July 10, 2009

Obama's Science Czar Wrote Book Advocating Forced Abortions, Sterilizing Americans By Poisoning Our Drinking Water

Zombie has once again gone deep into print to discover a book called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment where John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, suggested dictating how others should live their lives to assuage pseudo-scientific hysteria.

Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology -- informally known as the United States' Science Czar. 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.

Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things.

Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no exaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and this report contains the proof. Below you will find photographs, scans, and transcriptions of pages in the book Ecoscience, co-authored in 1977 by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. The scans and photos are provided to supply conclusive evidence that the words attributed to Holdren are unaltered and accurately transcribed.

The dark mind of Holdren that pushed for totalitarian in the 1970s based upon the projections of junk science is participating now in activist legislation that is based upon projections made up by the junk science of man-made global cooling global warming climate change.

While you're there, stomach aflutter as your soak in the detached derangement of a man who could so coolly and "logically" advocate such horrors, your mind may start to connect him to other totalitarian associates of Barack Obama who were just as willing to expose 25 million Americans to "re-education centers."

I asked, "Well what is going to happen to those people we can't reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?" And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated.

And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say "eliminate," I mean "kill."

Twenty-five million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious.

One can rest assured that Barack Obama cannot turn to his old associate Bill Ayers to be his "education czar" thanks to how Ayers and his wife were exposed as domestic terrorists during the campaign, but now Holdren has been exposed as having a similar sort of pathology, the chilling thought of someone with a similar mindset being given such a position doesn't seem as easy to laugh off.

There is something deeply, dangerously wrong with the kind of people who harbor such delusions, and there is something deeply, dangerously wrong with the kind of president who promotes people with such viewpoints to positions of power.

John Holdren needs to leave his postion, and leave it now.

For Barack Obama, we'll have to wait until January 20, 2013.

Update: More on Obama's eugenicist at Noisy Room and Bookworm Review.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at July 10, 2009 05:01 PM

They don't like to admit it, but since the passing of the age of monarchies, the left has produced the predominate number of dictators the world has known.

In the 2nd movie of the 2nd Star Wars trilogy, there is a point where Skywalker is talking to the queen about forms of government, and Skywalker says the best way would be for a man of knowledge or group of the knowledgable to run the universe to better direct it toward progress...

That is what the left has been for some time...

Posted by: usinkorea at July 10, 2009 07:46 PM

This isn't a surprise to some of us. The idea behind abortions was that it would be a means of eugenics to keep the black population down. Do the research.

More evidence:

In a 1934 letter, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, wrote to her financial sponsor, Clarence Gamble (the Proctor & Gamble heir) :

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Now we should all be on the alert for the new swine flu vaccination. Read about it here:


and if this is too "conspiracy theory" for you, then just look up what happened to the soldiers who were forced to take the swine flu vaccine during the Gulf War and weep. The government is not our friend.

Posted by: Jen at July 10, 2009 09:16 PM

I can't believe this tripe. My wife is disabled. They would have had her aborted or worse.

The left's health experts testified before congress in favor of health care rationing. When will the public ever learn.

It's just the Nazi's with the serial number filed off.

Posted by: Chockblock at July 11, 2009 04:22 AM

Germany circa 1933

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 11, 2009 01:50 PM

If this information is factual, this John Holdren guy needs to go!

Forced abortions and sterilization of people, even those who can least afford to raise children, is just plain wrong. Surely, the right to life people among us would agree with this.

Of course, this also means that the welfare state will inevitably increase in size, as it has for the past several generations, as society at large has to pay for the daily needs (food, clothing and shelter) and medical care of the little children born to irresponsible parents.

If we as a society agree that forced abortions of people who can least afford to raise kids is wrong, then, the next logical step is to agree that it's equally wrong to abandon these children to a life of hunger, misery, suffering, poor health, high infant mortality rates and poverty.

What a mess we're in!

Posted by: Dude at July 11, 2009 02:36 PM

Dude, what a freakin bigot you are! Poor people can't raise children? Man, you are one sick person!

