While I always feel for people who lose a loved one, and I feel sympathy for the Kennedy family, I have a few things to point out about Sen. Kennedy. Not wanting to speak ill of the dead, but we can be sure that as I write this, liberals are getting together, happy for the perfect timing of Kennedy's demise so they can use it, soak it and wring it for all it's worth to try and pass healthcare reform. Kennedy was a far left liberal- and an avid fighter for socialized medicine.
Please though- think about this. If Kennedy was under the healthcare plan the socialist obama government is trying to force on the rest of us- He would have died a lot sooner. Either he would have been denied treatment because of his age and the severity of the disease, or he would have had to wait so long for treatment, he'd never have had made it this long.
I'm not trying to be mean spirited- just speaking the truth, which those who are running Washington feel we needn't know.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Borrowed this one from Alan Caruba- Yes,
A picture does say a thousand words, and then some.
Keep on speaking the truth people. The community organizers in the White House don't like it one bit!
“I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.."
Barack Obama 2008
“And if they tell you that, ‘Well, we’re not sure where he stands on guns.’ I want you to say, ‘He believes in the Second Amendment.’ If they tell you, ‘Well, he’s going to raise your taxes,’ you say, ‘No, he’s not, he’s going lower them.’ You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case,”
Too bad as usual the libs, er, I mean progressives don't take the first Amendment seriously either, unless of course, they are the ones using it.
A picture does say a thousand words, and then some.
Keep on speaking the truth people. The community organizers in the White House don't like it one bit!
“I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.."
Barack Obama 2008
“And if they tell you that, ‘Well, we’re not sure where he stands on guns.’ I want you to say, ‘He believes in the Second Amendment.’ If they tell you, ‘Well, he’s going to raise your taxes,’ you say, ‘No, he’s not, he’s going lower them.’ You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case,”
Too bad as usual the libs, er, I mean progressives don't take the first Amendment seriously either, unless of course, they are the ones using it.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The Great Czar Invasion
This may be one of the last posts I do, unless people start paying attention and waking up to the truth of what is going on in this country and in the world. I have been so burned out over the past few months- trying to warn people, show people, inform and spread the truth. No one seems to be listening. So much about this present administration has disturbed me greatly, and it seems as though I can't keep up with everything. I am grateful for other bloggers who continue to spread the truth of the ungodly mess this elitest power in Washington is bringing on the world- and who have been showing also, the Truth of our Lord Jesus Christ, who warned through His Word that these times would be coming on stronger as birth pangs.
I have and will continue to answer any questions relating to anything political or Biblical.... I just pray that people will start thinking and learning.
"The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States." -- Sen. Barack Obama, March 31, 2008
I know the idea of having czars is not limited to the OOO (occupier of the oval office) as other presidents have had such as "drug czars", "education czars" etc. However with the obami administration's highering of multiple czars, last I counted there were 32 of them!
Now think for a minute. These people are placed by the adminstration, but they are accountable to no one BUT the obami administration. These people are forming and suggesting policies which no one of the public can question. They are not elected, they are not a part of congress or the senate. They are unelected yet have as much, if not more power than the legislative branch of our government. They are not subjected to Senate confirmation or congressional oversight and therefore are a huge threat to our system of checks and balances. To me, this is a frightening prospect considering the socialist mindset of those running Washington.
Just who and what are these czars anyway? Well, just for starters, we have : A Mideast peace czar (not to be confused with the Mideast policy czar), a Sudan czar and a Guantanamo closure czar. Then there's the green jobs czar, the energy czar, the technology czar, an urban affairs czar, the Great Lakes czar or the WMD czar, the terrorism czar. The stimulus accountability czar, the TARP czar, the government performance czar, the information czar. We have a science czar, health czar and a pay czar. We had a car czar, but he stepped down after some sort of controversy. Gee, if everyone in Washington would step down over a controversy, I doubt there'd be anyone left!
Anyway, that's just the main ones. There are more. Gotta love big bloated government expecially when the private sector are losing their businesses and jobs.
So, let's look at one of these people, dear leader OOO has brought into his fold. If it doesn't raise the hair on the back of your neck like it does mine, well you're a much stronger person than I.
