Defund The First One

Discussion in 'Congress' started by Flanders, Aug 4, 2015.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,628
    Thanks Received:
    743
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,034
    It’s hard to get a handle on where Bill O’Reilly and Charles Krauthammer stand on the causes driving killing babies and selling their organs:


    If you listened to the video you heard Krauthammer lay Planned Parenthood butchery on Democrats in the Congress catering to their constituencies. He was correct as far as he went, but he is a galaxy away from the origin of the slaughter. The XVI Amendment is the origin.

    Obviously, Democrats would not be killing any babies if the Congress did not have the revenues to pay for them. So long as tax dollars pay for the entire culture of death the butchery will continue. Put it in perspective by imagining a contract killer murdering anyone for free.

    The one thing top Democrats in Congress fear more than anything else is defunding ONE LIBERAL PROGRAM. It matters not which one is first —— the rest will fall like the proverbial dominoes after the first one goes down.

    O’Reilly and Krauthammer each have one foot in heaven and the other foot in hell. Neither learned person seems to realize that the education industry is the Democrat party’s largest, wealthiest, and most influential constituency. Condemning Planned Parenthood, while praising public education controlled by liberals as it is today, is a tragedy in everyone with a public voice. They can talk about constituencies, philosophy, life over death, and cold-blooded cruelty until the end of time, and nothing will turn this country around so long as the work done by individuals is taxed.

    The wealthiest parasites adsorb the most tax dollars. So to suggest Congress should abolish every form of the tax on income, I am basically suggesting eliminating coerced charity as well as striking at the foundations of the New World Order’s grand strategy; absentee ownership, Wall Street’s gambling casinos, corporate welfare, and the big one —— bringing the phoney global economy to a screeching halt. Nothing the wealthiest parasites have done so far would have been possible without income tax revenues.

    Parenthetically, I could list at least a hundred agencies, programs, political causes, and policies that can only be interpreted as a choice between the First Amendment the XVI Amendment, while you will never hear pundits tying the income tax to anything Democrats do. Even those well-meaning conservatives who believe they are defending the Constitution often choose the Income Tax Amendment over the First Amendment. For all of the talk about replacing the current tax code with a flat tax, a VAT, a fair tax, etc., there seems to be an inbred fear of mentioning repealing the Income Tax Amendment let alone doing it.

    FOLLOW THE INCREMENTALISM:

    The XVI Amendment was implemented —— NOT RATIFIED —— in 1913. Planned Parenthood was born in 1916 (pun intended). The 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. Federal funding for Planned Parenthood began in 1970, but the law did not include funding abortion.

    In 1973 seven lawyers decided killing babies was in the Constitution. Seven lawyers not only decriminalized infanticide, they overturned the 1970 unwritten prohibition against funding abortion. Abortion was a criminal offense in 1970; so there was no reason to prohibit funding in a law.

    Questions:

    1. Did those evil women led by Margaret Sanger way back in 1916 see the XVI Amendment as an incremental path to slaughtering 55 million babies and still counting?

    2. Did the 19th Amendment contribute anything to a civilized society that is worth 55 million murdered infants?

    3. Are those horrific Democrat women in elected office the only reason for the 19th Amendment?

    4. Margaret Sanger died in 1966, many of those women who started with her on the long march were still alive in 1970, did they see that federal funding was the end of the long march to force everyone to support their beliefs?

    5. How much did Margaret Sanger’s evil philosophy influence those seven MALE lawyers who created a woman’s constitutional Right to murder their own children?

    6. How many terrible horrors will women like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and their sisters, set in motion for future generations?

    If Hillary Clinton & Company learned anything about incrementalism from Margaret Sanger it is this: Killing children after they are born is just one more step toward the horrors they have in store for future generations.

    Incidentally, the culture of death that gave Americans infanticide is championed by the same people who are concerned about leaving a pristine world to their children and grandchildren. Many of those parasites are already paid tax dollars. One can only wonder what their incremental horrors will give us.

    NOTE: The few decent women in elected office never accomplish much because of liberalism’s grip on the country’s mores through the media.

    Democrat women implement their feminist agenda. Republican women never frame their opposition as “Us against you.” Indeed, Republican women always fall into the trap of bipartisanship, while bipartisanship to Democrat women is defined by one rule “It is our way or no way.”

    Never forget that evil women, and power-mad men, always start out by portraying their brutality as humane Rights buttressed by moral certainty. Throughout history, everything protectors did for the downtrodden masses always ended up enslaving, or slaughtering, the very people being protected:

    The people always have some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness. . . . This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector. Plato

    You can hear Plato crying every time Hillary Clinton opens her mouth to talk about protecting a woman’s Right to kill the baby in her womb.

    Finally, the odds of Congress defunding Planned Parenthood are a trillion to one against. The odds are higher against defunding a federal agency, a political cause, or a liberal program sated with tax dollars. Defunding Planned Parenthood is on the same bottom line as is the media’s charade played out anytime talk about defunding any group of parasites pops up.

    Listen closely and you will see that shifting the tax dollars Planned Parenthood receives annually to clinics that do not perform abortions only changes a parasite’s place of employment. That will not save every infant, but it is certainly a benefit for unborn children that would be killed by a heavily funded Planned Parenthood.

    Congress sending tax dollars and parasites to different locations has no effect on the systemic problems created by the XVI Amendment. In short: It is not about the health of women. The immutable policy is about not firing one single parasite. See this thread about not firing anybody:


     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2015
  2. ScienceRocks
    Online

    ScienceRocks Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    56,552
    Thanks Received:
    5,532
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    The Good insane United states of America
    Ratings:
    +21,800
    There's going to be 11.2 billion humans on this planet by 2100 based on the latest estimates. If you wish to do away with abortion,,,well, it is probably going to be a good amount higher. BETTER START SUPPORT SCIENCE and investment into education to feed and give these people a chance!
     
