from the Herrickreport.com

They have acquired both halves of the Power of God.

 Is there is a night and day separation between good and evil; right and wrong; guilt and innocence? We learn daily that there is no wrong  -- only right. We have had the explanation that social good trumps crime and the requirement for punishment. Thus as Solzhenitsyn states " the heart of the matter is not personal guilt, but social danger."

 We can judge an innocent man guilty if he is socially hostile and a guilty man innocent if he is socially friendly. A guilty man is freed if he is socially friendly! What an alien concept; yet we practice this concept daily.

 Only one example, abortion clients can wipe out generations of children; we call that infanticide if the child has left the womb and socially acceptable if it has not. It is choice. Murder is socially friendly, well it's friendly to the people that create and accept power by defining their power by their dominance and dominion over others, by defining when life can be created and when it can be extinguished.

 They have acquired both halves of the Power of God!

  Think of this concept now; here are people who can decide when life begins and when it should end! They have established the "law" that they can determine or let's say they can give this power in dribs and drabs to women so that she can have dominion over the life that reside within them. And then absolve them of all guilt  ... "it's your choice  ..."  Thus they also have God's Power of Forgiveness. As if that absolves her of any guilt in the infant's demise.  What's the difference,  the baby is dead; but the government has given its forgiveness as if the child has not been born and then jails the mother if she kills them after the birthing process. Why is this legal and socially logical?

  But it's only choice in one sense. If they can say that life ends or life begins before some other artificial date; then what stops them from taking their power to the next level. Deciding the time of our death.

 Euthanasia is commonly applied in terminally ill patients. Well is it that common? No, but why would those parasites (old people on Medicare) try and extend their old lives using the limited medical resources of the state; haven't they outlived their usefulness? They are hanging on in contradiction to the socially friendly elements that have chosen to eliminate those that are least able to ask for their constitutional protections.  We aren't necessarily arguing here about assisted suicide but abruptly terminating a life for  "Their own sake" . "Quality of life and all"  "But they are in a better place!!"  Chilling.

 British National Health Service "It is no longer possible to provide all the latest to absolutely everybody without notable detriment to others," he said.   Link

"Rationing is reduction in choice. Rationing has become a necessary evil."

 OK OK!   Let the argument continue. They are winning converts in more countries and more states and as the price of health care rises will they continue their drain on the medical system or choose  .... or worse  ordered ...  to be terminated for the social good? For social friendliness!  If our infants can be eliminated then why not our teenagers or maybe someone else's teenagers?  or the old, or the retarded, or the politically unreliable. More chilling.

 But continue to step further into the abyss. What stops these "socially friendly elements" from deciding that quality of life issues are also transferable to the physically and mentally challenged? (Adolph had little argument when he terminated "less socially friendly handicap" Germans.)  Are those not quality of life issues? Can we not extract from the substance of their argument that health care is for the socially friendly and retardation is not socially friendly?  (Look at the obese and smokers; look how they are treated by these "socially friendly forces".)

 Well perfectly health children are abolished so then why should the imperfect be left to live?  And the Environmentalist claim it is man that is the cause for all the Earth's ills; kill more children and save the planet. If choice is the issue, the rational; if a child is born with blonde hair and the desire is for black hair well you can carry it on from here.  But we can, can't we ...  choose ... we can, can them or we can, decant them ...  early, might you say.  And convenience; there is another catchy phrase ....  It is not convenient to decant ....  I mean to birth a fetus now ... "I need time to focus and adjust ... "  Well it's simple then. Since you weren't foci-ed enough to have the father wear a rubber then concentrate now and blot it out.

  Maybe another time. Another fetus.

 "Who controls the past" ran the Party slogan, "controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"

  A more socially friendly time. Should not the resources of socially friendly people be used to promote socially friendly groups? Another step forward? Let's say that those in these SF groups gain control of the Association for the Socially Friendly. Let us say that they control the health system and they alone determine the fate of this fetus and that fetus, translate that to the "Socially Unfriendly Red Staters" , ...........   " kill this baby and not that baby".

 And that it doesn't really matter if the RTM  .... (Reproductive Tissue Mass)-{see RTM .. Herrick 1990}  is alive or not  .... I mean it is choice isn't it ....  So this SF Group .... the A4SF determines the child's, the massí PWQ  .... Uh oh another term from the past ....  that is the Planned and Wanted Quotient  as determined by percentages against the established norm. If the PWQ is said to be below the national median for a social unfriendly group  ... than that RTM could be, ....  well terminated for the health of socially friendly village.

 Well the other day a Blue Stater said that the Red Staters were reproducing at a faster rate than the Blues. That is socially unfriendly! Therefore it stands to good reason that that a higher number of Red State's RTMs (babies!) must be   .... Destroyed but done so in a socially friendly way. And if they can readjust those disparities from right to left, then it also stands to reason they should be allowed to reduce all the unfriendly elements in society.

 Bam! Bam!  ..... And Stalin cleaned up his right to left issues! We go along a little further and Fuhrer.

 Hitler tried and nearly succeeded.  His original "Struggle" although grossly anti-Semitic never quite envisioned the concentration camps.  And yet they existed. How many socially friendly and unfriendly elements laughed at just predictions and went on to their deaths?

 So does a Hillary Clinton want to destroy life as we know it; buy body parts from India; and wipe out private medicine? No. No.  I don't think she has descended into those depths. But no one in 1960 believed that smoking would be banned from restaurants or you'd ever be kept from carrying your favorite .38 Special on an airplane or an underage teen could walk into a hospital or clinic and terminate a life and socially friendly groups could wish to terminate our elderly who have "extended to long".

 Are we creeping; bounding like a gazelles would be more like it; from what we once defined as moral boundaries; moral black and white contrasts, to the an era where nothing is wrong and as long as it is socially friendly then must be right and not just right but a requirement of society for the "betterment of society and the environment". How many times have we heard that it is mans over population that is the cause of world ills? That the animal world would be so much better off if we eliminated man ....  and not just any men and women, but only those elements that are unwilling to accept the New Order of in the World.   Defined as recalcitrant Red Staters.  

Sen. Clinton said. " We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." What things ....  Life itself!  For the Common Good. Oh how many times have dictators told us that?

Don't listen to prophets crying in the wilderness. Listen to the politicians who are asking for your support so they can do more for you than you will do for yourself. When politicians debate life, they are debating the lives of socially unfriendly people, as they will never eliminate those that keep them in power. But they are willing to destroy the socially unfriendly that would keep them away from power.

 "Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death."

 When they come knocking I hope the 2nd Amendment is still in force.

 Kent Herrick 2008

 

         Kent M. Herrick, Editor in Chief, 2008 

                          HERRICKREPORT.COM

                                         HERRICKREPORT.COM Copyright  2008 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED