Paving the road to Hell with weasel words
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Euphemism: "an innocuous word or expression used in place of one that may be found offensive or suggest something unpleasant."
We are awash in weasel words, that is, euphemisms meant to distract us from reality. The most obvious ones are replacing homosexuality with "gay," taxes with "revenue," spending with "investments," sexual confusion with "gender identity" and abortion with "choice." Actually, abortion has a whole set of weasel terms.
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker drew "whoops and cheers" from onlookers last Wednesday as he signed the Reproductive Health Act, which he called "a beacon of hope in the heart of this nation." A widely published AP photo (right) shows him grinning broadly and holding up a pen as female abortion activists applaud.
Not shown are the happy cads raising a toast in taverns across the state to the man who has helped guarantee their right to have sex with women without strings attached. By some measure, the law might better be called the "Alley Cat Ethics Enabling Act."
The Reproductive Health Act repeals the state's parental consent requirement and the state's ban of partial-birth abortions, clearing the way for killing unborn children right up to the moment of birth. It's similar to the law enacted in enlightened New York and ones proposed in a number of other Democrat-heavy states, including Virginia. While Republican-led states are passing "heartbeat" bills that protect human life after a heartbeat is detected, Democrats in response think this is a pregnant moment to do away with all restrictions on the "procedure."
The Illinois law itself bears the glaring weasel word phrase: "reproductive health." It has nothing to do with health or with reproduction, but their opposite – destroying a human life in the womb and even the birth canal. "In this state," Mr. Pritzker chivalrously declared, "women will always have the right to reproductive health care." What a prince.
Women already had the "right to reproductive health care." Nobody was stopping women from getting pregnant, having babies or getting prenatal care or acquiring birth control devices or drugs.
The term "reproductive health" now means abortion. It also conveys the idea that women have the "right" to force other people to pay for their birth control and abortions. Democrats are still trying to coerce the Little Sisters of the Poor and the Christian owners of Hobby Lobby into offering abortifacients as a "right" regardless of their belief that this would make them complicit in taking innocent human lives. So much for "choice."
Speaking of weasel words, there's confusion over just what constitutes a "right." In the name of economic equality, progressives (i.e., socialists) insist that poor women have the right to free birth control and free abortions. But having a right to do something or acquire something is not the same as forcing others to pay for it.
Joe Biden used to abide by this distinction but has thrown in with his party's rabidly pro-abortion contingent and now advocates overturning the Hyde Amendment so that taxpayers can be forced to pay for abortions. He drew praise from Ilyse Hogue, president of the abortionist trade group NARAL Pro-Choice America, who called abortion a Democratic Party "core value." She said "reproductive freedom is fundamental to the pursuit of equality and economic security." Can't establish socialism without abortion, in other words.
This whole business of "rights" and even "freedom" has become distorted into a grab bag of demands for goods provided by others.
The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, but not the "right" to force others to pay for a printing press or computer.
The Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to own firearms, but it does not grant a "right" to force others to subsidize gun purchases.
Declaring health care to be a "right" implies that government must seize control of health care to ensure "free" services for all, especially abortion.
Same with groceries, education, rent, child care, you name it. Why not cars and televisions? Or cell phones? Wait. We already have that. More than 20 million "Obamaphones" have been handed out, and the Lifeline Assistance program estimates that more than a third of the country's population may qualify for a phone at others' expense.
California just announced "free" health care even for illegal aliens, which they euphemistically call "undocumented immigrants" or just "migrants."
The idea behind all this weasel verbiage is to create an unstoppable free-stuff army to overwhelm productive citizens, create one-party states and eventually a one-party nation. With Democratic hegemony comes ideological conformity.
In socialist countries, "freedom" means having elites micromanage the rest of the population. They get there by promising free abortions, free income (even for those "unwilling to work") and lots of other free stuff.
Eventually, anyone who doesn't go along gets a "free" trip – to the nearest gulag.
Robert Knight is a contributor to The Washington Times and OneNewsNow. This column first appeared on the Times' website.
Tags
Who is online
36 visitors
“Speaking of weasel words, there's confusion over just what constitutes a "right." In the name of economic equality, progressives (i.e., socialists) insist that poor women have the right to free birth control and free abortions. But having a right to do something or acquire something is not the same as forcing others to pay for it.
Joe Biden used to abide by this distinction but has thrown in with his party's rabidly pro-abortion contingent and now advocates overturning the Hyde Amendment so that taxpayers can be forced to pay for abortions. He drew praise from Ilyse Hogue, president of the abortionist trade group NARAL Pro-Choice America, who called abortion a Democratic Party "core value." She said "reproductive freedom is fundamental to the pursuit of equality and economic security." Can't establish socialism without abortion, in other words.
This whole business of "rights" and even "freedom" has become distorted into a grab bag of demands for goods provided by others.
The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, but not the "right" to force others to pay for a printing press or computer.
The Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to own firearms, but it does not grant a "right" to force others to subsidize gun purchases.
Declaring health care to be a "right" implies that government must seize control of health care to ensure "free" services for all, especially abortion.