  3. The Irish Ram
    Offline

    The Irish Ram LITTLE GIRL / Ram Tough

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    13,142
    Thanks Received:
    3,164
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    diagonally parked in a parallel universe
    Ratings:
    +12,284
    It is the agenda of the population control folks in Brussels. Gays don't propagate, and neither do the dead. And we vote for it.
     
  4. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,628
    Thanks Received:
    743
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,034
    To Matthew: Humans live longer and healthier than at any time in history when the population was a fraction of what it is today. That should tell you something.

    Incidentally, if you are concerned with overpopulation you should scream the loudest about opening the borders to millions of illegal alien —— in addition to the United Nations parasites writing our immigration laws by defining the meaning of diplomatic immunity so they could force refugees on this country for economic reasons. The scum in the Congress stand silent so they can come here.

    To The Irish Ram: Good point.

    Just a reminder that population control butchers are not all in Brussels:


    In any event, John Kerry let the true reason behind abortion slip out in his losing bid for the presidency:

    But Kerry has gone what in better days would have been universally held to be one bridge too far. In a speech last year to the NARAL Pro-Choice America Dinner, he gave an intellectually suicidal summary of his views.

    He began by saying that "there is no overturning of Roe v. Wade." He went on: "There is no outlawing of a procedure necessary to save a woman's life or health." That statement of course begs the question on which the entire Congress and the state legislatures and the Supreme Court have been stalled for years, namely, Is the invocation of "health," if made by the woman alone, conclusive in authorizing abortion? If so, Roe v. Wade, which did not authorize willful third-trimester abortions, stands to be revised as the Roe-Wade-Kerry decision.

    Kerry continued: "There (shall be) no more cutbacks on population control efforts around the world." This endorses abortion Chinese-style. Too many people? Too few abortions.

    But the eye-popper was still to come: "We need to honestly and confidently and candidly take this issue out to the country and we need to speak up and be proud of what we stand for."

    Crooked thought
    William F. Buckley
    February 26, 2004

    Crooked thought - William F. Buckley - Page 1

     
  5. The Irish Ram
    Offline

    The Irish Ram LITTLE GIRL / Ram Tough

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    13,142
    Thanks Received:
    3,164
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    diagonally parked in a parallel universe
    Ratings:
    +12,284
    We are pretending this is a woman's health issue. It is not. The women are, for the most part, healthy when they walk in and healthy when they walk out. If they aren't then they are sent to an OBGYN or the hospital.
    Proof of that was in the defund bill. That didn't remove money slated for women's health, just redirect it out of the hands of the parts salesmen. It failed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,628
    Thanks Received:
    743
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,034
    To The Irish Ram: The test will come for Congress when the Chicago sewer rat vetoes the final bill to defund. Will Congress override his veto or not? My guess is that they will not.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. The Irish Ram
    Offline

    The Irish Ram LITTLE GIRL / Ram Tough

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    13,142
    Thanks Received:
    3,164
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    diagonally parked in a parallel universe
    Ratings:
    +12,284
    I agree. To those who think these are cells, we're destroying, this could have been you at the whim of your mom. And as the "parts" industry gets more lucrative, PP will be teaching our kids how TO get pregnant, so they can "fix it".
    [​IMG]
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2015
  8. Penelope
    Offline

    Penelope Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2014
    Messages:
    21,567
    Thanks Received:
    1,701
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +8,315
    Abortion should not be used as BC, not only that they are having unprotected sex. Planned parenthood , abortions among 3 % of what they do, the rest is pap smear, treatment and testing for VD and BC and condoms. Yes they sell tissue, not organs, so they say, the charge is for getting tissue and shipping it.

    I say why have separate place for Women, should they be under AFA, and in that case we should not pay for abortions. If a man and womon get pg and don't want a baby, let them pay.
     
  9. irosie91
    Offline

    irosie91 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    52,033
    Thanks Received:
    3,959
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Ratings:
    +14,642
    right----and if a man or a woman is starving and impoverished----don't feed them or their children------LET THEM PAY---or starve to death
     
  10. paddymurphy
    Offline

    paddymurphy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Messages:
    4,020
    Thanks Received:
    629
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Ratings:
    +1,483
    Sanger, on abortion:

    So, too, with woman’s struggle for emancipation. Women in all lands and all ages have instinctively desired family limitation. Usually this desire has been laid to economic pressure. Frequently the pressure has existed, but the driving force behind woman’s aspiration toward freedom has lain deeper. It has asserted itself among the rich and among the poor, among the intelligent and the unintelligent. It has been manifested in such horrors as infanticide, child abandonment and abortion."

    "While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."

    "Human society must protect its children–yes, but prenatal care is most essential! The child-to-be, as yet not called into being, has rights no less imperative."

    "To each group we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not begun."

    She turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics: “I do not approve of abortion.” She called it “sordid,” “abhorrent,” “terrible,” “barbaric,” a “horror.” She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names who perform operations for the price of so-and-so.” She called the results of abortion “an outrageous slaughter,” “infanticide,” “foeticide,” and “the killing of babies.” And Margaret Sanger, who knew a thing or two about contraception, said that birth control “has nothing to do with abortion, it has nothing to do with interfering with or disturbing life after conception has taken place.” Birth control stands alone: “It is the first, last, and final step we all are to take to have real human emancipation.”

    When are you folks going to stop lying about Sanger?
     

Share This Page