Posted on 09/23/2009 10:42:36 AM PDT by Mobile Vulgus
This may shock many of my conservative fans, but I cannot remain quiet about my support for the singularly brilliant idea that Obama’s so-called science czar offered in the 1975 college textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. Birth control, it was theorized, could save the planet. I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree.
In 1975, John Holdren argued for a perfect way to save the planet. “Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea,” Holdren wrote in 1975, “but the alternatives may be much more horrifying."
In essence, Obama’s operative Holdren is saying that preventing new births is the best way to save the planet from an out-of-control humanity. And I have to say, I cannot disagree.
We need to get this idea out to everyone in Holdren and Obama’s fandom. It is simply undeniable logic that if Obamaites, liberals, socialists, greens, enviro-nazis, communists, Democrats and anti-Americans everywhere cease having babies, this planet will be much, much better off.
Read the rest at Publiusforum.com...
No people, no problems!
What a warped way to think....
Get the muslims and the third world to participate first
oops muslims = 3rd world
The author is saying "no liberals, no problems..."
How it is working is ... white nations are cutting back on birth rates; and the darker skinned peoples are having many many children ..
The demographics are a changing. We will soon be overwhelmed by Islam/ Muslims, via their birth rates.
Unless Jesus’ second coming precedes it.
God help us in our day, in Jesus name, amen.
So SAVE THE PLANET? - I don't think so. Let's see, "BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY", John Holdren said no so what will happen to his tribe?
I know, but Sunsteen pretty much wants population control...I think he really believes if all humanity were obliterated, life would be better.
But yes, Liberals are pretty much the ones “killing” themselves off with their “pro-choice” positions....
My own prefences have, and should have, nothing to do with it. But in terms of my own preferences, if you want to know, I would rather see the happy reproductive flourishng of Christian Nigerians (black) and Christian Filipinos (brown), together with the reproductive extinction of white secularist Manhattan and Marin.
(Which is the way things are tending anyway.)
But as I said, my own preferences should have nothing to do with it.
Specifically race-based policies are offensive and frankly addled, and should be shouted down whenever they are introduced.
In my humble opinion.
As my evidence professor — a staunch conservative — said one day, “I am not opposed to abortion, provided that it is applied retroactively in the correct cases.” This baffled the ever restive femiNazi contingent.
Eugenics circa New Millenium.
Kinda like saying...”I’m a male lesbian.”
For Muslims, it is a double benefit - fewer children means more chances for the women to achieve more education and improve their lives. And as Algeria showed, fewer children means fewer parents are willing to send extra sons to be terrorists.
Liberalism is the best argument for free birth control I can think of.
Japan’s population is collapsing. Europe born citizens are becoming smaller. Russia’s population is on the decrease also. Muslims are the only group with big population gains.
This guy is on to something.
Marxists really don’t like people. They kill millions of them when they get power over them.
It simply is quicker than listing a whole string of nations.
It is not about race and nothing to do with race in my mind. It is simply fact that some peoples reproduce in much higher numbers than the more educated, higher income, more self-centered peoples of the world. Religion does play an important aspect, as well. as government incentives do.
These comments are a bit over simplified, but I rather not list all the ramifications ... regarding the effects of higher education, for instance.
To me, it is the eyes and heart of the reader, that see racist remarks out of simple remarks intended as information.
I am inclined to believe your sincerity about that. But since that is the case, people are certainly led astray when you refer to "white nations" cutting back on birth rates, while "darker skinned peoples are having many many children..."
It's much more a matter of culture. White homeschooling families--- to choose an obvious example--- have more kids that black families whose kids go to pricey private schools (think the Duggars vs the Obamas).
It may surprise some to see some of the regions which are below replacement fertility. (The replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.1 births per woman for most industrialized countries, but ranges from 2.5 to 3.3 in developing countries because of higher mortality rates.)
These (selected) are all below replacement:
Brazil 2.25
Colombia 2.22
Bhutan 2.19
Kuwait 2.18
Indonesia 2.18
Turkey 2.14
Vietnam 2.14
Uruguay 2.12
Costa Rica 2.10
Myanmar 2.07
United States 2.05
Iran 2.04
Chile 1.94
Tunisia 1.93
Sri Lanka 2.02 1.88
Mongolia 2.07 1.87
North Korea 1.92 1.85
Thailand 1.83 1.85
Montenegro 1.83 1.83
Puerto Rico (US) 1.84 1.83
All of those listed would have to increase their birth rate to achieve replacement.
Dynamite video.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.