Involuntary Fertility Control:
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively difficulty of the operation than a 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 removed, with official permission, for a limited number of births.
If you know your history, you know that Dr. Menegle was a Nazi physician that committed horrible experiments on Jewish prisoners during the 1930-40’s. If you know Communist Chine, you know that they have a one child law that has lead to the abortions of million upon millions of female babies if favor of male children. You also know that they now have a problem with the ration of men to women. If everyone were to be mated up, somewhere around 5-7% of the men would be without wives.
The incursion of the reproductive rights of the Chinese people and the population control of “undesirable people” didn’t originate in Germany. These ideas go back to late nineteenth and early twentieth century progressive in the good old USA. The supporters of early birth control weren’t about family planning, they were about population control. They wanted to control who could reproduce and how many children you were allowed to have, if any.
John Holden Obama’s Science Czar co-author of Ecoscience; Population, Resources, Environment. These statements were part of that book.
Washington D.C., Jul 15, 2009 / 06:08 am (CNA).- The office of President Obama’s “science czar” John Holdren has responded to concerns Holdren co-authored a book which allegedly contained comments supporting coercive population control measures. A spokesman for the department said that Holdren disavowed such policies at his confirmation hearing. Catholic News Voice
Does it come to any surprise that he refutes these statements when he wanted to be appointed to a federal job? When was his mind changed, ten years ago, five years ago or when he was nominated? These are the people you want making decisions for you and your children?
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Another Obama appointee
Cass Sunstein has been appointed as Obama's choice to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Although obscure," reported the Wall Street Journal, "the post wields outsize power. It oversees regulations throughout the government, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Look at his background and you will find another lawyer who dislikes free speech. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them. His last book "Nudge" suggests that government ought to gently force people to be better human beings.
Wake up out there! This is the President of the U.S. and he wants to shut us up.
Look at his background and you will find another lawyer who dislikes free speech. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them. His last book "Nudge" suggests that government ought to gently force people to be better human beings.
Wake up out there! This is the President of the U.S. and he wants to shut us up.
Revolution
The term revolution brings many different images to mind when you hear it. To some it is a bearded, cigar smoking dictator in South or Central America. To other’s, it Lords and Ladies being lead off to the guillotine to be executed by the peasants. To many, it is the plain Minutemen against the Redcoats. It is the well-trained army against the common citizens. In every case the vision is filled with battles, bloodshed and great loss of life.
All of these are correct in describing one of many revolutions that have happened down throughout history. This is another view that for the most part is bloodless and the vanquished ruling government isn’t executed, jailed or exiled. Not all revolutions end in an overthrow on the ruling government.
This bloodless revolution happens on a local scale every two years and on a national scale every four years. We call them elections. Congressmen run for election every two years, Senators every six years and the President every four years. As we found out in 1996 and 2004, the revolution isn’t successful and the ruling figure is reelected. In the 1992 revolution, George Bush was overthrown by then leader of the Democratic Party’s leader Bill Clinton. No blood was shed, to one went to jail, no one was exiled.
The next minor revolution is sixteen months away the major revolution is forty months away. My concern is it close enough to preserve the bloodless revolutions that we have experienced the last two hundred years? The current President and the Federal Government is moving in and taking over more and more control of the economy of the United States. The people are being told one thing and then find out that just the opposite is happening. The Founding Fathers warned against a too powerful centralized federal government to the point of saying taking up arms against it might be required to maintain our freedom.
I am too old to be tramping the fields fighting for the cause of freedom. I do however have son-in-laws and grandsons that I don’t want to see have to go to war to regain their freedom from a repressive government. We, the American people, have the weapon that is more powerful than the sword, THE PEN. It matters not how you contact you government leaders, pen and paper or email; it is the power to slow down the incursion into our private lives. Ten letters might not make a difference but ten thousand will and one hundred thousands will give them visions of townsfolk with pitchfork and torches chasing the monster out of town. They don’t want to be that monster.
This is a warning, a call to arms, pick up your pens or keyboards and fight with them now so that your children won’t have to fight a bloody revolution in the future.
All of these are correct in describing one of many revolutions that have happened down throughout history. This is another view that for the most part is bloodless and the vanquished ruling government isn’t executed, jailed or exiled. Not all revolutions end in an overthrow on the ruling government.