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 11, 2009 05:14 PM

Reminds me of the officer in Dr. Strangelove and his 'purity of bodily essence' fixation. He must have met Holdren too.
When can we say that Obama is waging a war on science and a war on the American people? I wonder if Holdren's disfavored populations are the same as Judge Ginsberg's disfavored populations ripe for extermination?

Posted by: eaglewingz08 at July 11, 2009 05:31 PM

Capitalist Infidel: What makes you think that I'm a bigot. You obviously don't know me at all! I am far from being a bigot.

Tell me one thing in my post that would lead any reasonable person with 10th grade reading skills to conclude that I'm a bigot. It ain't in there. I didn't say nor imply that poor people can't raise children. You dreamed that up in YOUR mind. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that I know as much or more about poor folks and their plight, on a very personal level, than you do. And, I know plenty of them who have and are doing a find job of raising their children. Most of them that I know, however, do receive some type of government assistance. Many of them don't want it, they need it.

No, I'm not a freakin bigot nor am I a sick person. In fact, I'm one of the least bigoted people that you'd ever encounter. Period.

It seems to me that you're just angry at the world. The irony of this conversation is that you, when you call me a bigot and sick, is that it's actually you, yourself, who is exhibiting the behavior of a bigot by jumping to conclusions and hurling insults at someone that you know nothing about.

Posted by: Dude at July 11, 2009 06:52 PM

Fascinating to watch the progglodytes make excuse after excuse for Affirmative-Action Jeebus' associates. I mean, this is positively Mengle-esque and the trolls manage to twist it into another reason why we should support the Magic Negro's fiscal madness.

Analyze Dude's comment. Does he seem more concerned with this mad scientist's rantings, or with justifying Chicago-style patronage/bread-and-circuses government?

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at July 11, 2009 08:57 PM

Dude! Moby,...

"If we as a society agree that forced abortions of people who can least afford to raise kids is wrong, then, the next logical step is to agree that it's equally wrong to abandon these children to a life of hunger, misery, suffering, poor health, high infant mortality rates and poverty."

So, in your Illinois Nazi mind the "next logical step" [sic] "is to agree that it's equally wrong to..." [sic]

Poor == kill them

You said it, not me.

I hate Illinois Nazis...

Posted by: Druid at July 11, 2009 11:09 PM

Holdren has been long known as a scientific crank with little or no credibility. What's different now, except that the Democrat Obamagod has ruled otherwise? From those of us in the science community who know to those in the uninformed liberal blogsphere of the unknown, wake up!!! Did you read that correctly, wake the ----up now before it's too late!

There is no excuse for this liberal stalino-fascist avocation of genocide against mankind! Holdren has to go NOW!!!

Posted by: Mescalero at July 11, 2009 11:10 PM


No, I didn't say it. You said it. I didn't even think it. You're obviously delusional.

My point was/is that children born to poor families, who can't afford to support the kids, need the help of government services to provide for the welfare of the children. If you can't understand the simple logic of that, it's pointless to even attempt a civil discussion with you and your ilk.

You've got it totally backwards. I'm saying:

Poor = provide for them the necessary daily needs and health care.

My hunch is that even though you disagree with Holdren's book, as I do also, you're probably against the necessary government welfare money to provide for these kids. Right or wrong?

Nine of Diamonds: What's there to analyze in my comment? It speaks clearly for itself.

You fellas can't have it both ways. That's my point. I think you guys don't care if the children starve to death AFTER they're born. This discussion is one that gripes you so called conservatives to no end. Though you rightfully rant against the writings of Holbren, you can't support the concept of government aid to provide for the poor. You're a disgusting and hypocritical lot.

Thank you CY for providing a topic to expose these louts for what they really are.

Posted by: Dude at July 11, 2009 11:44 PM

No Dude, we conservatives object to you fascist lefties' insistence that you're better qualified to spend our money and dispose of our property than we are. You always have a very good reason - invariably it's "for the children" - to expand the intrusive powe rof the state (as if the state has any other sort of power) into citizens' privat elives.

You have displayed the sort of attitude that sees no contraditicon between a "Keep your laws off my ovaries" bumper sticker and an insistence on federally funded abortions.

