MARXIST/PROGRESSIVES (DEMOCRATS) FOLLOW THE LEAD OF COLLECTIVISTS BEFORE THEM AS THEY SUBSTITUTE THE WORD CHOICE FOR MURDERRead Now
A collectivist is a term that encompasses the leftist movement. Those included in the definition of collectivist would be Marxists, communists, socialists, progressives, Democrats – they are all virtually the same. They have many things in common including their ability to use euphemisms to try to disguise their many acts of evil and hatred. They have stated that a woman has a right to choose, but they avoid stating that the real choice of the women is to choose a perceived convenience for her, or in reality to choose to murder a baby. The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) are revealing that the Supreme Court ruling of Roe vs Wade is not and has never been law. They are proposing a way to rectify this fact and pass a law based on the dictates of the constitution to enshrine the right to choose (murder).
A growing number of Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) presidential candidates say Congress should pass legislation protecting abortion access in case the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. “Congress should do its job and protect their constituents from these efforts by establishing affirmative, statutory rights that parallel Roe vs. Wade,” Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts wrote in a Friday Medium essay.
The Constitution’s supremacy clause gives federal law precedence over state law where the two conflict. Warren and Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York say Congress should adopt a sweeping legislative package that would displace state restrictions on abortion in favor of a permissive federal regime. Both criticized targeted regulations on abortion providers, or so-called “TRAP” laws.
“I would ensure that no state can pass laws that chip away at access to reproductive care or criminalize reproductive healthcare providers,” Gillibrand wrote Thursday. “Federal law would supersede those harmful state restrictions.”
The collectivist history is replete with the act of murder for convenience sake. Peter the Great “choiced” his son because he was unhappy with the actions of the boy. Lenin “choiced” those who opposed his Bolshevik takeover including Nicholas II and his family. Stalin continued the “choiced” tradition by “choicing” Trotsky and anybody else he considered an inconvenience. Mao was a champion “choicer” with wholesale “choicing.” Hitler “choiced” the Jews in his quest to have the entire Jewish world “choiced.” Mob bosses have “choiced” any who would threaten their supremacy which they regarded as an inconvenience to them. Rumors that have more than shreds of truth behind them indicate the Clinton’s have determined “choicing” certain people was in the national (meaning their) best interest. The DNC apparently had a young employee by the name of Seth Rich “choiced” because he had information that would implicate many within the hierarchy of the DNC.
Now the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) want to place into law (understanding that a Supreme Court decision is an opinion and not law) the Constitutional right of a woman to “choice” her baby because that baby is perceived to be an inconvenience. What a slippery slope they desire. Especially since one of their presidential candidates, Robert O’Rourke, has already proposed that the elderly and wounded returning soldiers should also be “choiced” because they are an inconvenience to society.
The collectivists (Marxists, communists, socialists, progressives, Democrats, - all virtually the same) have historically placed convenience over life. They have, according to Marx and Engels, placed humans in the same category as animals and insects. This is however their evaluation of everybody else’s life accept their own.
We have seen what happens in societies that accept that the lives of others, even an innocent baby, have no value and should be “choiced” when they present an inconvenience or a threat. The woman’s right to “choice” is a standard collectivist belief that has been a major contributing factor to the tyrannical collectivist regimes of the past.
History has proven that when we place no value on the lives of others, our lives have no value to others. Conversely, when society places value on the lives of all, the society becomes a better and more loving and giving society. In case you are wondering, yes, the former is a definition of a collectivist society while the latter is a definition of an individualist society.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.