id “I think it is magnificent that we are in on the ground floor, helping Negroes to control their birth rate” – Margaret Sanger 1942

The ABCL morphed into what is today an organization that we know all too well – Planned Parenthood.

Sanger herself was a stern believer in obscene government control believing much as later tyrants like Hitler would that government should control who reproduces and who does not (i.e. who lives and who dies) for the good of the nation. She believed in "A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring"

That’s right, if some government bureaucrat somewhere decides you have an “objectionable” trait you would not be allowed to reproduce. And if your parents are poor that is “objectionable” enough to some to justify ending an innocent life. I guess that whole thing about us having certain “unaliena

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – The Declaration of Independence

Really, the political left really doesn’t surprise me any more. In fact I’d say they stopped surprising me years ago when I realized exactly what it was that they stood for; not just government control of our lives but obscenely oppressive government control of our lives. Don’t get me wrong, both are bad and it’s true of all leftists whether they are in the overtly left wing parties such as the Communist, Socialist, Green or Democratic parties or whether they are just closet leftists belonging to the Republican party under the guise of “moderates”.

I’m also rarely surprised at how often the political left couches its beliefs in twisted logic and redefined terms to make them seem far less insidious. For example when it comes to abortion, they aren’t pro-abortion (even though they are), but merely the nice sounding term “pro-choice”. Ah, that’s so sweet, they are “pro-choice”. Too bad that being “pro-choice” only extends to the concept of murdering babies and not other categories such as “choosing” where you can send your kids to school or “choosing” to not be involved in a hideous government ponzi scheme like Social Security.

Heck, I’m “pro-choice”. I believe that if you decide to let a man stick his tab A into your slot B you have made a choice, the consequences of which you may have to live with. That’s being REALLY “pro-choice” but it’s not what the “pro-choice” crowd means.

The “pro-choice” movement over the years has duped a lot of Americans. Of course when you have schools that are turning out students that are not even proficient in math and English how can you expect them to understand only slightly more complex topics. Topics like what biological “life” is and that a right to it is actually protected by our founding documents for example.

But the leaders of the modern “pro-choice” movement (henceforth referred to as the pro-abortion movement to be correct in our terminology) don’t really believe in “choice” as the reason for their beliefs. They, as I stated before, believe in only one thing – oppressive government control of our lives.

And of course with that increase in government control they understand that people not quite up to snuff, say the infirm, the handicapped and the poor, are a burden upon the government machine they wish to create and manage. They aren’t stupid – at least not completely. They know that those that don’t contribute or are unable to contribute will drag down a government run bureaucracy designed to control the people.

Take for example the words of Ron Weddington who was one of the attorneys for “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade fame to then President Bill Clinton on the topic of the necessity of abortion:

“you will have to provide the means to prevent the extra mouths, because abstinence doesn't work … It's time to officially recognize that people are going to have sex and what we need to do as a nation is prevent … as many poor babies as possible."

That’s right convince the poor that having children is bad and then convince them to murder those they do conceive against the will of the State for the good of the State. It’s the typical selective reading of our founding documents that modern liberals often partake in – you have a right to life unless they decided that you don’t.

But Ron Weddington is just one of many disciples of Margaret Sanger who is the epitome of the modern leftist liberal and who helped set into motion the wheels of the modern pro-abortion movement. Originally she founded of the The American Birth Control League (ABCL) and Sanger’s colleagues like Dr. Adolphus Knopf often talked of abortion as a means to control the “black” and “’yellow peril’” that they saw as a growing cancer in America. Sanger herself said “I think it is magnificent that we are in on the ground floor, helping Negroes to control their birth rate” – Margaret Sanger 1942

The ABCL morphed into what is today an organization that we know all too well – Planned Parenthood.