Sorry if Holdren has once again exposed your sick eugenics fantasies. I know, he's suppsoed to be more subtle about eliminating "undesirables." It always upsets you guys when one of you inadvertently says what you all are thinking.

Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 12, 2009 07:39 AM

Thank GOD (if there's any room left for HIM) that THIS administration has rejected ideology and embraced "science."

... Wait ...

Posted by: DoorHold at July 12, 2009 11:16 AM

It is kind of fun to watch dude and his ilk twisting in the wind blowing from their leaders.

Posted by: emdfl at July 12, 2009 11:40 AM

How is this Nazi regime surviving in america.
They are using our money.

Posted by: Donald Mattson at July 12, 2009 11:42 AM

No Skubinna, I haven't displayed any such attitude as you claim. Like several others in this thread you falsely accuse me of holding positions, attitudes and, in some cases, words, that you WISH that I held or had said. Fortunately for me, the record of what I have ACTUALLY said and think is clear in my posts.

emdfl: What's really fun is to watch you and your ilk squirm, lose your cool, spout your foolishness, display your bigotry, engage in name calling when you're incapable of intelligent debate, etc.

A friend and I were once discussing why we even subject ourselves to the verbal abuse and the dearth of critical thought on some of these political forums. It's true that once in a while I can have an intelligent discussion with someone, rationally and civilly debating our political differences, in a forum such as this one. I thank God for that. However, for the most part, that ain't the case.

So, the question remains: why do we do it? The answer is simple. There are likely hundreds, perhaps thousands of people who read these threads but who never post. (I suppose that only God and CY know how many visitors each topic thread has on a given day.) I take comfort in the knowledge that reasonable people of normal intelligence with basic reading and thinking skills read our posts and clearly recognize YOU for what you really are.

It's priceless. The Democrat Party couldn't possibly buy the positive Public Relations that y'all provide to the party, for FREE. The irony of it is beautiful!

Until next time.......Cheers!


Posted by: Dude at July 12, 2009 03:28 PM

Got that? It's anonymous blog comentators we need to worry about - not human garbage like this man who are in positions of power & would willfully poison Americans en masse. But go on, keep justifying him. Poisoning babies & children oughta be GREAT PR for the Demo-scum, dontcha know. Irony indeed.

Oh, and what's it with the proggies rambling on about intelligence and reading skills whenever they post? Fear, perhaps, that Teleprompter-messiah isn't quite the brainiac he's made out to be? All the evidence indicates he was pretty stupid & lazy, even for your typical Affirmative Action token-"black":

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at July 12, 2009 07:41 PM

you know is has always been interesting to watch liberals/democrats over the years - they are singuarly the most racist people in Amerika!! From the debates in congress in the 1960's leading to the 1964 civil rights act(just go ahead and read them if you don't believe me) - to Clinton's mentor - to the Kennedy's telling us what we should do, but not letting minorities in their precious Martha's Vinyard unless they are domestic workers - to the recent comments unearthed by Justice Ginsberg. They are adept at hiding it, and lecturing others. I know - I once was a big LIB - voted for George McGovern and Carter 2x - "shame on me." Long since have figured it out that liberalism is a disease - so all you LIB's that ranr and rave at the conservatives on this blog can lecture all you want, but you and I both know that it's ok for everyone else, but NOT in your neighborhood!!!!

Posted by: mixitup at July 12, 2009 07:42 PM

What do you expect from the people who supported the killing fields of Pol Pot and the extermination of the kulaks under Stalin.

Posted by: Federale at July 12, 2009 09:11 PM

Whine-of-diamonds, As the late great Ronnie was famous for saying.....there you go again!

I've said NOTHING to justify this man in any of my posts, as anyone with a lick of sense would know by reading them. Of course, that obviously rules you out!

MixedUp, Ahhhhhhh, you might try reading the posts again. I think that I'm the only "Liberal" that has posted in this particular thread. And, I would hardly call my posts "ranting and raving". My participation gives you folks an outlet for YOUR ranting and raving. Without me here, y'all would just be preaching to the choir. It would be like a psyche ward with whackozoids stumbling around mumbling to themselves. Yes, indeed, you are mixed up. But, that's OK. Rant on! Get it out of your system.

