Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What happens when you run out of other people's children to support you?
The Virginian ^ | 7/28/2012 | Moneyrunner

Posted on 07/28/2012 8:47:38 AM PDT by moneyrunner

In a lively panel Thursday at the American Enterprise Institute, author Robert Zubrin compared Obamacare-related comments by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to Nazi propaganda.

Zubrin slammed Sebelius for promoting mandatory contraception coverage as a cost saving measure. “In testimony in Congress, Kathleen Sebelius actually said that Obamacare would save money — save the nation a lot of money,” Zubrin said, “because it would distribute contraceptives and thus reduce the number of births.”

“The notion that by preventing children from being born we will save the nation money, this mirrors Nazi propaganda calling for euthanasia of ‘useless eaters’ because it would save us all money, it was an incredible statement,” he continued.

(Excerpt) Read more at moneyrunner.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: abortion; children

1 posted on 07/28/2012 8:47:43 AM PDT by moneyrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner

Margaret Sanger was reincarnated and came back as Kathleen Sebelius. Leftists love their recycling as religion.


2 posted on 07/28/2012 8:55:42 AM PDT by tflabo (Truth or Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
That is easy, you import Millions of Mexicans (or Muslims, in Europe's case) and have them turn the Kids to work in the low level jobs to keep the State rolling in dough and the Leftist Kelptocrats in charge to keep stealing from the other productive classes to support the Illegals.

Of Course that only works as longs as the Illegals are paying into the Welfare state too and Many are not...so.....this system is doomed to failure.

3 posted on 07/28/2012 9:00:00 AM PDT by KC_Lion (No more Grand Old Progressives! Vote Conservative-Libertarian-Tea Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
On a thread on this subject some time ago, Freeper "livius" wrote:

"This is worse than before. What we are now being forced to pay for is essentially a government funded and (as yet) indirectly government administered population control program."

Writers have been exposing socialism's tyrannical principles and goals for a century now. Those who have understood it best declared that its policies lead to tyranny and oppression.

Yet, we have arrogant Americans, born in liberty, and viewing themselves as "intellectuals" and "progressives," who have embraced socialist ideas over the ideas of liberty and are determined to impose its deadly limitations on a once-free people. Note the following writer's warning, published in 1891 that the "scheme of socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes the power of restraining the increase of population."

From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), originally published in 1891, Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:

"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove."
EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON

4 posted on 07/28/2012 9:18:41 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson