It would be great if people applied that same logic to their own families, but I think even people that can afford to have many children should think about their contribution to the population. I am not talking about families that take in several orphans and such.

I don't see government thinking for those that can think for themselves, I see a government frustrated with people that don't take responsibility and want to find ways to incentives people to do what's conscious.

I am not for forced anything, but I am for incentives to get people to think....

Genetically modified corn is used to create high fructose corn syrup, flavors, starches, flours, proteins, sugars and most of the other ingredients which make up our processed foods. The US refuses to allow the labeling of foods which contain genetically modified ingredients (like corn) to be labeled to indicate that fact so we are looking at the possibility of undeclared birth control “foods” rendering whole populations sterile. The US Government, starting with George Herbert Walker Bush, has adopted the policy that genetically modified foods are the same as unmodified ones. The sterility corn is therefore, under this policy, the same as natural corn.

...A small California biotech company, Epicyte, in 2001 announced the development of genetically engineered corn which contained a spermicide which made the semen of men who ate it sterile. At the time Epicyte had a joint venture agreement to spread its technology with DuPont and Syngenta, two of the sponsors of the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault. Epicyte was since acquired by a North Carolina biotech company. Astonishing to learn was that Epicyte had developed its spermicidal GMO corn with research funds from the US Department of Agriculture, the same USDA which, despite worldwide opposition, continued to finance the development of Terminator technology, now held by Monsanto.

They must be madmen.

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." -Thomas Jefferson

Basically if people are incapable of governing themselves, how can we believe that people should govern other people? Problems are not solved this way.

If people never have to take responsibility, they will never learn...

And if people turn that responsibility over to government, they will never be free.

I have not voluntarily turned anything over to the Gov. I and we, are being stripped of our freedoms by the actions of the majority who would rather believe the BS fed to them by Gov.
That and many, many folks are not even slightly aware of what's going on in the world. Their attention is centered on their tiny piece of turf and their immidiate needs/wants.

Go back to bed, America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your goverment is in control. Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their f**king skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!

Bill Hicks.

Rep. Denounces Ginsberg Eugenics Comment on House Floor

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Friday, July 17, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wScP6ED1FQg&feature=player_embedded

Rep. Joseph Pitts, a Republican from Pennsylvania, had a strong reaction to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments about doing away with useless eaters “we don’t want to have too many of.” Pitts declared Ginsburg’s “eugenics way of thinking debases all human life” and he expressed shock that a Supreme Court justice would suggest certain categories of people are not worthy of life and should have been aborted.

On July 9, Infowars posted an article about Ginsburg’s comments that were contained in a New York Times interview. At the time, there was a prevailing and yet predictable silence on the part of the corporate media in response to the SCOTUS eugenicist.

“The mainstream media has been missing in action once again, by completely ignoring an astonishing comment made by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concerning the ostensible reasons — in her opinion, rooted in eugenics — for the ruling in Roe v. Wade,” John Kinsellagh wrote for the Examiner on July 13.

On July 14, a blog on the U.S. News & World Report website attempted to explain Ginsburg’s “curious comment.” Dan Gilgoff mentioned that “conservatives” have “pounced on the lines as evidence that Ginsburg supports eugenics, or selective human breeding.” Gilgoff added that there was “much less chatter about this on liberal blogs, but Media Matters argues that Ginsburg was speaking about public opinion about Roe and abortion, not about her own opinion.”

In other words, according to Media Matters, it is not Ginsberg who is the eugenicist, but the American people.

“Ginsburg isn’t 100 percent clear that she’s personally sympathetic to the view that abortion should be used to control the growth of certain populations,” Gilgoff concludes.

The notorious neocon editorialist Jonah Goldberg, writing for the Los Angeles Times on July 14, frames Ginsburg’s comments all too predictably. “One senses that if Antonin Scalia had offered such a comment, a Times interviewer would have sought more clarity, particularly on the racial characteristics of these supposedly unwanted populations,” he writes. Goldberg should be lauded for mentioning eugenics and Margaret Sanger. However, the neocon is more interested in bashing so-called “liberals” (Goldberg considers himself a “conservative”) and less interested in exposing the fact that support for eugenics is not divided by political partisanship and is an exhaustively documented fetish of the ruling elite and their minions such as Ginsburg.

Goldberg cannot resist rolling Sonia Sotomayor into the mix. “I for one would like to know whether Ginsburg believes there were — or are — some populations in need of shrinking through abortion and whether she thinks such considerations have any place at the Supreme Court,” he writes. “And while we’re at it, it would be interesting to know what Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor thinks about such things.”

In fact, eugenics has nothing to do with Sonia Sotomayor, supposed liberals or self righteous neocon-conseravtives like Jonah Goldberg — in the modern context, it was created and supported by the aristocratic and wealthy elite of America and Europe, the same people who created the false right-left paradigm Goldberg so predictably falls for (one might conclude it is his life’s calling).

As Daniel Taylor notes, modern eugenics was fostered primarily by the Rockefellers and the Carnegies. In 1902, Andrew Carnegie founded the Carnegie Institute and funded the Eugenics Record Office in America. The office operated from Cold Spring Harbor in New York. Eugenics policies, which led to the sterilization of thousands of Americans, were developed there. In 1973, the Rockefeller Foundation again gave $500,000 to the Population Council and $25,000 to the Population Crisis Committee, while the Rockefeller Brothers Fund gave $250,000 to the Population Council, and $250,000 to the Population Institute.

Abortion is at the very center of the modern eugenics movement. “Birth control and abortion are turning out to be great eugenic advances of our time,” declared Frederick Osborn of the Society for the Study of Social Biology in 1973 (the organization had changed its name from the American Eugenics Society). “If they had been advanced for eugenic reasons it would have retarded or stopped their acceptance.”

Osborn was put in charge of the Population Council, a group organized and funded by John D. Rockefeller III. In 1956, Osborn addressed the British eugenics society and affirmed his belief in “Galton’s dream” and proposed what he called “voluntary unconscious selection” by changing laws, customs and social expectations, according to Rebecca R. Messall. Sir Francis Galton is considered the father of the eugenics movement.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments provide a small window into the diabolical thinking of her masters. It is wholly predictable the corporate media and “liberal” and “conservative” bloggers have attempted to render it a political football instead of revealing the true nature of eugenics — it is the ultimate dream of the ruling elite to cull the useless eaters and the unwanted herd and political ideology is entirely secondary to the realization of their horrific and genocidal dream.

---------------------------------------------------------------------


But I'm supposed to think Holdens comments are just some vague idea, some isolated deal.

The best part of all this...

We as a nation are TENDING towards a free and equal society.

Hard road ain't it?

Here's the quote:

"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...

One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. 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..

From the 1977 book Ecoscience by Obama's Science Czar John Holdren. http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/