Guess What’s Worse Than “Creepy Uncle Joe.”

It turns out that handsy Ol’ Uncle Joe really is a bit “creepy” after all. We can all say that, now that enough democrats have told us this is the case. At least this is the current take of certain presidential-minded democrats who’ve decided that they no longer want or need Joe Biden. If these democrats were in their right minds, they would realize that loveable Ol’ Joe—with his hair sniffing and back rubbing and face pecking—is among the least of their problems.

Nevertheless, right now many in the democrat party simply want to be done with Biden because of “inappropriate touching.” This is the man who served in their party as Vice President for eight years and as a U.S. Senator for 36 years. By inappropriate touching, they mean things like hand-holding, forehead-to-forehead conversations, holding women “for a beat too long” at receptions, and the like. No one is alleging anything criminal, nor is anyone using the phrase “sexual harassment.”

What’s more, very little we are hearing from Biden’s accusers and their accomplices is new information. It seems clear that these accusations against Biden are little more than a political ploy by some democrats who hope to rid themselves of what they see as an old straight white man who doesn’t seem quite hip or radical enough to be their presidential nominee. As Brent Bozell and Tim Graham recently put it,

The Democrat-media complex has suddenly decided that Joe Biden has a creepiness problem. Why now? Why not when he was vice president for eight years? Does anyone remember the allegedly fierce White House press corps pelting the press secretary with questions, asking when then-President Obama would tell his understudy to stop putting his hands on women -- and little girls -- and putting his face uncomfortably close to theirs?

In spite of the efforts of his fellow democrats who want the “creepy old man” label to force him to just go away, Joe Biden seems to be leaning toward making them beat him the old fashioned way: at the ballot box—or at least Biden hopes to force his opponents to have to work hard in rigging the primaries. Whether Biden runs, or whether he gets the nomination, the efforts against him remind us that democrats remain blind to the real problems within their party.

For example, far worse than space-invading Biden is biology-denying Biden. Recall, more than once, Joe Biden has called “transgender equality” the “civil rights issue of our time.” Because of his efforts and the efforts of those like-minded in the Obama administration, among other perverse—or “creepy”—things, boys started using girls’ restrooms and locker rooms. Soon afterward, boys started—and continue—to take trophies from girls.

In addition, because of their lust to promote liberal dogma on sex and sexuality, again ignoring sound science, morality, and common sense, the Obama-Biden administration lifted the long-held Combat Exclusion Policy, and U.S. women became eligible for front-line combat operations. In other words, time and again Joe Biden and his like-minded ilk—which includes pretty much every democrat running for president—continue to ignore the truth about something as fundamental as the difference between males and females. They turned their wicked ignorance into disastrous policy for the nation. Quite a bit worse than serial hair sniffing, don’t you think?

Also recall that biblically-ignorant Biden preceded Barack Obama and the Supreme Court in voicing his support for legally redefining marriage. To prove his apostasy, Biden has even officiated a same-sex “wedding.” As if a legal redefinition of the oldest and most foundational institution in the history of humanity wasn’t enough of a blow to Christianity, in 2012 the Obama-Biden administration issued its notorious contraception and abortifacient mandate.

Through these other nefarious efforts, Biden, Obama, et al have regularly waged war on Christianity and religious liberty. Ignoring the centuries-old beliefs of those who don’t share his perverse modern views on marriage and sexuality, as Vice President, Biden strongly supported passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). As Ryan Anderson put it,

[ENDA] tramples First Amendment rights and unnecessarily impinges on citizens’ right to run their businesses the way they choose. The proposed legislation does not protect equality before the law; instead it would create special privileges that are enforceable against private actors.

Again, virtually every democrat—including those running for president—share such oppressive views on Christianity and religious liberty. Instead of making life more difficult for us Christians, I would prefer a hug from Joe Biden.

Killing newborn children who happen to escape the deadly instruments of an abortionist and emerge alive from their mothers’ wombs is far worse than anything a moral person would deem “creepy.” Yet modern democrats are actually making the case for what could be described as “post-birth abortions.” Infanticidal democrats are concerned that Joe Biden is not sufficiently devoted to the cause of killing the unborn—or even the newborn, if necessary. It seems Mr. Biden is a bit too “creepy,” but not quite heartless enough for modern democrats.

If you would be “creeped out” by someone coming into your home and stealing your stuff, then socialism is probably not your thing. Nevertheless, democrats’ embrace of all things socialist is only rivaled by their lust to make legal nearly every perversion imaginable in the sexual realm.

Whether the “New Green Deal”—supported by a majority of leading democrats—or Medicare for all—supported by most of the democrats’ 2020 presidential field, along with an “aggressive and expanding” group of over 100 Congressional democrats—in the vain pursuit of utopia, modern democrats continue to promise to spend other people’s money. As I noted recently, for a picture of just how worse than “creepy” socialism can be, take a look at Seattle, San Francisco, or Venezuela.

So we have hair smelling, hand-holding, and hugging vs. socialism, infanticide, and those who can’t—or refuse to—tell the difference between males and females. Given such, I’ll take “creepy” over the democrats’ platform any day.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Infanticidal Democrats Took Their Cues from Barack Obama

As I’ve pointed out on several other occasions, when it comes to the most significant moral issues of our time, no one should be surprised by immoral actions of modern liberals. You can be saddened, shocked, angry, disgusted, and the like, but you should not be surprised. This is certainly true when it comes to the issue of abortion, and tragically, even when it comes to infanticide.

For decades, democrats have dehumanized the unborn and argued against protecting the most innocent and helpless among us, even when they escaped death in their mother’s womb. In order to further their wicked sexual agenda, democrats at the highest levels have taken some of the most radically gruesome views of life in the womb. No less than Barack Obama, himself, took a position on children who survived abortion that can only be described as infanticide.

