Posted on 01/19/2018 2:53:25 PM PST by Kaslin
One must remember that the Progressive/socialist ideology, relies on a demand for population control. Socialism requires that concept. If a reader doubts it, just do a little research.
“Ideas have consequences.”
The “idea” of socialism lies at the core of the Democrat Party’s cultish and oppressive Progressive ideology; and, for socialism to work, then, population must be restrained. See below:
Please note especially the first paragraph highlighted and quoted below from the Liberty Fund Library— http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/MckyT/mckyPL2.html#The Impracticability of Socialism — “A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation,” edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson’s essay, “The Impracticability of Socialism”:
Note the writer’s emphasis that the “scheme of Socialism” requires what he calls “the power of restraining the increase in population”—long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
“I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a ‘proletariat,’ and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
“I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the ‘ne’er-do-wells’?
I.45
“I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day’s length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
“Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove.” EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
Yeah, it’s frightening.
Can’t run short on long pork stew ingredients now can they?
Quite so. The sickness is part of the Lord’s judgment (on the society even if not on the person directly), though it can also serve as the occasion for the Lord to have great mercy that leads willing people back to repentance (re-yielding the usurped soul to Him).
To be socialist in a government sense is to substitute the government for God. Many distortions of the purpose of humanity are entailed in that substitution. A God once loved will go into various places in a person’s life to arrange grace in a way that only omnipotent love can do.
Killing a born baby is not abortion. Leftist b!tches want to be able to kill the baby that results from a “botched” abortion, because the presence of the baby is too embarrassing.
Feminazis are afraid that taking away their de facto right to kill the born baby will lead to them losing their precious abortion.
That’s beautiful! I’d like to get a bumper sticker like that.
Name the DEM Baby Killers! Name them all!
They are the party of evil....and we are a nation of evil because we allow it.
They have argued that they don't know when a child in it's mother's womb is a human being so it is OK to kill that child. There isn't any such argument that can be applied to a child that has exited it's mother's womb. It is legally a person. To kill a baby already born is unequivocally murder.
I am so sick of the Democrats saying we don’t care about babies once they are born. That is not true. However, we want the parents to have some responsibility for the child they brought into the world. I think that is caring don’t you?
By encapsulating it within a civil right meant that they could ignore the right to life.
They essentially ignored that it was a human baby and made people think that there was no natural law in place (as described by the Declaration of Independence) they instead judged it constitutionally which only brought the civil aspects of the issue thereby ignoring the humanity of the baby.
Roe lines up with the Dred Scott decision which did the very same thing. It ruled that since they do not recognize the humanity of the fetus, then it does not have to be afforded protection.
It was a slight of hand. It has been called a "penumbra" or a decision made in the shadow of the law.
Roe v. Wade is an evil law.
Of course they did. Demonrats want DEATH. They want the DEATH of babies. May God deal with them ever so severely, and also the women who contract for the murder of their own children.
ad in when te senate votes and it wll be around 230.
That is my question, too.
Difference of opinion on, say, tax rates are one thing.
This (those 183 votes) is just evil.
I saw a bumper sticker once that said *It’s easy to be pro-abortion when you’re not the one being killed.*
I thought it got the message across pretty clearly.
It gives the aborting woman a pass.
“Leftist b!tches want to be able to kill the baby that results from a “botched” abortion, because the presence of the baby is too embarrassing.”
I don’t get it, either. There is absolutely NO STIGMA attached any longer to having a child out of wedlock. In fact, Dems ENCOURAGE the Baby Mamas to keep having them so they stay on the dole and vote for them.
I’ll never understand it. Roe v. Wade is SUCH a crock. I wish there were a lawyer out there that would challenge it so people could SEE how full of holes it is!
Yeah I’m tired of Democrats lying about conservatives not caring about babies after they are born too. All they do is lie.
They are sickos, and watch out, if they are ever in power where they can’t be taken out like in some of our blue states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.