Sanger herself was a stern believer in obscene government control believing much as later tyrants like Hitler would that government should control who reproduces and who does not (i.e. who lives and who dies) for the good of the nation. She believed in "A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring"

That’s right, if some government bureaucrat somewhere decides you have an “objectionable” trait you would not be allowed to reproduce. And if your parents are poor that is “objectionable” enough to some to justify ending an innocent life. I guess that whole thing about us having certain “unalienab

on, they aren’t pro-abortion (even though they are), but merely the nice sounding term “pro-choice”. Ah, that’s so sweet, they are “pro-choice”. Too bad that being “pro-choice” only extends to the concept of murdering babies and not other categories such as “choosing” where you can send your kids to school or “choosing” to not be involved in a hideous government ponzi scheme like Social Security.

Heck, I’m “pro-choice”. I believe that if you decide to let a man stick his tab A into your slot B you have made a choice, the consequences of which you may have to live with. That’s being REALLY “pro-choice” but it’s not what the “pro-choice” crowd means.

The “pro-choice” movement over the years has duped a lot of Americans. Of course when you have schools that are turning out students that are not even proficient in math and English how can you expect them to understand only slightly more complex topics. Topics like what biological “life” is and that a right to it is actually protected by our founding documents for example.

But the leaders of the modern “pro-choice” movement (henceforth referred to as the pro-abortion movement to be correct in our terminology) don’t really believe in “choice” as the reason for their beliefs. They, as I stated before, believe in only one thing – oppressive government control of our lives.

And of course with that increase in government control they understand that people not quite up to snuff, say the infirm, the handicapped and the poor, are a burden upon the government machine they wish to create and manage. They aren’t stupid – at least not completely. They know that those that don’t contribute or are unable to contribute will drag down a government run bureaucracy designed to control the people.

Take for example the words of Ron Weddington who was one of the attorneys for “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade fame to then President Bill Clinton on the topic of the necessity of abortion:

“you will have to provide the means to prevent the extra mouths, because abstinence doesn't work … It's time to officially recognize that people are going to have sex and what we need to do as a nation is prevent … as many poor babies as possible."

That’s right convince the poor that having children is bad and then convince them to murder those they do conceive against the will of the State for the good of the State. It’s the typical selective reading of our founding documents that modern liberals often partake in – you have a right to life unless they decided that you don’t.

But Ron Weddington is just one of many disciples of Margaret Sanger who is the epitome of the modern leftist liberal and who helped set into motion the wheels of the modern pro-abortion movement. Originally she founded of the The American Birth Control League (ABCL) and Sanger’s colleagues like Dr. Adolphus Knopf often talked of abortion as a means to control the “black” and “’yellow peril’” that they saw as a growing cancer in America. Sanger herself said “I think it is magnificent that we are in on the ground floor, helping Negroes to control their birth rate” – Margaret Sanger 1942

The ABCL morphed into what is today an organization that we know all too well – Planned Parenthood.

Sanger herself was a stern believer in obscene government control believing much as later tyrants like Hitler would that government should control who reproduces and who does not (i.e. who lives and who dies) for the good of the nation. She believed in "A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring"

That’s right, if some government bureaucrat somewhere decides you have an “objectionable” trait you would not be allowed to reproduce. And if your parents are poor that is “objectionable” enough to some to justify ending an innocent life. I guess that whole thing about us having certain “unaliena

by our founding documents for example.

But the leaders of the modern “pro-choice” movement (henceforth referred to as the pro-abortion movement to be correct in our terminology) don’t really believe in “choice” as the reason for their beliefs. They, as I stated before, believe in only one thing – oppressive government control of our lives.

And of course with that increase in government control they understand that people not quite up to snuff, say the infirm, the handicapped and the poor, are a burden upon the government machine they wish to create and manage. They aren’t stupid – at least not completely. They know that those that don’t contribute or are unable to contribute will drag down a government run bureaucracy designed to control the people.

Take for example the words of Ron Weddington who was one of the attorneys for “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade fame to then President Bill Clinton on the topic of the necessity of abortion:

“you will have to provide the means to prevent the extra mouths, because abstinence doesn't work … It's time to officially recognize that people are going to have sex and what we need to do as a nation is prevent … as many poor babies as possible."