By the way, I don't know if you would or wouldn't like my neighborhood. We're a pretty diverse lot here. From what I gather from your post, and the several posts of Whine that I've suffered through, I don't think that either of y'all would be a good fit.

I'm glad that you found a new political home. Honesty, I am! It's great that you've found a group of like minded individuals with whom you can share and articulate your pearls of wisdom.

Dr. Dude

Posted by: Dude at July 12, 2009 09:49 PM

Y'all Y'all Y'all Y'all - yep. Garden variety SWPL keyboard kkkomando, with a terminal case of White Guilt/Negrofascism, depending on its race. ROTFL.

Please note the shrieking/energy expended over blog commentors' posts, as opposed to oh, I dunno - the writings of one of the most powerful scientists in the Magic Negro's "presidential" "administration." The issue is not whether mouth-breather condemns/does not condemn the man's sick fantasies. The issues are priorities, proportionality of response, and what really gets under said mouth-breather's skin. Based on how long he's been rambling, who do you think the keyboard kkkomandos hates more? Holdren, or the lady with a McCain/Palin sticker on her minivan?

I also love how it's all about ME with the Halfrican bastard's mouth-breather brigade. Hehe.

"I appreciate diversity!"

"I'm not a WAY-SIST like Y'all Y'all Y'all are!"

"I've got more mah-nori-tays in my neighborhood than you! Nyahh!"

Epic meltdown - lol.

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at July 12, 2009 10:09 PM

Hey Skubina, "fascist lefties" is an oxymoron. Fascism is a far-right ideology. I guess they didn't offer Poli Sci at whatever podunk junior college you dropped out of. Do some research.

Posted by: Dude 2 at July 12, 2009 11:25 PM

Ah, the keyboard fascists' intellectual superiority fixation. More distraught commentary bewailing blasphemy against the Majick Negro's cabinet, as opposed to criticism of the man who would be Mengele. Note my prior point about priorities. The best thing about proggies is they prove your points for ya!

As for the Nazis=Rightists inanity, we could discuss the leftist political leanings of many fascists prior to (and even after) the "night of the long knives", the ex-Communist Nazis of Police Battalion 101, and ex-Nazi Communists in East Germany, etc. But that would rock the historical illiterates' boats, you see. Oh well - at least the keyboard KKKomandos are too gutless to defend His Imperial Negritude's staff selection process (or lack thereof). Guess that's a start.

For the more open-minded:

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at July 13, 2009 04:15 AM

Holy Smokes. I've met a self described Liberal who was for this very thing. At first she called herself Pro-abortion. Then it became clear that she meant state mandated abortions enforced by the police. At first I thought it was just one person, but now there are two data points. I've met quite a few Liberals, and I haven't heard much of this. I'll ask em.

Dude, in your first comment on this thread, you try to change the topic, when forced abortions on citizens should be off the table, period.

This isn't the topic you're going to want to fight. You should join the good people.

Posted by: brando at July 13, 2009 10:11 AM

Ok. What was incorrect about Dudes initial post?
He said Holdren needs to go. He said forced abortions are WRONG. He said welfare will increase due to irresponsible parents. He also said we can't abandon the children. So, why all the vitriol? Someone want to clear this up?

Posted by: Billiam at July 13, 2009 12:01 PM

Dude2, if you had studied, you'd see that Facism can come from the extreme of either side, though, from what I've read, it's mostly left. From the side that feels the need for more and more government control.

Posted by: Billiam at July 13, 2009 12:03 PM

I think it's because topic switching on a thread can easily (and often correctly) be seen as a non-sequitor premise on the already existing topic.

It's the "Hey, look over there" argument.

Yeah, he did lead with the rhetoric that Holden's idea was bad, then quickly shifted to "but, but, but... Everyone hates Republicans."

It happens on a lot of topics, and it's easy to spot.