One thought before I introduce you to our science czar. I was talking with my husband about this earlier. I said normally if someone were to claim the things I'm going to show you, we'd be labled as lunitics. It sounds too fantastic to be real, and sounds totally like a conspiracy theory, but let me assure you, these are not normal times. These are not some back woods wierdos. These are highly educated people, people with a very disturbing ideal, which, if you've read any of my blogs, tells me that the times of Biblical prophecies are coming on quickly.
Who is the science czar? His name is Eric Holdren.
In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
Here are some direct quotes from his book, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment
"The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,”
"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society"
" If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society. "
"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. "
"A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. ... The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."
On the new world order:
"Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable...."
"If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization. "
Michelle Malkin recently wrote about him saying, " Well, I did read one of Holdren's recent works. It revealed his clingy reverence for, and allegiance to, the gurus of population control authoritarianism. He's just gotten smarter about cloaking it behind global warming hysteria. In 2007, he addressed the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference. Holdren served as AAAS president; the organization posted his full slide presentation on its website. In the opening slide, Holdren admitted that his "preoccupation" with apocalyptic matters such as "the rates at which people breed" was a lifelong obsession spurred by Harrison Brown's work. Holdren heaped praise on Brown's half-century-old book, The Challenge of Man's Future, and then proceeded to paint doom-and-gloom scenarios requiring drastic government interventions to control climate change. Who is Harrison Brown? He was a "distinguished member" of the International Eugenics Society whom Holdren later worked with on a book about -- you guessed it -- world population and fertility. Brown advocated the same population control-freak measures Holdren put forth in Ecoscience. In The Challenge of Man's Future, Brown envisioned a regime in which the "number of abortions and artificial inseminations permitted in a given year would be determined completely by the difference between the number of deaths and the number of births in the year previous." Brown exhorted readers to accept that "we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that artificial means must be applied to limit birth rates." If we don't, Brown warned, we will face a planet "with a writhing mass of human beings." He likened the global population to a "pulsating mass of maggots." When I pressed Holdren's office specifically about his relationship with Brown, spokesman Rick Weiss told me he didn't know who Brown was and balked at drawing any conclusions about Holdren's views based on his homage just two years ago to his lifelong mentor, colleague and continued inspiration, Harrison Brown."
So it would seem that Holdren hasn't changed his views on the progressive's favorite topics- eugenics and environmentalism. He's only changed the way he speaks publically about them.
Recent statements by the White house and Holdren's staff "When asked whether Mr. Holdren's thoughts on population control have changed over the years, his staff gave The Washington Times a statement that said, "This material is from a three-decade-old, three-author college textbook.
Dr. Holdren addressed this issue during his confirmation when he said he does not believe that determining optimal population is a proper role of government. Dr. Holdren is not and never has been an advocate for policies of forced sterilization." ... The White House also passed along a statement from the Ehrlichs that said, in part, "anybody who actually wants to know what we and/or Professor Holdren believe and recommend about these matters would presumably read some of the dozens of publications that we and he separately have produced in more recent times, rather than going back a third of a century to find some formulations in an encyclopedic textbook where description can be misrepresented as endorsement."
While they might distance themselves now that these views have come to light, they can not deny that Dr. Holdren favors government control over population growth and Holdren himself has never renounced and disavowed the contents of Ecoscience.
When under questioning, Senator David Vitter asked Holdren " In 1973, you encouraged "a decline in fertility well below replacement" in the United States because "280 million in 2040 is likely to be too many." What would your number for the right population in the US be today?
John Holdren: I no longer think it's productive, Senator, to focus on the optimum population of the United States. I don't think any of us know what the right answer is. When I wrote those lines in 1973, uh, I was preoccupied with the fact that many problems the United States faced appeared to be being made more difficult by the greater population growth that then prevailed. I think everyone who studies these matters understands that population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities; it's a tough question to determine which will prevail in a given time period. I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions that all of our citizens face economically, environmentally and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have been calling ‘sustainable prosperity.’”
