Rep. Liz Cheney, the third-ranking Republican in the House, told NBC’s “Meet The Press” last week that Democrats have become the party of “Anti-Semitism,, infanticide, socialism.” This wasn’t quite as inflammatory as when Samuel Burchard, speaking at a GOP pro-James G. Blaine campaign event during the 1884 race against Democratic candidate Grover Cleveland, denounced the Democrats as the party of “rum, Romanism, and rebellion,” but you wouldn’t know it from the howls coming from progressives, because, as we all know, the truth hurts. Well, that’s not quite fair: Cheney was engaging in hyperbole and being intentionally inflammatory, but she wasn’t entirely wrong.
Let’s look at the “infanticide” accusation. Obviously Democrats don’t favor killing babies as a general proposition, but Virginia’s Democratic governor and renowned Michael Jackson impressionist described exactly how he would make an abortion-survivor “comfortable” before making the newborn dead. (Many states have laws that allowed condemned men to go free if they survived an attempted execution. Seems fair…)
Democrats in the Senate—all but a handfull—blocked a GOP bill requiring doctors to use all means available to save the life of a child born alive after an attempted abortion. They must, it said, “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child” as they would for “any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”
Senator Ben Sasse, the Nebraska Republican who authored the bill, had called it an “infanticide ban.” Rationalizing like mad, Democrats said that the bill was aimed at discouraging doctors from performing legal abortions—in other words, they were pandering to the pro-abortion extremists—and that it was unnecessary because a similar law already exists, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002.—you know, because the Democrats have always opposed redundant legislation.
The other excuse, echoed by the Washington Post, is that “it hardly ever happens.” That’s 100% irrelevant, and signature significance for an ethics dunce. (It was also the terrible rationalization used by Justice Alito to justify a lawyer telling a jury that his client was guilty when the client wanted to plead not guilty.) The fact that something wrong doesn’t occur often doesn’t make it less wrong. So no, Democrats don’t endorse infanticide. They just don’t have the guts and integrity to go on the record that it’s wrong when their Dark Abortion Masters tell them “no.”
“Anti-Semitism” is currently unfair, but becoming more fair by the day, as the party accumulates increasing numbers of anti-Jewish bigots like Rep. Omar. Again, the refusal to rebuke her by name enables anti-Semitism, and just as Republicans had to finally demote long-time racist Rep. Steve King ( as they should have done years ago), eventually Democrats will have to bear being called racist and sexist by muzzling Omar. No, the party isn’t the party of anti-Semitism. Yet.
But it is the party of Socialism, and Democrats who aren’t ready to accept THAT better find another partisan tent. Living wage, single payer health care, free education, and so much of the nonsense that is in the Green New Deal that virtually all Democratic Party Presidential candidates have endorsed are pure socialism, as is FDR’s “Freedom from Want.” which includes the “right” to government funded housing, food, clothing, ad infinitum. The GND “roadmap” guarantees…
“—A job with a family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
—High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
—Clean air and water and access to nature
—Healthy food
—High-quality health care
—Safe, affordable, adequate housing
—Economic environment free of monopolies
—Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work”
Unwilling to work! Even the Communists wouldn’t go THAT far.
There are no socialists among Republican office holders. All of them are Democrats—De Blasio, Bernie, AOC and others. It looks as if the Democratic platform in 2020 will look like the Eugene V. Debs’ platforms when he ran for President under the Socialist Party banner last century. They can deny it, but it is undeniable: the Democratic Party IS the party of Socialism. It’s also the party of open borders, speech suppression, revoking the 2nd Amendment, abusing due process and equal protection, refusing to accept the verdict of Presidential elections, and rejecting the presumption of innocence—but we can leave those for another time.
Ethics Alarms 
I would disagree with infanticide. I think the Democratic Party is fully on board with the idea that killing newborns is no different than abortion. The fact that this bill was widely reported as an ‘anti-abortion’ bill in representative of that idea. I brought the infanticide issue up with several Democrats I know and their response was basically “If Republicans didn’t keep women from having abortions earlier, we wouldn’t have to kill infants”. Several bystanders were taken aback by that stance, but as I said later, ‘Now you see the true colors of the Democratic Party’. Pete Singer has been saying for years that there is no difference between an abortion of a 35 week old fetus and killing a baby delivered at 35 weeks. Now Pete Singer is saying that he thinks abortion should be legal up to 2 years after delivery. Echoing this, Ezekiel Emmanuel, an advisor to Obama during the ACA (and like Singer, a bioethicist) wrote “Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments.” in support of allowing sick infants to die without treatment.
I believe that infanticide is acceptable to mainstream Democrats.
“ believe that infanticide is acceptable to mainstream Democrats.”
