Pro-abortion feminists are growing ever more militant in their make-believe world that sees men and women as bitter rivals, if not outright enemies. They seem to view everything through a gender prism; people have to support Clinton not because she has a better agenda but because she's a woman.
Don't get me wrong; they also think she has a better agenda, but they are constantly thinking and speaking in terms of gender identification and loyalty. And all too often, they demonize men in the process -- whom they perceive as a threat to women's rights.
This adversarial culture the left fosters is not limited to gender. It includes race, economic "status" and every other imaginable category that can aid in their politics of division, on which their political power depends. WikiLeaks' revelations have confirmed that such polarization is integral to the modern Democratic Party's grand strategy for eventual one-party dominance.
If Clinton wins this election -- despite the tsunami of corruption and scandal that surrounds her, in which she is knee-deep -- she will believe she is politically bulletproof, and for good reason. She and husband Bill would never have behaved as cavalierly and recklessly as they have if they didn't think they possess a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card. I shudder to think what their mindset would be if Hillary were to be victorious.
She would pursue the abortion-on-demand agenda with abandon. She would appoint radical judges at all levels who share her worldview and her determination that the courts continue to rewrite laws that thwart the will of the people. She'd accelerate Barack Obama's war on religious liberty through the courts, lawless executive orders and other administrative avenues.
Some will say I'm exaggerating here -- that the left just wants to protect beleaguered women, who should have sole sovereignty over their "reproductive" decisions. Leftists aren't pro-abortion; they have benign motives, focused exclusively on the mother's choice and health.
Well, that may be true of some rank-and-file Democratic voters. But most leftist politicians, thought leaders and power brokers are pro-abortion extremists and coldly calculating in promoting their goals. They know that protecting the mother's health is rarely involved in abortion decisions. They know that pro-life advocates, many of whom are women, don't believe in suppressing women. But they also know that by characterizing pro-lifers as women-hating, totalitarian ogres, they will increase the odds that they'll keep moving their pro-abortion football down the field toward the end zone marked "death."
I wrote in 2004: "People I've debated on the (abortion) issue have generally taken the position that the baby in the womb is 'potential life' or a clump of cells or a zygote. They seemed to sense that they would have no legitimate argument in favor of abortion if they admitted the baby was a life. But as secular and humanistic influences have gained ascendance in our culture, I've anticipated the day when moral relativists would become so brazen as to discard their reliance on the argument that 'the fetus is not a human life.' Indeed, with the breathtaking scientific and technological advances -- such as the discovery that a baby in the womb smiles and feels pain -- it's practically inevitable that the pro-aborts will be forced to abandon that argument."
Fast-forward 12 years and see how inevitable it actually was. Mary Elizabeth Williams, writing on Salon, asks, "So what if abortion ends life?" She writes: "Of all the diabolically clever moves the anti-choice lobby has ever pulled, surely one of the greatest has been its consistent co-opting of the word 'life.' Life! Who wants to argue with that? Who wants (to) be on the side of ... not-life? ... The 'life' conversation is often too thorny to even broach. Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that's what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn't make me one iota less solidly pro-choice."
I don't like quoting just some of her statements and don't want to mislead as to her intent, so I strongly urge you to read her entire piece, where you can judge for yourselves these comments in context. But I must share one more passage. She writes: "Here's the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That's a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She's the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always."
I could comment on those assertions for hours but have run out of space. What do you mean "lest" you wind up looking as if you love death panels? That's exactly what you look like, as cold and heartless as your words on the page.
Leftist advocates will applaud such amoral muscle flexing, but I appeal to less extreme liberals, Democrats and never-Trumpers to understand the depth of the depravity of this mindset and understand that if you help elect Clinton, you are, among many other frightening things, empowering this evil worldview. Should I refrain from calling it "evil" for fear of offense or being labeled intolerant or an extremist? I think not. You can take that up with the babies whose lives are hanging in the balance.