Obama, while a member of the Illinois state Senate, opposed multiple versions of an Illinois bill that mirrored the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA). According to National Right to Life, BAIPA was essentially “a simple two-paragraph proposal – [that] established…for all federal law purposes, any baby who was entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who showed any of the specified signs of life, was to be regarded as a legal person for however long he or she lived, and that this applied whether or not the birth was the result of an abortion or of spontaneous premature labor.”

In 2000, the original BAIPA was passed by the U.S. House by a vote of 380 to 15. This occurred in spite of opposition by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL). Even staunch pro-abortion leaders, such as Jerrold Nadler, ignored the NARAL position and supported BAIPA. This version of BAIPA was later killed in the Senate by an objection to unanimous consent.

In 2001, the Illinois legislature took up a bill that was patterned after the federal BAIPA. Obama voted against this bill in committee. On the floor of the Illinois Senate, he later gave the only speech against the bill, saying, “I mean, it—it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.” Because, of course, we need the “equal protection clause” to tell us that we shouldn’t kill our children.

Obama finally, and “boldly,” voted “present” on the bill, which had the same effect as voting “no.” The bill passed the Illinois senate but died in a house committee. The scene pretty much repeated itself in 2002, this time with Obama voting “no.”

In 2002, a “neutrality clause” was added to the federal BAIPA. This clause basically said that, as far as federal law was concerned, legal protection could not be construed upon a human being prior to being “born alive.” This effectively protected Roe. The bill unanimously passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Bush in 2002.

Obama is on the record saying that he would have supported the Illinois bill had it contained the neutrality clause. In October of 2004, the Chicago Tribune reported, “Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act…”

However, in 2003 the exact language of the federal neutrality clause was added to the Illinois bill making it virtually identical to the federal BAIPA. In March of 2003, Obama chaired an Illinois Senate committee and led the Democrats on that committee to kill the amended bill.

In attempting to blunt the extremism of his abortion record, Obama stated time and again that the lack of a neutrality clause was all that was preventing him from supporting the Illinois bill. When he was called out on the matter, Obama accused individuals and institutions of lying about his record. His campaign later had to admit that his critics were correct about his voting record.

Obama’s radical—evil—position on infants born alive was widely reported on in the pro-life media. There was even audio of him making his case! Obama’s position was described as infanticide prior to his presidential re-election bid in 2012. He not only won two presidential elections with such evil positions on life, but he was so emboldened that once Obamacare became the law of the land, then President Obama instructed his Department of Health and Human Services to issue its notorious contraception and abortifacient mandate.

As David French noted at the time, “This is who Barack Obama is. There is no reason to be surprised by this. He is not being pulled to extremes by his base — he is the one doing the pulling.” Obama pulled, and along came New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, and Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo. As most now well know, on infanticide, each of these democrat governors has picked up where Obama left off.

It seems clear to me that what immoral democrats in New York passed and what immoral democrats in Virginia and Rhode Island are proposing all violate the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act. However, as Operation Rescue points out,

Some have postulated that with New York’s new abortion law, crimes committed by late-term abortionist and convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell will now be legal in New York. He was convicted of first-degree murder on three counts of snipping the spinal cords of living newborns who survived abortions at his Philadelphia “House of Horrors” clinic.

That may well be the case.

The Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 mandates that babies born alive during abortions must be cared for as patients. Unfortunately, that act has no enforcement clause, meaning there is no criminal or civil penalty for violating it. Even Kermit Gosnell could not be charged with breaking that law.

The proposed Rhode Island bill, co-sponsored by state Sen. Gayle L. Goldin and Rep. Edith H. Ajello, would, as Life News notes, “strip away even minor, common-sense abortion regulations.” Life News continues,

The bill appears to allow restrictions for late-term abortions, but it adds a broad “health” exception for abortions after viability. The exception would allow women to abort unborn babies up to nine months of pregnancy for basically any “health” reason, including “age, economic, social and emotional factors,” a definition given by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Doe v. Bolton.

Ajello described protections for unborn babies as “insidiously restrictive, harmful and patriarchal reproductive laws.” Her bill would even repeal the state partial-birth abortion ban and fetal homicide law, which provides justice to pregnant mothers whose unborn babies are killed by abusive partners, drunken drivers or others whose illegal actions cause the death of the unborn baby.

Do you remember our partial-birth abortion debate? With 281 House votes (65%), including 63 democrats, and 64 Senate votes (that’s 64% for you math-challenged folks), including 17 democrats, and President Bush’s signature, in 2003 the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban became law. Twice Bill Clinton vetoed similar bills, and while a partial-birth abortion ban was finally being passed at the federal level, state senator Barack Obama was opposing the Illinois version of a partial-birth abortion ban.

When he arrived in the U.S. Senate, Obama denounced the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to uphold the ban. In the months prior to the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, then candidate Barack Obama said, “The first thing I’ll do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).” FOCA, as co-sponsor Barbara Boxer described, “supersedes any law, regulation or local ordinance that impinges on a woman’s right to choose.”

As Rich Lowry described FOCA in Politico,

The act would enshrine in federal law a right to abortion more far-reaching than in Roe v. Wade and eliminate basically all federal and state-level restrictions on abortion. This isn’t a point its supporters contest; it’s one they brag about. The National Organization for Women says it would “sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.”

Look for the next democrat nominee for POTUS to make a pledge similar to Obama’s. Whether Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Corey Booker, Andrew Cuomo, and the like, it seems that all of the candidates seeking to replace Barack Obama at the head of the Democrat Party will continue his wicked war on the unborn.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

 Copyright 2019, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com