged Addison Woosley was among those asking for Raleigh, N.C., to become a sanctuary city for preborn babies as she described ultrasounds illustrating the fate of the helpless infant trapped by an abortionist, according to a spate of videos and news reports.
These weren’t her opinions but observable facts. “On ultrasounds the baby tries to run away from the disturbing instruments that try to kill the baby. The baby’s mouth opens wide in a scream when being killed. These babies are alive. They feel being killed. It hurts them and there is nothing they can do about it. There is no way around it. Abortion is murder,” she said.
Addison spoke bravely at a city council meeting on June 4 even though her words stirred a loud, angry reaction from the other side in the chamber.
Two days later, on June 6, feckless Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden, 76, formerly a U.S. senator for 36 years and vice president to Barack Obama for eight years, fled from his longtime support for the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits most federal abortion funding, because he’d been, gulp, criticized.
Biden came to support cruel permissive abortion, as suddenly invented by the U.S. Supreme Court back in 1973, but at least he’d said taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to fund it. At least until Biden, desperate to get more of the inflamed Dem base into his corner for the 2020 presidential race, recently decided that compelling everyone to underwrite the slaughter was lip-smacking good.
Shortly thereafter, on June 10, more than 180 big-business executives signed an expensive full-page advertisement in the Bible of Big, Brutal Abortion, The New York Times, saying that pro-life laws are “bad for business.”
The Adweek website quoted the executives’ threat, in part, as saying: “Restricting access to comprehensive reproductive care, including abortion, threatens the health, independence and economic stability of our employees and customers. Simply put, it goes against our values and is bad for business. . . .
“The future of gender equality hangs in the balance, putting our families, communities, businesses and the economy at risk,” the eye-popping propaganda proclaimed.
It was hardly coincidental that the executives allied themselves, according to Adweek, “with advocacy organizations Planned Parenthood Federation of America, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Center for Reproductive Rights.”
This anti-life attack was another example of how social radicals’ sway reached into corporate boardrooms, just as became evident a few years ago when high-powered businesses suddenly began brandishing economic threats against states that dared say men shouldn’t be allowed to barge into women’s lavatories and locker rooms.
What seemed the plainest of good sense quickly was redefined as awful bigotry that must be obliterated, no matter how many women’s welfare and dignity were crushed by this “social justice” steamroller.
The modern radical feminist movement that emerged in the 1960s hated women even more than it hated men, although the radicals used “MCP” (remember that one? — the acronym for Male Chauvinist Pig) as a synonym for men generally. But at least men didn’t get pregnant.
In the eyes of radical feminists, one of women’s worst faults, if not the very worst, was that they, like women throughout history, became pregnant. How could women have the “equality” of being just like men if they were to suffer becoming dysfunctional men by being pregnant? Free contraception and free abortion was the foundational cry of a feminist movement that held its sisters in contempt for being female.
Would female pioneers who helped build the U.S. and other societies have thought twenty-first century elitists to be weak and selfish for fainting away with the vapors at the prospect of childbearing? Radical feminists boast of how tough and self-sufficient they are — until expected to share in the gestational process known to and accomplished by millennia of far less privileged females.
Speaking of privileged females, how many people already have started to forget that 2016’s Democratic Party presidential nominee, Planned Parenthood warrior Hillary Clinton, had a Biden-like submissive Catholic named Tim Kaine as her vice-presidential running mate?
Kaine, like Biden, treated protecting the lives of preborn babies as no more than some discardable Catholic peculiarity like Lenten fish fries. A menu item easily scratched off.
In his June 10 weekly opinion column, Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput, OFM Cap., considered both Kaine and Biden as Catholics who fell short of the demands of conscience recognized by Lord High Chancellor of England St. Thomas More even in the sixteenth century.
Some criticism of Biden, Chaput wrote, “displeased some who see Mr. Biden as a veteran public servant and a well-intentioned, decent man trying honestly to balance his religious faith with the demands of a complicated political terrain.
“On the complicated nature of today’s politics,” Chaput continued, “there can be no dispute. But complexity is never an all-purpose excuse, especially on matters of principle, and most especially when the innocent and voiceless stand to pay the price for a bad choice.”
