Epoch Times: "Citing Racial Discrimination, Black Leaders Target Roe v. Wade"

Article here, although it may be behind a paywall.  It's about the possibly-upcoming Supreme Court case about Planned Parenthood targeting black populations for abortions.

The comments are a mixed bag.  Apparently Planned Parenthood sent its minions out to blame everyone else for "forcing" unwanted children on young people who had already conceived them; another mentioned doing a school paper in the 70s on it and seems to claim that the absence of bad press back then proves Margaret Sanger was on the up and up.  Fortunately someone else commented--since a lot of those minions don't waste the time to read the articles they're criticizing once they receive their marching orders--that 70% of PP clinics are in black neighborhoods.  Couple that with the fact that "well, abortions are only one option we provide that isn't even a big part of the business no matter how much we promote it" is a deception, and you can see where the arrow of deliberateness is pointing.

But regardless, I think this is the inevitable result of the thinking that justified what became America's institution of chattel slavery, and even LBJ's own "southern strategy."  

I'm not confusing that with what they accused Nixon of.  I'm talking about the stuff that echoes what slaveowners used to tell their discontented slaves:  "If you leave the plantation, who will feed you?  Where will you find shelter? Who will give you clothing to wear?"

Is that really so far off from the welfare rhetoric we hear today?  

Of course it's not.  And it all stems from the notion that black people are unable to overcome, whether by their own efforts or by help from those bleeding-heart burdened White Men, their victimhood.  And no, I won't say "people of color" instead of "black" because American chattel slavery was primarily a phenomenon attached to people of African descent, not Latin America or Asia--even though in the early days, some slaveowners were black and some slaves were white; not to mention slavery that exists outside of or existed before western civilization itself.

Think about that the next time someone tries to convince you that white hegemony is an end in itself.  Accusations of being white on the inside will only get you so far.

Joe Biden disappoints again...

 ...and I don't mean because his oddly timed speech interrupted a show I was just starting to enjoy watching.

He seemed oddly morose at first--it would have been more odd if he hadn't shown any sympathy at all, but for a minute there I was wondering if he was going to get around to making a point--until I remembered that he had lost a son, himself; albeit under very different circumstances.

Then he tore into the gun lobby as if the only problem was that Congress and voters were simply afraid of gun manufacturers.

The same gun lobby that did not shoot up the school.

The same gun lobby that did not shoot his grandmother.

The same gun lobby that did not pass or fail the gun store background check.

The same gun lobby that did not exhibit many warning signs that went uncaught by red flag laws and federal NICS checks that state regulations cannot circumvent.

Meanwhile, Joe makes a number of incorrect statements; I no longer give him the benefit of the doubt, even in his upset state, in assuming he made an honest mistake.

Despite Joe's insistent repetition of the word, the shooter did not have any assault weapons.  He had a semiautomatic rifle that looks scary and may have had a pistol.  

The shooter carried in a bag full of ammunition, that at this time has been tentatively determined to have been in 30-round magazines, yet Joe insists that magazine capacity limits are important to legalize.  But if he had a whole bag full--that would probably be hundreds of rounds--what difference would it make if the contents of that bag was parceled into, say, ten 30-round clips or fifteen 20-round clips or thirty 10-round clips?  I don't think we're in the territory anymore where we can pretend it's worth talking about how small differences in inconvenience to a mass shooter might meaningfully affect the outcome.

And of course Joe holds little to no discussion about what drives someone like Tuesday's shooter to do something like that.  Instead he just wants to ban it.

Funny:  when we talk about banning abortion, the closest they come to agreeing with us is with rhetoric like "we need to make abortion unthinkable before we can make it illegal."  How nice:  take away all the things that make abortion seem like a worthwhile option before making it an unviable option directly.

I'm all for fixing things that make abortion appealing, separate from the legal considerations.  But why doesn't Joe and the rest of the gun control lobby feel the same way about that?  Why do they seem to think not only will gun violence go away but all other violence won't rise as violent people resort to other means?

I don't think they really fear another Bath, Michigan disaster even though that's what would happen.  I think the gun violence crusaders have a tactical opposition to guns but virtually none against violence.

Pro-life centers attacked in wake of SCOTUS abortion decision leak

Meanwhile, abortion clinics are "preparing" for the same thing to happen to them if the Supreme Court does end up scuttling Roe.  Even though, if the laws change, such acts would no longer be necessary--so to speak--to stop abortion.   Even though it hasn't happened since the last century. 

Well, abortionists and choicers, there goes all your pretense at moral superiority based on an allegedly more consistent life ethic.  Were you surprised at this level of violence?  We weren't.

So I've been taking in a little bit of news about the war in Ukraine...

 ...not obsessively, since I can do more by praying and donating to charitable relief agencies than by worrying myself to death giving my custom to the MSM.

An interesting point gets made about the refugees fleeing to Poland and through other Eastern European countries:  

They are predominantly women and children.

This isn't just a function of able-bodied men being required to stay behind, pick up a rifle, and defend their homeland.  It's that men will tend to do this for their families anyway.  It's not always about defending their homes literally, but it is about being the first line of defense, of giving one gun to Mom and telling her to go on ahead with the kids, while he stands in the breach with his own gun and promises to catch up later if possible.

Contrast this with what we've been seeing at our southern border, but moreso what the rest of Europe has been seeing, particularly in Germany and Scandinavia the past few years.  

In those cases?  More young single men than anything else.  What you would see if you took an army out of uniform and told them to casually infiltrate a target country.  The would-be noncombatants are there for political window dressing and colonization.

Those are not just men looking to take local wives and acculturate because the pickings are slim back home.  Those are people looking to export their way of life.  Do you want it?