Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

July 4, 2009

Liberal’s War on the Weak & (un)Planned Parenthood

July 4, 2009 | By | No Comments

margaret_sanger.jpgThe most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

Margaret Sanger

Founder Planned Parenthood

Happy 4th of July…

Alert students of Your Business Professor know that men are not equal to each other.

This is one of the great challenges in Business Law: understanding that the Law is King. Not the KIng is King. But Lex Rex.

Men are equal in the eyes of our Creator; in the eyes of the Law. Our governance and justice should be based on Natural Law and the original intent of our Constitution.

Conservatives and Liberals see equality, so to say, differently:

Conservatives:

Creator

Law

over

Man…..Man

Where all men are equal under the law.

The modern Liberal flow chart is different and cascades so,

Creator (irrelevant)

Law (extension of policy-judges become legislators/politicians)

man = man

Men are equal to each other under the new Liberal equation.

Conservatives however, would submit that each person has equal value under law, under the Creator.

But if the Liberal removes the Creator and Law simply becomes an extension of a political policy shop then the Liberal is left with only Man. Who must be then equal to one another. Because we still do believe in equality.

Maybe.

So how can we judge the new Liberal paradigm of equality without the Creator or the Law?

By observation — By how we treat the least among us. How we treat “retarded people.”

Since all men are obviously “not equal” directly to each other — what do liberals think of the weak, with no Creator? –

What do liberals think of those unequal in their liberal equation; what do they think of those “beneath” them?

***

NewsBusters’ Noel Sheppard saved us an article from the liberal Huffington Post, HuffPoster: ‘Palin Will Run In ’12 On More Retardation Platform’, July 3, 2009 – 19:52 ET

This is about as disgusting as Palin Derangement Syndrome can get.

A blog just published at the Huffington Post is disgracefully titled “Palin Will Run In ’12 On More Retardation Platform.”

The author, fiction and comedy writer Erik Sean Nelson… actually wrote the following (readers are seriously warned to proceed with caution as this is really vile stuff):

In Sarah Palin’s resignation announcement she complained about the treatment of her son Trig who always teaches her life lessons. She said that the “world needs more Trigs, not fewer.” That’s a presidential campaign promise we can all get behind. She will be the first politician to actually try to increase the population of retarded people. To me, it’s kinda like saying the world needs more cancer patients because they teach us such personal lessons.

Her first act as President: To introduce a Pre-K lunch buffet that includes lead paint chips. Sort of a Large HEAD-START Program.

She will then encourage women to hold off on pregnancies until their 40′s just to mix up some chromosomes.

She now is in favor of abortion only in case of diploid birth [normal chromosomes-this liberal is saying that Palin would only want abortions on “normal” babies. This passes for humor for abortion supporters].

Her policies will increase jobs because Wal-Mart is building new stores each day and someone has to be the greeter. [Liberals hate, just hate Wal-Mart.]

This will lead to smaller government because fewer Americans will have the cognitive ability to hold a government job

Wow. Is this what passes for comedy today?

It will be interesting to see how long this post stays up before someone at HuffPo pulls it.

Stay tuned.

*****Update: The article has been pulled, apparently by the author who claimed: “I got some emails from offended loved ones of the retarded. No one was seeing the absurdity of Palin hiding behind her children, so my piece was not accomplishing anything good.”

Imagine that.

Well, for posterity purposes, here’s a screen-cap of the piece courtesy NB reader Brett Scheer:

Nice job, [HuffPo writer] Erik. Don’t be a stranger.

–Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Liberals support Barack Obama’s vote against his state’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act before he became president. His vote would allow babies born alive — from a botched abortion — to die by withholding treatment.

Obama’s concern was that his vote might lead to overturning Roe v Wade which made abortion legal through all nine months – and beyond.

obama_thumbs_up.jpgHis philosophy is not new.

Barack Obama

Supports Planned Parenthood

This thinking was born, so to say, at the turn of the last century and made “popular” by Margaret Sanger, founder of modern Planned Parenthood.

In 2003, Edwin Black wrote a national bestseller War against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign To Create A Master Race.


War Against the WeakAuthor Edwin Black does not oppose abortion. But he is nevertheless horrified by the disgust that elite Americans feel for the weak, “the least among us.”

Edwin Black writes,

Sanger’s solutions were mass sterilization and mass segregation of the defective classes, and these themes were repeated often in [her book] Pivot of Civilization.

“The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period.

Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed male defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous.

Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem.

Moreover, when we realized that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.”

Edwin Black then guides us to Margaret Sanger’s solution,

Sanger was willing to employ striking language to argue against the inherent misery and defect of large families. In her book, Woman and the New Race, she bluntly declared,

“Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts.

The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

It would appear that liberal elitists like Obama, in keeping with Margaret Sanger’s world view, might have prefered that the Palins abort Trigg, Sarah’s Down syndrome newborn.

Why?

To avoid the “pain and despair” these children have and cause, so says Obama.

Because an unexpected child is a “punishment.”

What kind of political party would even consider a man with this world view to govern?

***

Edwin Black tells us more and connects the events in War Against The Weak,

During the period between the wars, the American [eugenics] movement viewed National Socialism [in Germany] as a rising force that could, if empowered, impose a new biological world order. [National Socialism] eugenicists promised to dispense with the niceties of democratic rule.

So even if America’s tower of legislation, well-funded research and entrenched bureaucratic programs still monopolized the world of applied eugenics in the 1920′s, National Socialism promised to own the next decade.

American eugenicists welcomed the idea.

Obama and the The Party of Death.

###

Thank you (foot)notes,

Follow us on Twitter: @jackyoest and @charmaineyoest

Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine are celebrating Independence Day at The Dude’s All Star baseball tournament with our large family — The Penta-Posse. When we got married we didn’t know it would be so large…and so much fun. This is (un)planned parenthood. What would Margaret Sanger and Cecile Richards say?

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0Buffer this pagePrint this pageEmail this to someone

Submit a Comment