Same with groceries, education, rent, child care, you name it. Why not cars and televisions? Or cell phones? Wait. We already have that. More than 20 million "Obamaphones" have been handed out, and the Lifeline Assistance program estimates that more than a third of the country's population may qualify for a phone at others' expense.
California just announced "free" health care even for illegal aliens, which they euphemistically call "undocumented immigrants" or just "migrants."
The idea behind all this weasel verbiage is to create an unstoppable free-stuff army to overwhelm productive citizens, create one-party states and eventually a one-party nation. With Democratic hegemony comes ideological conformity.”
Socialism is the road to a man made hell on earth.
Democratic socialist countries have a higher standard of living than we do.
These are not Democratic Socialist countries...most are constitutional monarchies.
Socialism as an economic policy can and does work very well inside a market economy because you and others seem to be convinced that socialism always and must be an authoritarian government controlling the economy. What I and other progressive support are known as market socialism. I schooled someone else on this idea a few days ago.
Those monarchies are in name only because they hold very little real political power.
I shop at a local grocery chain that is owned entirely by the employees, which is market socialism.
I am also a member of a co-op grocery that is owned by the workers and the customers- also socialist.
My electricity comes from a powerplant that is own by the city. Also socialist.
My neighbor works at a steel fabricator that is owned entirely by the workers. That is also socialist.
King Arthur flour is owned by the workers, market socialism again.
Compared to what they receive in return for that tax level it is not excessive.
We live in a very conservative area and have a city owned utility. It runs better and for less money than the state regulated private utility in the surrounding area.
Ohio just chose to bail out First Energy from their failed management decisions at their 2 nuclear plants with a claimed Green Energy Bill. This is corporate welfare at its finest. The nuclear plant close to Toledo came with days of being another Three Mile Island when it was discovered that the reactor lid was millimeters away from failing catastrophically underload. It would have polluted much of the top 3rd of the state with radiation. First Energy had postponed needed maintenance to save money.
Did you not read? These are capitalistic countries with entitlement programs. These programs are paid for through taxes. You don't seem to understand the difference.
I have worked for an ESOP company for over 15 years and the structure and management of the company has nothing to do with socialism. None of them do, or they would fail like socialist countries do. Your examples of socialist companies is amusing. Your understanding of business and markets is lacking.
I never said that they were not paid by taxes.
You seem to have a very narrow idea of what socialism means.
Our utility would have been PG&E had our ancestors not created a utility here some 80-100 years or so ago. We still have them for natural gas. Our electric power is on the same bill as water, sewage, and garbage, recycling, yard waste collection is on. PG&E was cleared of the Santa Rosa fire but is responsible for the Camp fire that destroyed Paradise, Ca.
There is no free stuff and those of us who support these policies have ever said that it is free stuff. That is a strawman as a way to make people oppose the idea. Those ideas are paid for by our combined tax dollars because we choose to spend them differently from how we do now because those program have a greater social benefit.
I'll go into greater detail with you when you learn to tell the truth that social is a economic idea of the workers owning the means of production and not a authoritarian government, that conservatives seek to portray it as as a way to convince the uneducated to oppose socialist economic policies that would be in their benefit to support. Your Bible commands you to tell the truth so you should start to obey that commandment.
we already own the means of our production... and the results of our production.
if socialists ever want to take that away from us.?
the socialists had better bring an even bigger more authoritarian govt with lots of guns.
Where do you work where this is true?
I think they call it the USA
I owned my business while I kept my profits and retired early.
millions do it every day while losers/socialists complain about it. nothing new.
cheers
true I did pay dearly to be able to say that...
over 20yrs of 16hr days did not leave room for much else.
as I'm not really all that bright, my theory was simple...
as I'm retired in my early 50's id say it was a solid plan.
funny thing about socialists...
they are not willing to work that hard, why should I subsidize them?
Who said anything about subsidizing the workers? Do you have a problem with government bailouts and corporate subsidies for billionaires such as Wal-mart, GE, and Amazon?
I did...
or does that money just magically show up? LOL
never mind that was rhetorical/
our constitution recognizes individual ownership of business and property.
there will be no collective ownership of our stuff.
but you can get a bunch of people together and have your employee owned business anytime ya like. you can even call that "socialism... LOL just don't expect taxpayers to fund that business' grand opening.
write it down it will be on the test
cheers
I’d like to decline any subsidy and accept another tax cut.
"Free Abortions?" Really?
What ever. I'd rather pay for 'pregnancy termination' than a birth and all of the ensuing expense for the next couple of decades.
Every true fiscal conservative would. Of course, conservatism is dead, murdered by Reagan and Supply Side Economics.
This is just fiscally pragmatic and socially responsible. The earth is already overpopulated, so we don't need more people, especially those who are not wanted and cannot be supported by the parents.
The $1000 abortion is cheaper than prenatal care and a hospital birth. If it is an abortion pill or free morning-after medication, then it is even cheaper.
For those who aren't pro-life then I can only suggest that you don't take it, but your conservative religious views can not be permitted to determine the medical choices of others unless I can also make your medical choices?
We are awash in weasel words, that is, euphemisms meant to distract us from reality
Well I suppose they are only stealing a page from Mr. Trumps playbook, the master of distractions.