NY Times Trashes Amy Coney Barrett Over Adoption

NY Times Trashes Amy Coney Barrett Over Adoption

NY Times Trashes Amy Coney Barrett Over Adoption

Let’s trash adoption! Yeah, that’s the ticket! The NY Times REALLY doesn’t want Amy Coney Barrett confirmed to the Supreme Court. Their newest tactic? Write up a garbage smear about her and their children.

“Judge Barrett has talked about their adoptions regularly in public speeches. She was inspired to adopt, she once explained, because “there are so many children in need.”

Just as everything with her nomination, the adoptions have been hard to totally separate from the politics of the moment.”

We are supposed to leave the children alone, but as we’ve seen multiple times, the children of conservatives are fair game if it wins points and advances the Democrat agenda. The NY Slimes wants us to believe that the Barrett’s adoption of two amazing children from Haiti was purely for political reasons.  One might think that this is just a continuation of the outrage over what she DARED TO SAY about her daughter Vivian!!

In highlighting how Vivian, with good medical care and loving support from her parents, was able to thrive after initial belief that she’d very likely be unable to walk, execrable liberals ran with scissors in an entirely different direction. 

“Elie Mystal, a justice correspondent at The Nation, reacted to this loving description by asking: “Did anybody else notice that Amy Coney Barrett told us her white children have intellectual goals while her black children can… deadlift? Or was that just me?””

So blinded by hatred of conservatives that a simple statement celebrating your child’s healing and growth is ackshually is a racist comment is quite the take. But Elie wasn’t alone in her stance. Some wanted to know if the adoptions were legal. 

“”So, here’s a Q: does the press even investigate details of Barrett’s adoptions from Haiti? Some adoptions from Haiti were legit. Many were sketchy as hell. And if press learned they were unethical & maybe illegal adoptions, would they report it? Or not bc it involves her children

— Dana Houle (@DanaHoule) September 25, 2020″”

Others proclaimed that the adoptions meant that the Barretts were trying to mask their overt racism by using their adopted children as props. 

Evidently, since The NY Times’ attacks on her faith were falling flat, they decided to jump on the ‘the adoptions are sketchy!’ bandwagon. Why? Because the adoption agency the Barretts used is no longer in existence. Conclusion= something fishy here!

If that isn’t enough, one “concerned mother” who also adopted children from Haiti believes that how the Barretts have raised their children over the last ten years warrants an investigation! What a load of horseshit!!

If the multiple FBI background investigations for this proceedings and Judge Barrett’s hearing and confirmation to the 7th Circuit didn’t uncover anything, why imply that there is some type of neglect or abuse being covered up??!! 

According to this article in the National Review, we are not supposed to treat people with contempt. We are supposed to handle ourselves with the same grace as Amy Coney Barrett does. We are supposed to ignore what the liberals are doing. Bringing up the social media attacks on Judge Barrett, her family, and her children is unnecessary. 

I beg to differ STRONGLY. Bringing up these attacks and shining a bright light on the left’s willingness to trash someone, their family, and their children is unequivocally NECESSARY.

The NY Times also is continuing the implication that Judge Barrett engaged in “white saviorism.” Which is another way of saying that she’s a white colonizer. 

Once again, I’ll say this. Responding to trash like this is VERY necessary. The Left despises conservatives and will trash us every way we can. Lying down and taking these attacks with grace in hopes that we can have a civil discussion on ideas won’t stop the NY Times, liberals, and other media outlets from publishing disgusting tripe like this. They’ll just get bolder and continue to cross the line knowing not many will stand up and say ENOUGH!

Senator Mitch McConnell called the Times on the carpet. 

““The political left and the press should leave Judge Barrett’s children alone. The nominee introducing her family in a few sentences of prepared remarks does not give the New York Times license to start treating minor children like objects of public curiosity.

“This is a strange pattern for the New York Times. In 2005, another Supreme Court nominee from another Republican president also had adopted children. The Times tried to make an issue of them too. Nonpartisan adoption advocates had to publicly shame the newspaper before they dropped the story. One such group restated two weeks ago that this entire “thread of conversation” should be “off the table.” Too bad the Times ignored them.”

Senator McConnell correctly points out that if the same type of attack had been put forth against a liberal, the world would be on fire right now. But since this is an attack against a conservative, everything is fine. 

This trash can smear shows just how desperately the media wants Judge Barrett’s confirmation to fail. 

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

Feature Photo Credit: garbage waste by RitaE via Pixabay, cropped and modified

Written by

9 Comments
  • Frank J. Derfler says:

    They had to do it They had to over-reach.. They can’t help themselves. It’s a DNA-Driven response to a perceived threat. The alternative response is to throw steaming clumps of hypocrisy at the accusers.

  • Robin H says:

    The pro-choice people scream at us that we have no right to tell them what to do if we’re not willing to adopt all the babies. So when someone does adopt the babies this is what they do. The definition of being a liberal is to be able to hold 2 contradictory ideas at the same time.

    • Formerly known as Skeptic says:

      They are not contradictory ideas, they are contradictory positions. They don’t actually believe either of them.

    • rbj1 says:

      And then the pro-baby killers with scream “what about special needs kids?”

      Barretts adopt two.

      Next is “Third world kids!”

      Haiti.

  • GWB says:

    Just as everything with her nomination, the adoptions have been hard to totally separate from the politics of the moment.
    Well, no, it isn’t actually hard to do at all.
    Unless, of course, you’re projecting. Which most progressive “journalists” are.

    the Barrett’s adoption of two amazing children from Haiti was purely for political reasons
    Because for them it would be. They would have to adopt one child from each continent so their family would be truly diverse. Then they would have to raise each of them in their original culture (as skewed by progressivism). Ultimately they would have to disown each of them because they had “appropriated” them.
    It’s a very sick religion they practice.

    trying to mask their overt racism by using their adopted children as props
    More projection. Mostly it’s progressives who use their children as props – live ones and dead ones (before or after birth).

    Bringing up these attacks and shining a bright light on the left’s willingness to trash someone, their family, and their children is unequivocally NECESSARY.
    Concur. Because if you aren’t willing to talk about it, then you’re really just hiding from the conflict. Everyone else can see it. They want to know what you’re going to do about it.

    Judge Barrett engaged in “white saviorism.”
    Now, there are people who do this. It’s not usually “white savior”-ism, though. It’s just a feeling of 1st World superiority.
    Having said that, I seldom worry about it, because those kids are better off in a family trying to love them and provide for them than in an institution somewhere.

    This trash can smear shows just how desperately the media wants Judge Barrett’s confirmation all doubleplus ungood wrongthinkers to fail.

  • Sam L. says:

    I quit reading the National Review in 2015 when the went NEVER TRUMPER. Cut ’em off cold.

    • GWB says:

      I stopped sometime after Buckley passed, as they drifted more and more into what seemed to be Republicanism over conservatism. It seemed to always be about electing Republicans, no matter how awful they were on the principles NR claimed.

      (Oh, and it’s standard practice to doubt your reading of them at all, since you called them “the National Review”. Just had to point that out. 😉 )

  • Christopher Woodward Connor says:

    Elie Mystal Is a guy

  • Sgt Grumble says:

    A different Kennedy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram
Instagram did not return a 200.