Progressives plot to kill 'human weeds

wnd.com ^ | 11/15/2014 | unknown

[rktman]

In the early years of the 20th Century, the “science” of eugenics spread across America, from pulpits to statehouses, with religious zeal.

The underlying premise of the eugenics movement was that the undesirable traits of parents would invariably be passed on to their children. While the scientific basis for this assumption had little data to support its conclusions, the new “science” was quickly embraced by the American progressive movement and many of the wealthy.

Early funding for eugenics projects came from such wealthy Americans as John Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and oil magnate and founder of the 3-in-1 Oil Company, James Noah H. Slee, the second husband of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. The term eugenics was coined by Sir Francis Galton, a British anthropologist, progressive and scientist. The Galton family were prosperous Quakers who made their fortune in manufacturing guns.

[rktman]

I suppose the current margie sanger proponents could have called themselves "planned NON-parenthood". But, that might have given their goals away.

[john drake]

Gee, the Nazis were eugenic freaks too, whom Margaret Sanger’s gang consorted with early on. So much love amongst elitist, humanitarians, I can’t stand it. sic.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/obamacare-guru-boasted-abortion-lowered-crime/

[Jack Hydrazine]

Georgia Guide Stones

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.

10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

[ronnie raygun]

undesirable traits of parents DEF:
LIBERTY, FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, PERSUTE OF HAPPINESS, ENTREPRENURIAL INDIVIDUALS, CAPITALISM, FREE ECONOMY, FREE THINKING, PATRIOTIC, LOVE OF ONES COUNTRY,RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, FAMIL AND GOD
This is what threatens them and thier quest for control!

[Cowboy Bob]

Why? Human weeds are what gives Progressives power. Without the poor underclass to give them votes at an election, the progressives would have no support. They would merely be sitting around in coffeehouses, congratulating themselves about how superior they are to the average working man.

[MuttTheHoople]

Progressives plot to kill 'human weeds

They planning mass suicide?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Progressives are human weeds.

[M Kehoe]

Progressives plot to kill 'human weeds

Suicide?

5.56mm

[rockinqsranch]

Wealth, “Money is Power”.

“Power corrupts”.

Not all, but those it does effect the lives of many.

[chris37]

It seems to me that Weed B Gone might be in order here...

Overgrown garden is getting out of hand.

[HLPhat]

>>I suppose the current margie sanger proponents
>>could have called themselves “planned NON-parenthood”.

Parents? Those are soo 1950’s.

These days the NEA has the best test tubes that progressive government money can buy.

[Parmy]

Wealth, “Money is Power”. “Power corrupts”. Not all, but those it does effect the lives of many.

The modern money people like Gates, Buffett, Soros, Bloomberg are now the ones proposing all kinds of gun laws while they, in their superiority, have armed guards to protect their funky butts.

[MUDDOG]

Hitler called human beings “planetary bacilli.”

[Liz]

Obamacare is all about the federal government making decisions on behalf of Americans because -- as Gruber and his liberal brethren would argue -- the stupid people are unable or unwilling to make the choices that elites believe advance the social good.

Obama, and these hate-filled deranged fiends, would have us live our lives as they see fit.

The preening, duplicitous Gruber---the embodiment of cockamamie far-left thinking---apparently believes it’s his moral duty to lie, deceive and collude w/ the US govt......so that these revolting ideas can be imposed on us "sub-mental defectives' taking up valuable space in progresives' Utopian America.

[Carry_Okie]

To me, there is a big difference between abortion and forced sterilization. In the latter case, as decided by a judge or jury, it is deprivation of a liberty, true, but it is not killing anybody. There really are people out there who should not have kids. Some have simple genetic problems. (my wife deals with them in the Newborn Intensive Care Unit) but there really are people out there bearing kids with no intention of caring for them and every intention of continuing behavior during pregnancy guaranteed to produce a kid with big and lifelong problems that fall on everyone and deprive other kids of resources they do need, and they do it repeatedly. Then there are the sickos: for example, I do know of cases in which two people with cystic fibrosis got married and decided to have kids so that they could ‘share’ the experience of raising kids with CF. To me, this kind of selfishness, these kinds of pregnancies, are akin to child abuse, never mind the raiding of the public treasury for personal pleasure for which a remedy, albeit unpleasant, exists. Under the circumstances, all of the options are unpleasant and non-ideal. To me, forced sterilization with appropriate due process of law is the least damaging.

[MrEdd]

As I get older the difference I see is that the advocates for one need to be slid through a wood chipper into a pig trough, where as the advocates for the other need to be drenched in napalm and catapulted into a blast furnace.

[HLPhat]

>>Obama, and these hate-filled deranged fiends,
>>would have us live our lives as they see fit.

Quack, waddle...

“...Meanwhile, the political, business and military elites of such countries tend to monopolize the financial and economic elements around which society is structured. Thus it develops that communism eventually – no matter the sincerity with which it is adopted – merely becomes a pretext for elite control of society. At the top there is repression and monopoly, at bottom there is savage .competition between the impoverished masses...”
(Communism)
http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/1900/

... “We’re conservative” {uhh} “but progressive” duck.

[Carry_Okie]

As I get older the difference I see is that the advocates for one need to be slid through a wood chipper into a pig trough, where as the advocates for the other need to be drenched in napalm and catapulted into a blast furnace.

So you are against the death penalty as well? It would be inconsistent were you not.

We have in our Constitution enumerated and vested the power to take life in our government, pursuant to the due process of law. How is this different, other than that it isn't even taking a life?

[wagglebee]

To me, there is a big difference between abortion and forced sterilization.

Yes, one is barbaric and terminates a life, while the other is barbaric and eliminates all possibility of life.

In the latter case, as decided by a judge or jury, it is deprivation of a liberty, true, but it is not killing anybody.

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

It kills future generations.

There really are people out there who should not have kids.

Sounds familiar:

Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies"

Some have simple genetic problems. (my wife deals with them in the Newborn Intensive Care Unit) but there really are people out there bearing kids with no intention of caring for them and every intention of continuing behavior during pregnancy guaranteed to produce a kid with big and lifelong problems that fall on everyone and deprive other kids of resources they do need, and they do it repeatedly. Then there are the sickos: for example, I do know of cases in which two people with cystic fibrosis got married and decided to have kids so that they could ‘share’ the experience of raising kids with CF.

Again, very familiar:

[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
-- Margaret Sanger

To me, this kind of selfishness, these kinds of pregnancies, are akin to child abuse, never mind the raiding of the public treasury for personal pleasure for which a remedy, albeit unpleasant, exists.

I see, they're stealing money from the "collective" is that right? Again, not a new idea, just a twisted and barbaric one.

“This person suffering from hereditary defects

costs the people 60,000 Reichmarks during his lifetime.

People, that is your money. Read ‘New People’.”

Under the circumstances, all of the options are unpleasant and non-ideal. To me, forced sterilization with appropriate due process of law is the least damaging.

So, you believe that the Constitution allows for taking life and liberty WITHOUT ANY CRIME BEING COMMITTED so long as there is due process? What twisted group did you get this idea from?