That’s right convince the poor that having children is bad and then convince them to murder those they do conceive against the will of the State for the good of the State. It’s the typical selective reading of our founding documents that modern liberals often partake in – you have a right to life unless they decided that you don’t.

But Ron Weddington is just one of many disciples of Margaret Sanger who is the epitome of the modern leftist liberal and who helped set into motion the wheels of the modern pro-abortion movement. Originally she founded of the The American Birth Control League (ABCL) and Sanger’s colleagues like Dr. Adolphus Knopf often talked of abortion as a means to control the “black” and “’yellow peril’” that they saw as a growing cancer in America. Sanger herself said “I think it is magnificent that we are in on the ground floor, helping Negroes to control their birth rate” – Margaret Sanger 1942

The ABCL morphed into what is today an organization that we know all too well – Planned Parenthood.

Sanger herself was a stern believer in obscene government control believing much as later tyrants like Hitler would that government should control who reproduces and who does not (i.e. who lives and who dies) for the good of the nation. She believed in "A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring"

That’s right, if some government bureaucrat somewhere decides you have an “objectionable” trait you would not be allowed to reproduce. And if your parents are poor that is “objectionable” enough to some to justify ending an innocent life. I guess that whole thing about us having certain “unaliena

ent the extra mouths, because abstinence doesn't work … It's time to officially recognize that people are going to have sex and what we need to do as a nation is prevent … as many poor babies as possible."

That’s right convince the poor that having children is bad and then convince them to murder those they do conceive against the will of the State for the good of the State. It’s the typical selective reading of our founding documents that modern liberals often partake in – you have a right to life unless they decided that you don’t.

But Ron Weddington is just one of many disciples of Margaret Sanger who is the epitome of the modern leftist liberal and who helped set into motion the wheels of the modern pro-abortion movement. Originally she founded of the The American Birth Control League (ABCL) and Sanger’s colleagues like Dr. Adolphus Knopf often talked of abortion as a means to control the “black” and “’yellow peril’” that they saw as a growing cancer in America. Sanger herself said “I think it is magnificent that we are in on the ground floor, helping Negroes to control their birth rate” – Margaret Sanger 1942

The ABCL morphed into what is today an organization that we know all too well – Planned Parenthood.

Sanger herself was a stern believer in obscene government control believing much as later tyrants like Hitler would that government should control who reproduces and who does not (i.e. who lives and who dies) for the good of the nation. She believed in "A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring"

That’s right, if some government bureaucrat somewhere decides you have an “objectionable” trait you would not be allowed to reproduce. And if your parents are poor that is “objectionable” enough to some to justify ending an innocent life. I guess that whole thing about us having certain “unaliena

id “I think it is magnificent that we are in on the ground floor, helping Negroes to control their birth rate” – Margaret Sanger 1942

The ABCL morphed into what is today an organization that we know all too well – Planned Parenthood.

Sanger herself was a stern believer in obscene government control believing much as later tyrants like Hitler would that government should control who reproduces and who does not (i.e. who lives and who dies) for the good of the nation. She believed in "A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring"

That’s right, if some government bureaucrat somewhere decides you have an “objectionable” trait you would not be allowed to reproduce. And if your parents are poor that is “objectionable” enough to some to justify ending an innocent life. I guess that whole thing about us having certain “unalienable rights” such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not apply when some well meaning leftist decides they don’t huh?

Such logic flies in the face of the concept of “unalienable rights” which are rights that are inherent to all mankind because they descend from God and not the State.

But still they press onward. They wrap their demented ideology of limited freedoms and oppressive government control in the guise of “choice” seeking any that they can coerce to their ideology. When in reality the only “choices” they want you to have are the “choices” they allow you to make. And if you are poor and a burden to their proposed nanny state your “choices” will severely limited. That is, if you ever even get to make them at all.