"Gee, how can we re-package our genocidal social engineering agenda in the cuddly All-American Apple Pie warmth and affection of a Frank Capra movie?"
Posted on 07/31/2005 2:46:34 PM PDT by wagglebee
true, its one of the many reasons I don't watch his show. (unless ann coulter is on)
Hard to imagine anything less "private" than a murder.
"Gee, how can we re-package our genocidal social engineering agenda in the cuddly All-American Apple Pie warmth and affection of a Frank Capra movie?"
This reminds me of when clinton tried to lie taxes into "contributions".
The public was not suckered by that one.
The butt sex mafia has gutted, bankrupted, and nearly ruined the church in this country. The bishops, sadly, have enabled these monsters and their minions. And, to borrow a line from Zell Miller, I am willing to challenge anyone to a duel who wants to try to disagree with that.
Shessh! Where do you get off saying "killing babies is cool"?
That's obscene.
Madprof indeed. Wash out your head.
Yes, the Left can perform some more "antics with semantics," advocating the same position as before, but cloaking it in different words--i. e., "privacy" for "choice"--just as, years ago, it cloaked the word "baby," or "child," in the more abstract word, "fetus." (A woman, excited about her pregnancy or one who experiences a miscarriage, at whatever stage, always speaks of the loss of a "baby," not a "fetus.")
With that said, JennysCool is correct that the government should not be making medical decisions for citizens, and, under the Founders' Constitution for a limited government, it would neither be making such decisions or "paying" for it. This highlights another clever euphemism that cloaks the Left's advocacy of destruction of one life by covering it with terms denoting it as being either "privacy," "choice," or "medical procedure" connected to another life (the mother).
Which idea on which side of the debate has the potential for providing more liberty for individuals?
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" — Thomas Jefferson on "Slavery"
To advocate human slavery, Jefferson believed and asserted here, required a denial or suspension of the concept of "Creator-endowed" life and liberty. The same can be said of the position the Democrats are trying to reframe.
Oh, to unravel all the tangles and to be able to see the threats to liberty bound together in their arguments.
We have wandered (or have been led) so far away from the philosophical premises of our liberty, laid out in our Declaration, incorporated in our Constitution's limitations on government power, and articulated in the massive writings of America's Founders, that we cannot easily extricate and identify the basic premises their position violates.
How about pulling out just 2 strands as a start?
1. "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."- Jefferson.
A "first principle" of our liberty is incorporated in the Declaration's assertion of "Creator-endowed" life, liberty, and rights, one of the "self-evident" truths Jefferson claimed reflected what he called "the American mind" of 1776.
JFK said it differently: "The world is different now....And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."
The Founders' declaration, if it is to mean anything, must mean that no person or collection of persons--not an overlord in a fiefdom; not a king; not a dictator; not a Priest, nor a President; not a Supreme Court nor a Congress; not even a parent--can arrogate to him(her)(them)self(ves) power to either grant or deny what is "Creator-endowed." President John Quincy Adams called the Declaration's assertions, "the only legitimate foundation of civil government."
If the foundation is eroded or abandoned, then where is the security for liberty for any person of any age?
2. On public funding: "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."- Jefferson
These words should guide the President and the Congress in considering public funding for purposes that conflict with the deeply-held beliefs of a large segment of the population of citizens. Democrats can advocate for their positions. Senator Frist can hold whatever personal position he wishes on embryonic stem cells and their uses. So can the Reagan family and all families who are struggling with illnesses. Under current law, all privately can contribute funds for research.
The Founders' Constitution, however, provided no mechanism by which government possessed a legitimate right to "compel a man" or to "take" from a citizen his/her hard-earned money to support the spread of ideas that were "abhorrent" to him/her. The talking heads of the Left love to quote Jefferson when they wish to "exclude" the use of public funds for "religious" purposes. They should be equally fond of his recognition of the danger of "tyrannical" use of the funds of religious citizens for purposes they consider to be threatening to the liberty of themselves and other citizens.
Though we are faced with difficult questions, many of them rooted in scientific discovery, science and technology also have provided us with advancements which allow us to "see" and observe human life in its earliest stages (making it less likely for ignorance to lead us to buy into the "antics with semantics" that devalue life in the womb). Technology also has made it possible for us to have easy access to the writings of the Framers of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and to the wisdom of the ages that preceded them. Armed with that knowledge, we can be better prepared to refute "counterfeit ideas" that might lead us to erroneous conclusions.
President Jefferson's First Inaugural contained these words:
"The essential principles of our Government... form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety." --1st Inaugural Address, 1801
The resulting moral wasteland leaves the field ripe for all sorts of language twister on serious issues (like abortion).
Nope, abortion itself is obscene, and dressing it up as a "medical decision" is diabolical.
Thoughtful post! Thanks!
They want to 'frame' the issue by basically lying about Republicans and conservatives .... oh, how typical.
Please take the child-killing rhetoric to DU, where they appreciate it.
and yet the MSM having orgasms at the notion of supporting this framing the debate (lying) effort.
Exactly. Lakoff is doing nothing new, that hasn't been done by run-of-the-mill marketers for years.It is a measure of the "rats' desperation that they are willing to pay for and cling pitifully to these nonstarters.
The paradox is, every time they come up with one of these new "frames", all we need to do is point it out, ie "reframe the frame" as a crass cynical manipulation, and poof! there it goes, up in smoke.
I agree; the less government intrusion the better.
Also, the right to privacy was NOT created out of thin air. Here's some insight on that:
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm
Lakoff however is selling books and getting paid to push his snake oil.
It is much like how algore started the err amerika ponze scheme.
Democrats have been trying this since Reconstruction, accusing Republicans of "waving the bloody shirt" when the GOP blamed them for starting the Civil War.
Mr. Lackoff (rhymes with...) is right when he says "choice" doesn't resonate, but he is wrong as to WHY.
It's a fallacious argument.
When you have sex without contraception, you ARE EXERCISING CHOICE.
But after conception, the issue moves from "choice" to RESPONSIBILITY, which is anathema to liberals.
We all must be careful not to let passion override our intellect because this will be a key issue in the next few election cycles.
God Bless FreeperNation!
If dems want to credibly talk about personal freedom, they're going to have to champion lower taxes, RKBA, and freedom of speech without PC constraints; plus they'll have to stop supporting things like government imposed smoking bans and other heavy-handed regulation on private business, thievery of private property for "public benefit" and many other issues that they will never touch with a 1000 mile pole.
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.