This bloodless revolution happens on a local scale every two years and on a national scale every four years. We call them elections. Congressmen run for election every two years, Senators every six years and the President every four years. As we found out in 1996 and 2004, the revolution isn’t successful and the ruling figure is reelected. In the 1992 revolution, George Bush was overthrown by then leader of the Democratic Party’s leader Bill Clinton. No blood was shed, to one went to jail, no one was exiled.
The next minor revolution is sixteen months away the major revolution is forty months away. My concern is it close enough to preserve the bloodless revolutions that we have experienced the last two hundred years? The current President and the Federal Government is moving in and taking over more and more control of the economy of the United States. The people are being told one thing and then find out that just the opposite is happening. The Founding Fathers warned against a too powerful centralized federal government to the point of saying taking up arms against it might be required to maintain our freedom.
I am too old to be tramping the fields fighting for the cause of freedom. I do however have son-in-laws and grandsons that I don’t want to see have to go to war to regain their freedom from a repressive government. We, the American people, have the weapon that is more powerful than the sword, THE PEN. It matters not how you contact you government leaders, pen and paper or email; it is the power to slow down the incursion into our private lives. Ten letters might not make a difference but ten thousand will and one hundred thousands will give them visions of townsfolk with pitchfork and torches chasing the monster out of town. They don’t want to be that monster.
This is a warning, a call to arms, pick up your pens or keyboards and fight with them now so that your children won’t have to fight a bloody revolution in the future.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
House bill to hit millionaires with 5.4 pct surtax
House bill to hit millionaires with 5.4 pct surtax
Let's all cry for them now. I just they will have to wait a year or two to by the new ferrari.~ But to be real about it. Someone is going to have to pay up off the spending of all the Wars, Crap problems that are being passed and pork over the last 10 years(both sides). We're to the point that everyone is going to pay higher taxes. So now who is going to pay more?
link to site
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Is this right or wrong?
I have never created a new post on here, but this is driving me crazy and I couldn't think of a better place to get others opinions!
I have a friend that bought a house during the peak housing market. They purchased their house for $220,000 and now homes in their area are selling for $90,000. Her parents just recently purchased a home in Gilbert that they plan on using for retirement in 3 years. They have told my friend and her family that they can live in the house for the next 3 years(rent free) before they move to Arizona to retire. My friend is very excited because they have better options as far as schools go for their special needs child. She told me the other day that they are going to do a short sale on their home. I asked her how they could do this, her husband still has his job (attorney) so financially nothing has changed for them. She said all you have to do is clear out your bank account, show your debt and that's about it. This is where I start having an issue. I asked her why it is the banks responsibility (and ultimately the taxpayers) to pay off their home just because they want to live somewhere else? She said that they never planned on living in that home very long and how else were they going to get out. Again, my reaction is, that's not my problem or the banks problem because the housing market took a fall, is it? Where did individual responsibility go, when is your bad luck, your bad luck and not someone else's problem to fix? Have we gotten to the point that we expect do overs every time things don't work out the way we want them? She can justify this anyway she wants, but the bottom line is your still falsifying documents to the bank, which is illegal and taking advantage of a program that was intended to help people that really needed it. Is it okay to take advantage of a situation just because it's so easy, or is it still wrong morally and legally?
I have a friend that bought a house during the peak housing market. They purchased their house for $220,000 and now homes in their area are selling for $90,000. Her parents just recently purchased a home in Gilbert that they plan on using for retirement in 3 years. They have told my friend and her family that they can live in the house for the next 3 years(rent free) before they move to Arizona to retire. My friend is very excited because they have better options as far as schools go for their special needs child. She told me the other day that they are going to do a short sale on their home. I asked her how they could do this, her husband still has his job (attorney) so financially nothing has changed for them. She said all you have to do is clear out your bank account, show your debt and that's about it. This is where I start having an issue. I asked her why it is the banks responsibility (and ultimately the taxpayers) to pay off their home just because they want to live somewhere else? She said that they never planned on living in that home very long and how else were they going to get out. Again, my reaction is, that's not my problem or the banks problem because the housing market took a fall, is it? Where did individual responsibility go, when is your bad luck, your bad luck and not someone else's problem to fix? Have we gotten to the point that we expect do overs every time things don't work out the way we want them? She can justify this anyway she wants, but the bottom line is your still falsifying documents to the bank, which is illegal and taking advantage of a program that was intended to help people that really needed it. Is it okay to take advantage of a situation just because it's so easy, or is it still wrong morally and legally?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)