"Racism's bad, but.....[argument why it's good]"
"I support the troops, but....[argument why they don't]"
"State mandated abortion is bad, but....[argument why it's good]"

Also, in his post, look for the words "equally wrong". He's making a moral equivalliant between not supporting universal healthcare, and the horror of STATE MANDATED ABORTIONS.


Think about that for a second, and what a violation of citizens rights that would be. That's worse than rape. That's something out of a sci-fi horror movie.


I'm hoping I can turn some Libs on this topic, cause.....holy crap.

Let's talk about this some more.

Posted by: brando at July 13, 2009 12:40 PM

Billiam, Thank you for your astute observation of my initial post. You correctly observed what I ACTUALLY said. Seriously, thank you!

"So, why all the vitriol?" Because, unfortunately, it seems to go with the territory. I, too, was puzzled by it when I first started visiting some forums. Seems to me that there are many people who post who are just angry. They are so consumed by their anger that they are incapable of having a logical, civil discussion of issues in a polite and courteous manner. Furthermore, they will twist people's words with whom they don't agree.

Look at Brando's last comment. It's a perfect example. He says:

"Yeah, he did lead with the rhetoric that Holden's idea was bad, then quickly shifted to "but, but, but... Everyone hates Republicans."

Of course, in reality, I said no such thing, as you can clearly read. I never used the word "hate" nor did I use the word "Republican". Brando simply made all that up. In a court of law that would be called perjury. In everyday life, we all know what the correct word is to describe his falsehoods.

Look at another clear example of Brando's dishonesty in his "rhetoric" when he says:

"Also, in his post, look for the words "equally wrong". He's making a moral equivalliant between not supporting universal healthcare, and the horror of STATE MANDATED ABORTIONS."

In point of fact, I was making a moral equivalent between the horror of state mandated abortions and the hypocricy of the many people who oppose abortion while at the same time not seeming to care if the babies starve to death AFTER they are born.

Of course state mandated abortions are wrong! Period! No ifs, ands, buts about it. And, it IS equally wrong for the state not to provide the basic necessities of life for babies of poor people who can't provide for those babies themselves. Though it is true that people who can't afford to raise children shouldn't be having children, once that child is born we all have a responsibility to be sure that its basic needs are met.

Once the babies are born, they are here. We can not take the moral high ground on one issue and not take the moral high ground on the other issue. Furthermore, I deliberately made this point because I KNOW from reading past threads that many of the people who take the moral high ground on the issue of state mandated abortions, take the moral low ground on the issue of the state providing for poor children after they are born. They can't have it both ways, though they would like to be able to. If you are pro life before birth, then you MUST be pro life after birth. Otherwise, you are a total hypocrite.

Universal Health Care is another topic altogether, one which I DO support. But, that has nothing to do with this discussion. That's another topic for another time.

Mark my words. Someone will twist what I've said in this post. When you read what they will say that I said, please take the time to go back and read again what I REALLY said.

You'll catch on quickly how things work here. Thanks again for comprehending what I said in my initial post. Though we may not agree with each other on every topic, we can at least be civil with each other. I appreciate that.

Kind Regards,


Posted by: Dude at July 13, 2009 04:05 PM

Wait a sec. Did you just call me dishonest? I'm not. Questioning my integrity is not civil. You are dead wrong.

Because I'm so forgiving, I'll give you a chance to repent. But only for a short while. I'm not Jesus. Out of fairness, I'll give ya 5 hours.

"Of course state mandated abortions are wrong! Period! No ifs, ands, buts about it. And,....[a bunch of other unrelated stuff]"

You immediatly follow it with the word "AND"! hahahaahaha!

I don't think you known what "period" means. You can't yell Period, then say more stuff.

I'll show you how it's done. Having federal police round up citizens based on political leanings/race/income, then forcing them to have abortions is an abysmal violation of personal rights. This should not be enacted on the American populace. Period.

Posted by: brando at July 13, 2009 05:11 PM

Brando: No, I'm not "questioning" your integrity at all. I'm pointing out the obvious in your previous post. Our words speak for themselves. There's nothing to question.