What has changed? Well, when he co authored the text book, he was not being considered for a high powered, president appointed position. He was a liberal writing for a liberal University. He was not being interviewed when he was able to speak freely, knowing only like minded progressives would be reading.
"To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however."
"Social pressures on both men and women to marry and have children must be removed. As former Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall observed, "All lives are not enhanced by marital union; parenthood is not necessarily a fulfillment for every married couple." If society were convinced of the need for low birth rates, no doubt the stigma that has customarily been assigned to bachelors, spinsters, and childless couples would soon disappear. But alternative lifestyles should be open to single people, and perhaps the institution of an informal, easily dissolved "marriage" for the childless is one possibility..."
"Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the "right responsibly to choose" the number and spacing of children (our emphasis). In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy and it has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But the right is not unlimited. Where the society has a "compelling, subordinating interest" in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed."
This man is frightening. But more so when we consider something seemingly unrelated. Swine flu.
Much has been made of the swine flu in recent months. So much so, one would think it was an actual epidemic such as Ebola, the Bubonic Plague or some such actual mass killing infection. While I am not discounting the people who have died from this, in actuality though, this is about as serious as our regular flu pandemics which happen every year with more deaths reported than with this one particular strain. It is interesting however, that the WHO and UN, and some of our world governments have been scrambling to find a vaccine for this particular strain, which, could work against the human immune system such as with many new strains of bacterias which are no longer susecptible to penicillin due to over use.
Consider the past thoughts and statements of people such as Holder, and we have someone who could (not saying would- but we never know) work with the health czar and the UN, on "eradicating" the swine flu by administering flu shots to all populations. Think about it. Not much of a stretch to think they could put some sort of sterilization drugs in these vaccinations. Think about other proponants of eugenics, the fact that people such as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, who believed in abortions for undersirebles such as the poor and those of color. These people really would have no problem going into the poorest parts of the country to administer these shots, knowing it would limit or stop future generations of poor, and in a socialist society, unproductive individuals who are no use to the state. They could also "lovingly euthanize" the elderly with a vaccine. After all, in the socialist society, the elderly are a drain on the government, past being able to contribute to the community, too old to work for the common good.
Sounds like a luny horror movie script doesn't it? Only problem is, is this scenario, as unbelieveable as it sounds could be something the elite environmentalists, those who value the creation instead of recognizing the Creator have no real compulsions about euthanasia, forced abortion or anything that could stand in the way of a utiopia, perfect society which they want to bring about.
The Bible warns us about ungodly practices in the latter days. Those days are here. Our present OOO has surrounded himself with an ungodly people who have to answer to no one. People were warned, but the people also wanted change without thinking of consequences. I have, as thousands of others been sounding the alarm over our government and the Biblical prophecies coming to pass for years. Are you willing to listen now? Our present government is wanting to silence people like me, putting me off as an extremest, bigoted and inclusive homophobic fear mongerer, a birther nutjob. I have been called worse, and will continue to be called all sorts of things.
One thing I have learned, is that when you are coming too close to the truth, those spreading the lies will come at you with everything they can. Some day, soon, those of us who oppose the spirit of the antichrist will be either silenced or removed from this world
by our Savior and Lord Jesus. Will you remember the warnings?
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/130645.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/More-Holdren-Traditional-family-is-obsolete-50807107.html
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2368
I have and will continue to answer any questions relating to anything political or Biblical.... I just pray that people will start thinking and learning.
"The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States." -- Sen. Barack Obama, March 31, 2008
I know the idea of having czars is not limited to the OOO (occupier of the oval office) as other presidents have had such as "drug czars", "education czars" etc. However with the obami administration's highering of multiple czars, last I counted there were 32 of them!
Now think for a minute. These people are placed by the adminstration, but they are accountable to no one BUT the obami administration. These people are forming and suggesting policies which no one of the public can question. They are not elected, they are not a part of congress or the senate. They are unelected yet have as much, if not more power than the legislative branch of our government. They are not subjected to Senate confirmation or congressional oversight and therefore are a huge threat to our system of checks and balances. To me, this is a frightening prospect considering the socialist mindset of those running Washington.