Conservative GOP political consultant Constantin Querard cut Biden some slack. Querard told The Wanderer on June 12 that “Biden’s problem is that he’s not really pro-life, but he’s also not pro-abortion. Yet to win the nomination of today’s Democrat Party and to keep Democrat voters in line through the 2020 general election, he needs to be seen as not just ‘pro-choice,’ but vocally pro-abortion.
“It is no longer enough to simply defend ‘choice’ as a concept; you need to cheerlead the actual abortions of as many babies as possible as late in the pregnancy as possible as a way of proving your dedication to the party’s leftist majority,” Querard said. “And you get bonus points for saying it’s okay to let a baby die even after it has been delivered.
“I suspect Biden is a more decent man than his political positions would suggest, but he clearly lacks the backbone the American people should want in their leaders,” Querard said.
The Supreme Court used outdated medicine and scientific ignorance as excuses when it turned executioners loose nationwide on defenseless babies. Maybe some of the seven blinkered majority justices back in 1973 actually talked themselves into believing the infants were just globs of cells, even though a sensational issue of the national photo magazine Life eight years earlier, in 1965, showed just the opposite.
God is patient and generously allows people time to correct their errors. But how much more patience may He extend when frothing pro-abortion Democrat Party radicals of 2019, who have a world of ultrasound evidence at their fingertips, rage against the preborn with even more savagery than some illiterate demon-worshipper in a desert 1,500 years ago?
Meanwhile, Democrat Party activists also turned hard to the left generally, so that a speaker who dares criticize socialism may be met with hostility and rejection including boos.
José Borrajero, an Arizonan who fled from Communist Cuba just before he turned 16 years of age in 1961, provided The Wanderer with an email giving his background and the damage done to Cuba by the Castro dictatorship. The rest of this article is direct quotation from Borrajero.
+ + +
By 1961, only two years after Castro’s takeover, suffering was widespread throughout Cuba. Except for the party elite, everyone endured food shortages, lack of freedom, and loss of property. My family lost to the state the paltry little bit of property we owned. Had we had more, we would have lost more, as many others did.
My family was targeted for additional misery because it was well known that we opposed the Castro regime. When the Bay of Pigs debacle took place, my father was one of the men who were taken to makeshift concentration camps, so that they would not be able to support the invasion.
Our house was searched and ransacked, looking for guns. Having found none, they still took my brother’s and my BB guns. How much damage to the revolution can a 15- and a 13-year-old do with those little Daisy BB guns?
My departure from Cuba was relatively uneventful in late 1961. No escaping in a homemade raft under machine-gun fire. No fighting off sharks in the Florida Straits. My brother and I, along with about another 60 kids, boarded a Pan Am plane in Havana and shortly thereafter landed in Miami. We were part of a project named the Peter Pan Project.
Several faith-based organizations arranged for American foster homes and secured the visas and other documentation, so that we could immigrate legally and not be a burden to society. None of us ever took a penny from the government. It should be noted that in the early 1960s illegal immigration was not tolerated.
The parents of these children were left behind, but many of them found a way to reunite, many years later.
Shortly after Castro took over, Cuba began to see the effects of socialism, with its insatiable appetite for commissar-directed government control of every aspect of the economy. This replaced the previous market-driven economy that had been doing so well.
Suddenly, there were shortages of everything. Beef, which was so abundant and cheap pre-Castro, became heavily rationed and often not available at all. The same happened with bread, rice, beans, and all other commodities. Even now, over 50 years later, Cuba is still having those problems.
Castro blamed the U.S. embargo for all its economic woes. However, there has never been a real embargo, because all along every other nation in the world has been open to trade with Cuba, but the embargo is a very convenient scapegoat to shift blame away from the failed socialist system.
Many anti-Castro observers favor lifting the embargo, to remove this tool from Castro’s propaganda arsenal, but the Obama deal was bad because it did not demand from the Castro regime any easing of communications restrictions on the Cuban people.
Along with the lifting of sanctions comes the question of what immigration policy the U.S. should have with regard to Cuba. It should be the same as for any other country, namely that it should be based on what is best for the U.S.
At one point we were engaged in a cold war with the Soviet Union and, as a result, immigrants from Cuba enjoyed the same preferential treatment as those from the other countries behind the Iron Curtain.
Currently, neither Cuba nor any of those countries enjoy special treatment. Because of the severe immigration problems facing the U.S. today, it is not likely that Cuba will be the focus of much attention anytime soon.