I will, however, concede to you on one point. Indeed, I did make a mistake in the structure/phrasing of the paragraph that contained my statement:

"Of course state mandated abortions are wrong! Period! No ifs, ands, buts about it."

After the above statement in my previous post I should have begun a new paragraph that didn't begin with the word "And". How silly of me to have made such a careless error in paragraph structure. The proper way to have phrased the words following the above statement would have been to begin a NEW paragraph that says:

"It IS equally wrong for the state not to provide the basic necessities of life for babies of poor people who can't provide for those babies themselves. Though it is true that people who can't afford to raise children shouldn't be having children, once that child is born we all have a responsibility to be sure that its basic needs are met."

Excuse me for my gramatical error of using the word "And" to begin my next sentence. By the way, I CAN "yell Period, then say more stuff." The "more stuff" simply needs to be in a new paragraph.

Nevertheless, the point is the same. Once we have come to the conclusion, and agreed, mind you, that state mandated abortions ARE wrong, we then must move along to the the next logical thought in this discussion. This is a process known as "critical thought", in case you aren't familiar with the term or the science.

The next question that begs to be answered is: How do we, as a society, deal with the problem of providing the basic necessities of life for these children born to parents who can not provide for them? This problem that must be dealt with is what you simplisticly refer to as, and I quote: [a bunch of other unrelated stuff].

Though you may consider it to be a "bunch of other unrelated stuff", I can assure you that hungry children are, in fact, a concern to a majority of Americans.

Thank you for your lesson in the proper use of the word "Period" in our discussion. How's this for an example?

Forced abortions are wrong. Babies are sometimes born to parents who can't afford to feed and clothe them. A state that claims to be based on morality has an obligation to provide the basic needs of life for these children. Period.

Posted by: Dude at July 13, 2009 10:20 PM

Time's up. No more muligans. You lose. You can't say that I wasn't fair.

State Mandated Abortions? Yes or No?

"it is true that people who can't afford to raise children shouldn't be having children" - Dude

Roger that.

Posted by: brando at July 13, 2009 11:13 PM

I didn't lose. I'm not on your clock.

I've made it perfectly clear, already, several times. In case you didn't understand, here it is again:

State Mandated Abortions? NO

And my question to you:

State Support for Poor Children? Yes or No?

Posted by: Dude at July 14, 2009 12:27 AM

"Ok. What was incorrect about Dudes initial post?
He said Holdren needs to go. He said forced abortions are WRONG. He said welfare will increase due to irresponsible parents. He also said we can't abandon the children. So, why all the vitriol? Someone want to clear this up?"

The sophomoric redirection tactics. Using the thread as a springboard for traditional Democratic fiscal looseness (not that the morons in the Republican Party have much to brag about, but that's another story).

The fact that he/she/it gets worked up over fellow commenters to a degree that he cannot seem to muster for wannabe-Mengele here. Whether or not he/she/it made a perfunctory condemnation of the AA Messiah's little Mengele is not the point.

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at July 14, 2009 01:13 PM

i almost always disagree with things Dude Says and supports but this time its a bad rap. I'm not Sure I agree with his premise that there will be more children that will need state Support, but that is open to debate. all of his critics in this thread read what they expected to See and not what he actually wrote.

Posted by: RC at July 14, 2009 01:59 PM

Rational people understand the point very well. It's a pity that you don't get it.

Sophomoric redirection tactics? Hardly. Logical sequence of thought? Yes.

Posted by: Dude at July 14, 2009 02:05 PM

RC, just a guess here, but here's how it flows for me. There are many people who either can't afford, or just plain are to incompetent to have kids. Yet, they have them. They also don't do a good job taking care of them. So 'We the People', through our tax dollars, wind up with the tab. The Welfare State perpetuates itself. I knew people in the town I grew up in that had 2-3 generations on welfare. It was just sick. Also, there's no shame in it any more. My Mom was on it for a short time. The looks and reactions I saw when she pulled the food stamps out made my mind up right there. I'd NEVER be on welfare, no matter what I had to do, short of crime. That no longer exists. Our nation has been turned into a herd of sheep waiting for Big Daddy Government to feed them and tell them what to do. Oops! I'm ranting. Sorry.. ;-)

Posted by: Billiam at July 14, 2009 03:42 PM

I went back and reread CYís post. And I thought carefully about it. Yeah, Iím still against this concept. I donít care how much money it saves. Itís an awful idea.

