Liberal War on Children
Posted in the London Forum
#1 Jan 26, 2013
January 24, 2013
The Liberal War on Children
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 became necessary to destroy the town to save it.
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:
The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.
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.
#2 Jan 26, 2013
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.
#3 Jan 26, 2013
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.
Since: Sep 09
#4 Jan 26, 2013
Really? Aren't you and the people behind americanthinker.com the ones really doing it? Using children as a means for a personal agenda? Every paragraph in your article says the word 'children' a half dozen times.
#5 Jan 27, 2013
do you think for one minute that obama cares for any children. he was just using the school attacks for his own agenda, and i would not doubt that he engineered it himself by hypnotising subjects for multibilllon dollar agenda of the new world order and one world gov trade. all of the presidents for the last 20 years have been leading up to this minute of the last days on earth. we are in end times.
with illusions people can make you do their bidding, and there has been rumors of witchcraft and magic in the w house for years.
when you libtard idiots yell the tin foil hat thing, and yell about kool aid drinkers, you better do some soul searching about what kind of evils we have at the head of our country. the bible says we wrestle not with flesh and blood but with principalities of darkness. eph 6.
the demons and devils are working at the top of the country and ruling. satan is the god of the world, and he will come out on the world stage as the anti christ ruler of the world. he will come from the east, if not already.
read some more about what he has been doing to gods people. persecution.com
and get ready to meet your creator. time is winding up.
#6 Feb 24, 2013
So true! We need liberal control, not gun control.
#7 Feb 25, 2013
amen that is the truth already! and the poster before you too.
#8 Feb 25, 2013
ROFLMAO "war on ________" is the dimwit liberal battle cry. Now you know how stupid you are perceived.
#9 Feb 25, 2013
News from the "war front."
No women have been killed in this latest WOW(war on women). However the women have inflicted great casulaties in their own war on children. Killing one every 94 seconds.
No casulties, no war.
The only war with casulties is the democrats War On Children. Thousands killed weekly. The KKK and Margaret Sanger would be so proud. All them colored babies getting killed.
Didn't obama and Clinton give Margaret Sanger (admitted, racist, bigot, murderer) a medal?
That is who you are. Face it.
#10 Apr 27, 2013
Obama exploited little children to try to make a case for gun control but it didn't work for him.
Like someone said "if you have to exploit children to make your case, you don't have a case".
Shame on Obama!
#11 Apr 28, 2013
A well regulated abortion clinic being necessary to the security of reproductive rights, the right of a woman to have an an abortion shall not be infringed.
Perhaps if the above was the 2nd Amendment leftists would be agreeable to all kinds of restrictions on abortion.
“smiling on a cloudy day”
Since: Jan 09
#12 Apr 28, 2013
There is a good point here. Take the following picture as an example:
Even gay men are opposed to this, as the picture of two 12 year old boys kissing is beyond the pale.
Of note, you can't find this picture through Google. Get as specific as you want, it's not there, even though it is published by a particular group. I had to use Bing. Another example of Google trying to hide certain search results.
The gay community was embarrassed by this picture, and quickly distanced themselves from it. It was originally included in a Youtube video back in 2011.
#13 Apr 28, 2013
Do gays think it's perversion until you get thirteen?
“smiling on a cloudy day”
Since: Jan 09
#14 Apr 29, 2013
No idea. Truth be told most probably don't see anything wrong with two little boys kissing, they simply acted as if they were due to the public backlash. Another:
Now some said this was a picture of a boy with his uncle, and not in the NAMBLA sense. Does that make it better? Sure gives off an eery, creepy feeling, don't it?
Gays always say you're either born homosexual or not, which I tend to believe. Now though, some militant gay groups actively try to "recruit" young straight kids into being gay. According to these groups, everyone is gay. Those not displaying homosexual tendencies are simply repressed.
Gays should have the same rights as everyone else. That doesn't mean they should expect society to entirely embrace their deviant lifestyle. Straight people have every right to be disgusted by their behavior. Many don't even like seeing a heterosexual couple actively groping and making out in public either, though.
What I hate is how many shows are shoehorning gay sex into shows nowadays. Game of Thrones last night, toward the end of the episode they just had to throw in a male on male sodomy scene. Why does HBO do this? Certainly wasn't in the books, why put it in the show except as a means of conditioning viewers?
#15 Apr 29, 2013
When will you realize you are not one of "them." You seem sincerely surprised when the truth is laid bare before you. It is your party by choice. Are you a mother or MFr?
Add your comments below
|Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10)||8 min||ChromiuMan||143,221|
|looking for terry.||4 hr||delno||1|
|huffington post is a hate group||4 hr||iThink||9|
|how is "stealing" baby body parts "woman health...||5 hr||iThink||29|
|Matt Bevin And Religion In Government||5 hr||Troofers||25|
|Speeding In State ad ounty Vhicles||8 hr||Friend||4|
|Who do you support for U.S. House in Kentucky (... (Oct '10)||8 hr||Rogers Suks||729|
Find what you want!
Search London Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC