Biden Regime Economic Devastation Goes too Far: Beer Shortage

I was listening to Glenn Beck’s radio show before the Biden regime’s raid on President Donald Trump’s home, but it’s still worth discussing, as it ties in. Beck dropped a thought experiment that, well… made me think (nice work Glenn) and want to ask questions.

After interviewing a guest who was a tad pessimistic about the survival of the United States of America as we’ve known it and as the Founders intended it, Beck wondered how we go forward. He wondered if we would have another civil war. 

To avoid civil war, Beck pondered whether our nation might need another “slavery compromise” over today’s arguable moral equivalent of slavery: abortion.

At the time of the Constitution, though most of the Framers denounced slavery as an institution (even many slaveholders did), some southern states would not have ratified the document if it fully abolished slavery immediately. 

John W. York, formerly of The Heritage Foundation, wrote, “The Founders were under no illusions that slavery was in any way consonant with the principles at the very foundation of our regime.” 

He cites anti-slavery quotes from the most famous of the Founders:

“‘… [E]very measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States …. I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in abhorrence … .’—John Adams, Letter to Evans, 1819.”

“‘Slavery is … an atrocious debasement of human nature.’—Benjamin Franklin, an Address to the Public from the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, 1789.”

“‘There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of [slavery].’—George Washington, Letter to Morris, 1786.”

But they did compromise, which allowed this great nation to come into existence while trusting the inevitable end of slavery to future generations. And it worked. Although, no one can deny the high cost and the suffering of so many during the interim. 

Beck suggested that America, as divided as it is, may need to move forward by agreeing to another “compromise,” this time with abortion. Beck offered some suggestions (thinking out loud) that Americans could compromise on to move forward.

In this compromise, abortion would continue in all 50 states, but no new abortion clinics could be built anywhere. Similar to actions how no new slaves could be imported into the U.S. Americans would have to depend on a similar “expiration date” dependent on further human enlightenment.

Beck’s ideas were interesting, and I understand his impetus based on his iron grasp of the Constitution. However, why should the left compromise when they can continue lying, cheating, and ignoring the law? Which we are now seeing with the raid on Trump’s home in Florida.

Despite this proclivity, Beck’s notion struck me for a different reason. I thought about slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries compared with abortion in the 20th and 21st centuries. 

Are the two evil institutions more similar than we may think? Ironically, it’s primarily the Democrats who’ve, in each of these time periods, favored preserving each of these barbaric institutions.

With slavery, there was never any doubt those in bondage were human beings (though racists considered them “inferior”). Its proponents simply reduced the slaves’ humanity to where they could be considered property, and the owners could exploit their labor–and worse. 

Similarly, with abortion, proponents refuse to recognize a prenatal human being’s humanity, and not only for religious reasons, but also despite the growing human beings having their own unique DNA. 

Similar to a slave, the pro-abortion factions reduce or even negate a prenatal baby’s humanity so he or she can be considered the sole “property” of the woman (who is responsible for only half the DNA) and who then justifies destroying that “property” at will—as slave owners did with their “property.”

Many people have seen, either at its release or since, the phenomenally successful mini-series, Roots. Remember Chuck Connor’s character, Tom Moore, a brutal slave master? This YouTube scene involving Moore and his female slave, “Kizzy,” is called, “It’s not rape if she’s your property….”

Similarly, with abortion, I suppose, it’s not murder if the baby is your property–rather than an individual human being.

The wicked similarity was bolstered when a ghoulish Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) spoke so blood-chillingly about abortion. She wants to, according to the Post Millennial, close crisis pregnancy centers that help women choose to keep their babies. That used to be a good thing on all sides of the issue. But Warren says helping them keep their babies “tortures women.”

I swore I was about to see her teeth sweat, her eyes morph red, and a coat of coarse grey fur sprout from her skin. And she doesn’t even need a full moon. I thought about the Roots’ scene mentioned above and how it’s not rape if she’s your property, and it’s not murder if…. The bloodlust is chilling, indeed.

Liz “Mags Sanger” Warren said, “In Massachusetts right now, the crisis pregnancy centers are there to fool people who are looking for pregnancy termination help outnumber true abortion clinics by 3:1. We need to shut them down here in Massachusetts and we need to shut them down all around the country. You should not be able to torture a pregnant person like that.”

Think about just how ugly that statement is—on so many levels. First, it’s totalitarian. Second, it’s malevolent. And third, it’s senseless—unless you’re not just “pro-choice,” but you’re not only pro-abortion but also anti-pregnancy.

Democrats have kissed bye-bye to Bill Clinton’s “abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.”  

Could it be, as with slaveholders, that people like Warren do not see some human beings as human? During a human’s existence, which rudimentary science tells us begins at conception and continues until death, he or she will pass through many stages of life, some inside the womb, most outside. Since, from the moment of conception, there is life (as opposed to death or non-existence), how can ending an innocent person’s life at any stage of his or her existence be anything other than immoral?

If someone wants to live in a state that allows the killing of prenatal human babies at all the various stages of pre-birth, they can do that. They can live in abortion states just as some people before the “slavery amendments” chose to live in slave states. Who was it who said, “the more things change, the more they remain the same?” 

Express your thoughts