Just who and what are these czars anyway? Well, just for starters, we have : A Mideast peace czar (not to be confused with the Mideast policy czar), a Sudan czar and a Guantanamo closure czar. Then there's the green jobs czar, the energy czar, the technology czar, an urban affairs czar, the Great Lakes czar or the WMD czar, the terrorism czar. The stimulus accountability czar, the TARP czar, the government performance czar, the information czar. We have a science czar, health czar and a pay czar. We had a car czar, but he stepped down after some sort of controversy. Gee, if everyone in Washington would step down over a controversy, I doubt there'd be anyone left!
Anyway, that's just the main ones. There are more. Gotta love big bloated government expecially when the private sector are losing their businesses and jobs.
So, let's look at one of these people, dear leader OOO has brought into his fold. If it doesn't raise the hair on the back of your neck like it does mine, well you're a much stronger person than I.
One thought before I introduce you to our science czar. I was talking with my husband about this earlier. I said normally if someone were to claim the things I'm going to show you, we'd be labled as lunitics. It sounds too fantastic to be real, and sounds totally like a conspiracy theory, but let me assure you, these are not normal times. These are not some back woods wierdos. These are highly educated people, people with a very disturbing ideal, which, if you've read any of my blogs, tells me that the times of Biblical prophecies are coming on quickly.
Who is the science czar? His name is Eric Holdren.
In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
Here are some direct quotes from his book, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment
"The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,”
"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society"
" If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society. "
"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. "
"A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. ... The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."
On the new world order:
"Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable...."
"If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization. "
Michelle Malkin recently wrote about him saying, " Well, I did read one of Holdren's recent works. It revealed his clingy reverence for, and allegiance to, the gurus of population control authoritarianism. He's just gotten smarter about cloaking it behind global warming hysteria. In 2007, he addressed the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference. Holdren served as AAAS president; the organization posted his full slide presentation on its website. In the opening slide, Holdren admitted that his "preoccupation" with apocalyptic matters such as "the rates at which people breed" was a lifelong obsession spurred by Harrison Brown's work. Holdren heaped praise on Brown's half-century-old book, The Challenge of Man's Future, and then proceeded to paint doom-and-gloom scenarios requiring drastic government interventions to control climate change. Who is Harrison Brown? He was a "distinguished member" of the International Eugenics Society whom Holdren later worked with on a book about -- you guessed it -- world population and fertility. Brown advocated the same population control-freak measures Holdren put forth in Ecoscience. In The Challenge of Man's Future, Brown envisioned a regime in which the "number of abortions and artificial inseminations permitted in a given year would be determined completely by the difference between the number of deaths and the number of births in the year previous." Brown exhorted readers to accept that "we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that artificial means must be applied to limit birth rates." If we don't, Brown warned, we will face a planet "with a writhing mass of human beings." He likened the global population to a "pulsating mass of maggots." When I pressed Holdren's office specifically about his relationship with Brown, spokesman Rick Weiss told me he didn't know who Brown was and balked at drawing any conclusions about Holdren's views based on his homage just two years ago to his lifelong mentor, colleague and continued inspiration, Harrison Brown."
So it would seem that Holdren hasn't changed his views on the progressive's favorite topics- eugenics and environmentalism. He's only changed the way he speaks publically about them.
Recent statements by the White house and Holdren's staff "When asked whether Mr. Holdren's thoughts on population control have changed over the years, his staff gave The Washington Times a statement that said, "This material is from a three-decade-old, three-author college textbook.
Dr. Holdren addressed this issue during his confirmation when he said he does not believe that determining optimal population is a proper role of government. Dr. Holdren is not and never has been an advocate for policies of forced sterilization." ... The White House also passed along a statement from the Ehrlichs that said, in part, "anybody who actually wants to know what we and/or Professor Holdren believe and recommend about these matters would presumably read some of the dozens of publications that we and he separately have produced in more recent times, rather than going back a third of a century to find some formulations in an encyclopedic textbook where description can be misrepresented as endorsement."
