Biden needs to do more to stop pro-abortion terrorists

 Washington Examiner:

A White House assistant press secretary finally condemned the violence of the pro-abortion group “Jane’s Revenge” this week, but voters need to see President Joe Biden himself make a stronger condemnation of the group, and, more importantly, the Department of Justice needs to start arresting and prosecuting them and their allies before people are killed.

In a statement posted this week, the pro-abortion group calling itself Jane’s Revenge claimed responsibility for 16 separate arson and vandalism attacks on pregnancy resource centers in 10 different states.

“You have seen that we are real, and that we are not merely pushing empty words,” the manifesto read. “We promised to take increasingly drastic measures against oppressive infrastructures. Rest assured that we will, and those measures may not come in the form of something so easily cleaned up as fire and graffiti.”

Pro-life groups have identified at least 20 separate attacks on pro-life facilities since someone leaked a draft Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade if published.

Asked to comment on the Jane’s Revenge manifesto, White House assistant press secretary Alexandra LaManna responded, “Violence and destruction of property have no place in our country under any circumstances, and the president denounces this.” This is a good start, but far stronger words and actions are needed.

The White House response was much better than that of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who, when asked if she would comment on the violence of pro-abortion groups, declined to condemn their violence, instead falsely claiming that “politicizing all of this is uniquely American.”

Unfortunately, the minimization of pro-abortion violence is not limited to the legislative branch. Biden’s choice to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, Kristen Clarke, has been outright hostile to pro-life organizations. Clarke has called pregnancy resource centers, which provide counseling to pregnant women about alternatives to abortion, “harmful” and “predatory.” No wonder Biden’s DOJ has not taken any action.

...

Democrats have their agenda and it does not appear to be one of protecting people they disagree with on abortion.

See, also:

Anti-abortion pregnancy centers scale up security, fearing additional attacks

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more