Why Do The Democrats Hate Children?

Why do Democrats Hate Children?

By: Sandra Friedemann

Every time there’s a headline involving Democrats and children it is evident that as a group, Democrats hate children. Not only do they appear to hate them, they appear to enjoy, support and promote sexually and mentally abusing and killing them.

They want to abort them, even when a fetus is shown to probably be viable after 24 weeks. Even if that means crushing the baby’s skull and tearing that fetus apart limb by limb in order to “deliver” it. That’s what a late term abortion is.

Let’s be real here. Pregnancy in any case is dangerous. There is a lot that can go wrong during those 39 weeks. Saying “mother’s health” is equivalent to saying “mother’s breathing.” The solution to not getting pregnant is often (most often) simple: don’t do it. Take the pill. Use a condom. Use a cervical shield or IUD.

In cases of rape or incest, as abhorrent as abortion is, let the mother do what she thinks is best for her but don’t let her wait until that child is past the 15th week. Then it’s more like an act of revenge against the perpetrator and the child than it is a solution to a painful problem.

If an abortion doesn’t quite work and the child survives, Democrats in some states give the mother the right to let the child die without any attempt being made to save its life.

Governor Jay Inslee of Washington State is so determined to let babies be killed that he and the state legislature passed a law prohibiting any law similar to the Texas “Heartbeat Law” from being considered.

If an adult sexually assaults, abuses, penetrates or traffics a child, that’s okay by them, too. Just ask Biden’s SCOTUS nominee, Kentanji Brown Jackson who thinks that even basic sentences for child rapists and abusers are “too harsh.” This is flabbergasting — woman has two daughters of her own. How can any mother think that “it’s okay” to go easy on predators who might one day attack her children?

Kentanji Jackson also objects to requiring sex offenders to register with local law enforcement. In 1996, while in law school, she wrote:

“Community notification subjects ex-convicts to stigmatization and ostracism, and puts them at the mercy of a public that is outraged by sex crimes. Civil commitment sacrifices a fundamental right — freedom — indefinitely, based solely upon unreliable assessments of the convict’s predilection to commit future sex crimes.”

Let’s utterly ignore the fact that the vast majority of sex offenders who are sent to prison and released attack again, or that uncaught sex offenders tend to continue and escalate; never mind that putting sexual predators into communities puts vulnerable segments of society — women and children — at risk. Nope! The rights of sex offenders supersede the rights of women and children.

Senator Josh Hawley did some digging into Jackson’s background. What Senator Hawley found is appalling if you love children and believe they should be protected against sexual predation (emphasis added):

“…as a judge, she routinely handed out light sentences, but was especially lenient in child pornography cases. On average, Jackson’s sentencing was just over three years below the sentence requested by government prosecutors, and approximately five years below the bottom of the applicable sentencing guidelines range, the analysis found.”

This has led Senator Chuck Grassley to demand more of her records.

In many Democrat-run states, counties, and cities children must be masked, even though there is absolutely zero scientific proof that children need to be masked to protect them against COVID. In fact, there is significant proof that children are far less likely to get sick from and/or die from COVID than an adult.

Never mind the psychological and developmental damage done to the children who are confronted by masked adults and older siblings. The very mechanics of speech development are retarded by the fact that infants and toddlers can no longer see or mimic the mechanics of sound formulation. Never mind that the CDC has had to revise its child development standards downward because children born in the last two years simply are not developing as rapidly as they used to. And that lack of development has zero to do with physical development. It’s mental, emotional, and communication development, which, if you think like a hardcore fascist, isn’t all that bad a thing. After all, if you don’t want people to engage in free speech, keep them from learning to speak in the first place.

On top of all of this, it is obvious that Democrats want white children to grow up feeling intensely guilty for being white and being gratefully subservient to anyone of any shade other than white because wherever CRT is being taught, white children are being taught to hate themselves for being natural born “oppressors” and “racists” regardless of their actual thoughts and feelings about others. What else is the purpose of the 1619 Project and its offshoot Critical Race Theory meant for?

Just take a look at the five basic tenets of CRT:

The premise is that (emphasis added): “…racism in the United States is normal, not aberrational: it is the ordinary experience of most people of colour.” Even though “…extreme racist attitudes and beliefs are less common among whites than they were before the mid-20th century…” that’s not good enough. Instead, society is expected to turn itself inside out and upside down to make sure the desired outcome (whatever that might be) is achieved.

What’s tragic in this is that CRT is inherently and fundamentally racist in and of itself.

While it teaches that anyone of color is a victim of “whitey,” it subliminally teaches anyone of color who follows it to its logical end that they cannot do any better on their own unless “whitey” is beaten down and put in a subservient position. Does it seem right and just to teach an entire generation of children that if they’re white they’re evil and if they’re not, they can’t get ahead unless their white counterparts are beaten and bullied and put in their place? How is this going to play out in eight and ten years’ time? How many white children, already emotionally struggling with normal adolescence and holding a barrel of self-hate because of a genetic aspect over which they have zero control, are going to descend deeper into emotional turmoil, perhaps even flirt with suicide, because they feel hopeless? Is this the goal of the Democrats? Is this what they want?

So can anyone respond to the fundamental question:

Why do Democrats hate children?


The above article (Why do Democrats Hate Children?) is republished here under “Fair Use” (see the TLB disclaimer below article) with attribution to the articles author, Sandra Friedemann and website americanthinker.com.

TLB Project recommends that you visit the American Thinker website for more great articles and information.

Read more great articles by Sandra Friedemann.

Image Credit: Photo in Featured Image (top) – by Alexas_Fotos from Pixabay


Click on the image below to visit site:



Stay tuned to …


The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.