While they might distance themselves now that these views have come to light, they can not deny that Dr. Holdren favors government control over population growth and Holdren himself has never renounced and disavowed the contents of Ecoscience.
When under questioning, Senator David Vitter asked Holdren " In 1973, you encouraged "a decline in fertility well below replacement" in the United States because "280 million in 2040 is likely to be too many." What would your number for the right population in the US be today?
John Holdren: I no longer think it's productive, Senator, to focus on the optimum population of the United States. I don't think any of us know what the right answer is. When I wrote those lines in 1973, uh, I was preoccupied with the fact that many problems the United States faced appeared to be being made more difficult by the greater population growth that then prevailed. I think everyone who studies these matters understands that population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities; it's a tough question to determine which will prevail in a given time period. I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions that all of our citizens face economically, environmentally and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have been calling ‘sustainable prosperity.’”
What has changed? Well, when he co authored the text book, he was not being considered for a high powered, president appointed position. He was a liberal writing for a liberal University. He was not being interviewed when he was able to speak freely, knowing only like minded progressives would be reading.
"To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however."
"Social pressures on both men and women to marry and have children must be removed. As former Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall observed, "All lives are not enhanced by marital union; parenthood is not necessarily a fulfillment for every married couple." If society were convinced of the need for low birth rates, no doubt the stigma that has customarily been assigned to bachelors, spinsters, and childless couples would soon disappear. But alternative lifestyles should be open to single people, and perhaps the institution of an informal, easily dissolved "marriage" for the childless is one possibility..."
"Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the "right responsibly to choose" the number and spacing of children (our emphasis). In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy and it has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But the right is not unlimited. Where the society has a "compelling, subordinating interest" in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed."
This man is frightening. But more so when we consider something seemingly unrelated. Swine flu.
Much has been made of the swine flu in recent months. So much so, one would think it was an actual epidemic such as Ebola, the Bubonic Plague or some such actual mass killing infection. While I am not discounting the people who have died from this, in actuality though, this is about as serious as our regular flu pandemics which happen every year with more deaths reported than with this one particular strain. It is interesting however, that the WHO and UN, and some of our world governments have been scrambling to find a vaccine for this particular strain, which, could work against the human immune system such as with many new strains of bacterias which are no longer susecptible to penicillin due to over use.
Consider the past thoughts and statements of people such as Holder, and we have someone who could (not saying would- but we never know) work with the health czar and the UN, on "eradicating" the swine flu by administering flu shots to all populations. Think about it. Not much of a stretch to think they could put some sort of sterilization drugs in these vaccinations. Think about other proponants of eugenics, the fact that people such as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, who believed in abortions for undersirebles such as the poor and those of color. These people really would have no problem going into the poorest parts of the country to administer these shots, knowing it would limit or stop future generations of poor, and in a socialist society, unproductive individuals who are no use to the state. They could also "lovingly euthanize" the elderly with a vaccine. After all, in the socialist society, the elderly are a drain on the government, past being able to contribute to the community, too old to work for the common good.
Sounds like a luny horror movie script doesn't it? Only problem is, is this scenario, as unbelieveable as it sounds could be something the elite environmentalists, those who value the creation instead of recognizing the Creator have no real compulsions about euthanasia, forced abortion or anything that could stand in the way of a utiopia, perfect society which they want to bring about.
The Bible warns us about ungodly practices in the latter days. Those days are here. Our present OOO has surrounded himself with an ungodly people who have to answer to no one. People were warned, but the people also wanted change without thinking of consequences. I have, as thousands of others been sounding the alarm over our government and the Biblical prophecies coming to pass for years. Are you willing to listen now? Our present government is wanting to silence people like me, putting me off as an extremest, bigoted and inclusive homophobic fear mongerer, a birther nutjob. I have been called worse, and will continue to be called all sorts of things.
One thing I have learned, is that when you are coming too close to the truth, those spreading the lies will come at you with everything they can. Some day, soon, those of us who oppose the spirit of the antichrist will be either silenced or removed from this world
by our Savior and Lord Jesus. Will you remember the warnings?
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/130645.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/More-Holdren-Traditional-family-is-obsolete-50807107.html
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2368
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)