I believe it has been so from the first. Once you accept the willful murder of humans (even in the womb) it gets much easier to extend that to other groups who inconvenience you. If you have no moral root, no firm foundation on what is, if not ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ then at least ‘permitted’ or not, then you will do anything, given enough time (to accept the idea) or pressure to do so.
This is how Socialism and Communism end up with gulags, ‘reeducation camps,’ and genocide: it is a slippery slope that gets steeper all the time, the longer they slouch down that path.
A fairly new term: Jexodus. https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/03/is-jexodus-happening-the-movement-to-encourage-jews-to-free-themselves-of-the-democratic-party/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d87bfa66-8ea1-4377-9da0-0a53c1be3c93
Hope it catches on.
Is this part of the ‘Walk Away’ movement?
The Democratic Party is increasingly a loose coalition of interest groups without a binding philosophy that exceeds self-interests. Any one of them that looks at its status and fate in the party has a good argument for walking away.
It looks like the time Microsoft pulled support for right-to-left languages from MS Word. Israel begged them to put Hebrew back in. Israel even offered to send programmers to Microsoft to do it at no cost to Microsoft. Microsoft said no, the extra sales wouldn’t cover the extra support costs. They were told they just didn’t have the market share to justify bothering with. I think Jews in the Democratic Party are in the same position. If it is between Jews and Muslims, and if you can only please one, Jews just don’t have the market share.
BTW, Israel went to free software and then went back to Microsoft when they re-added the right-to-left support. Now, Israel is having to leave again over Microsoft’s costs. No matter how many times they get burned, they always go back.
I have…had…a friend and beer buddy who was an anti-Semitic. One afternoon, at our saloon, he began ranting about “4000 Jews stayed home on 9/11 because the Mossad told them to”. His implication was that 9/11 was Mossad-driven. It just so happened that I had heard a local news-cast with some complete idiot making that same claim, so I checked it out (yes, in part at Snopes), and had found that it was total bulls**t. I had made print outs of several sites proving conclusively that this was false, and, as luck would have it, had copies in my truck. I handed them to him with a pronouncement that went something like this. “I really don’t care if you like Jews or not, that’s your choice. But what you have just claimed as fact is a lie, and an out right slander. Here is the Snopes report showing this to be false. Here is another document showing that this rumor started the day after 9/11 and was broadcast by the Syrian state-supported news agency. Also, in that second document, there is a list of the victims who were known Jews. There’s right at 400 of them. I think that this is adequate proof that you’re wrong. If you persist in this blatant falsehood, then you may consider our friendship at an end.”. He hasn’t spoken to me since, and I count it no great loss.
I know I’ve written about my late law school room mate Leo, who was opnly, vocally anti-Semitic. And when he died in a stupid accident, half the students who drove to Philly for his funeral were Jews—because Leo treated everyone the same —great— despite his biases.
I’m sorry, Jack. I just couldn’t get past that one. I believe that this sort of inflammatory rhetoric MUST be confronted, and, with luck, beaten.
Oh, Leo was confronted by me and my three other room mates, day after day, sometimes for hours. He liked the arguments. He was also a racist,but it was all words. As a Marine, he had a high ethical and moral code. His conduct was impeccable….was he more ethical than someone who says all the right things, but is selfish, unfeeling and ruthless? Of course.
Yes?
Well, okay, the antisemitism charge is unfair as a broad application. They are struggling to suppress their shockingly large antisemitic minority, though, and that isn’t a good look.
The charge of infanticide is largely definitional. If you define it the way some on the right do, even a Plan B abortifacient is infanticide. Others define infanticide to require a viable fetus, or even a delivered, live fetus.
But the Democrats are much closer to any definition of infanticide than Republicans, taken as a whole. The problem is, the concept of infanticide is so morally repulsive the charge smacks of unfairness, especially when Americans can’t even agree on when an unborn child is actually a child.
On the other hand, the Democrats explicitly refused to condemn de facto infanticide, the killing of a live fetus after birth. So charging them with supporting actual infanticide is getting harder and harder to object to day by day.
As for socialism, well, the Green New Deal is res ipsa loquitur. In fact, it is beyond socialist and arguably totalitarian.
Infanticide is killing an infant. When a baby is born (one way or the other) and out of the womb, it is called an infant. I am unaware of Democrats who do not agree that those are infants. Killing an infant is infanticide. Only 3 Democrats in the Senate voted to make it illegal to kill such an infant. Since there is no disagreement that those are infants, there is no disagreement that what the Democrats have supported recently is infanticide.
As my longtime Usenet ally, Chris Morton, put it.
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2018/11/armed-guards-in-houses-of-worship-is-not-a-bad-idea-just-because-president-trump-suggested-it-mark-weinberg-opinion.html#vf-2523500018036