RC, I went back and reread Dude vowing that I'm dishonest. I didn't misread it. There are very few things that border on unforgivable for me, and I think that lying and flippant, false, accusations of integrity violations are close.

It undermines society itself. (as does detaining citizens, then destroying their fetuses)

And yet, I even offered to forgive him. Everyone has to admit, that's pretty cool, given the grievous nature of his offence.

I also believe that most good people feel the same way, but even if I were the only person in the world that was honest, it wouldn't make me less right. That's why I usually credit people, instead of discredit them. I think that's fair. I think that's good. Dude is smart. Super smart and rational. He says so. Everything he wrote stands. Including him vowing that I'm a dishonest man. He can't squirm out of that at this point. He's not crazy, or stupid, or irrational. He's just bad.

"all of his critics in this thread read what they expected to See and not what he actually wrote." --RC

No, he actually wrote that I'm dishonest. He is wrong. You can go back and look yourself. RC, I'm going to assume that you're perfectly honest and smart.

His argument could be reduced to: "I'm against forced abortions, but it sure would save money. If you don't want to spend the money we'd save, then you're just as hellish."

It's a monstrous concept.

My point is this: Rounding up my wife and other people's wives, and aborting their fetuses, and/or rendering them sterile is not a viable way for the U.S. Government to save money. It doesnít matter how much money it would save, such a program should be off the table. Itís reprehensible.

I know he doesn't think that's rational, or honest. But it's both. It's also good. Iím not wrong, and I think that anyone who reads this knows it.

Thatís not even touching on the other main point of this thread; the systematic extermination of 25 million Americans. I personally believe that such a thing would be bad for America. And my belief is right.

Posted by: brando at July 14, 2009 04:23 PM

Lol. More chest-pounding about intelligence/"rational people" from das keyboardkommando 0bama Jugend. Again. It's all about HIM.



[Shrug].Figures, since the proggies don't have the courage to defend their boy's fantasies they misdirect at the first opportunity. Given how destructive the AA Messiah's policies are as a whole, why should proggs who disavow this radicalism - only to take the opportunity to misdirect/condone other bad ideas - get any brownie points?

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at July 14, 2009 04:52 PM

This guy needs to go, where the heck is the Media on this one? Oh wait they are all still milking the MJ thing...

As for the whole Dude vs. Other posters thing.

I'd say I fall in the conservative camp, and I don't favor abortions, nor do I favor expansive state welfare. Let private individuals, private charities, and the church take care of it. Take less at gun point from people and they have more to share with others who are less fortunate.

As for those who can't (or won't) support themselves, if they want a government check they have to receive a temporary/reversible but long term (no missed pills or broken condoms) means of contraception. This applies to both males and females. I loathe the idea of giving government that power, however I also loathe the idea of people having more and more kids when they cannot support the ones they have and are living off the tax payer.

Some people make poor choices in life, I know I've made my share, and I shouldn't have to pay for them to continue to make them. Nobody has paid for mine except me, heck some I'm still paying for many years later and will continue to impact my life until the day I die. I don't expect nor want someone else to pay for those poor choices in my late teens and early 20s. That is the key to turning things around, owning both your successes and your failures.

If these people were reliant on the community for charity two things would happen. First, the children would necessarily interact with better role models through charity workers, the community, and church. This would end the isolation of the families who get the "Gubmint" check. Second, a little shame and embarrassment build character. Many people in this country seem to lack a sense of shame or embarrassment, and thus the reverse, a true sense of self pride and self worth. The false and overblown crap they teach in schools today is wrong and cheapens real work and accomplishment. Not everyone deserves a gold star, there is such a thing as "winner" and "loser". In the real world people lose every day if they don't work hard, and some lose even if they do. A few even "make it" without the hard work, but those people are few.

Posted by: Scott at July 14, 2009 05:13 PM