NPR Lectures About Selfish Moms Having Kids in 'Age of Climate Change'

[Clementine]

Typical liberal bullshit. It's no wonder they push abortion. Of course, it's predominently lib women, mostly minorities, who choose that route. So, the left realized that not enough Republicans were aborting children and that is why they decided to take over schools and start indoctrinating children because they can't tolerate dissenting views. They are against homeschooling because they can't stop parents from teaching their values and morals to their children. The left wants to control what people think and they start early. I am guessing they feel overwhelmed since many parents still take their responsibilites seriously, so now they will try to shame people out of having children. And it's a matter of time before school kids start hearing about how they shouldn't grow up and become parents. Schools will preach for years that it's wrong to bring more children into the world and the left will fight for tax paid birth control and abortions in the school nurse's office. Seriously, they want to do this. They already made rules that allow young girls to have abortions or get birth control without the consent or knowledge of parents. You can't give a kid a fucking Tylenol without forms being signed, but they can have a potentially risky surgery to aid with the liberal's population control.

"Should We Be Having Kids In The Age of Climate Change?"

That was the audacious question NPR’s website and All Things Considered radio show asked on Aug. 18, as it promoted a college professor’s "radical" proposal that people need to have fewer children because of the "prospect of climate catastrophe."

The academic proposed a "carbon tax" on children, to decentivize procreation, in wealthy nations.

NPR correspondent Jennifer Ludden reported that Professor Travis Rieder presented "moral" arguments to James Madison University students, claiming the best way to protect future generations from the threat of climate change is "by not having them."

A philosopher, Rieder told them that having fewer children reduces carbon emissions more effectively than not eating meat, driving hybrid cars, and using eco-friendly appliances. Ludden’s article posted on the NPR website about the interview with Rieder was even more positive. In it she wrote that his claims "sound pretty persuasive in the classroom."

Such anti-life arguments are typical of the left, including the environmental left.

According to the article, Rieder and his Georgetown University colleagues, Colin Hickey and Jake Earl, have a plan to save the earth which was described as "carrots for the poor, sticks for the rich."

They are asking richer nations to "do away with tax breaks for having children and actually penalize new parents."


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/business/mira-ebersole/2016/08/19/

 

[Norman]

Absolute bullshit. The projected damage of GW is peanuts compared to what liberal regressivism is capable of. And to protect yourself... and your children against the evils of that, you first need to have the kids.

Meanwhile, the real problem is that people aren't having enough kids... so to fix that let's import a bunch of immigrants!

These people just want to see civilization gone. That's their goal.

 

[g5000]

The more wealthy a nation becomes, the lower its birth rate.

So let's keep making America rich. That sounds like a much better plan to me.

I have often said the anti-corporate environmentalist movement is marxism with a new hemp dress on.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Typical liberal bullshit. It's no wonder they push abortion. Of course, it's predominently lib women, mostly minorities, who choose that route. So, the left realized that not enough Republicans were aborting children and that is why they decided to take over schools and start indoctrinating children because they can't tolerate dissenting views. They are against homeschooling because they can't stop parents from teaching their values and morals to their children. The left wants to control what people think and they start early. I am guessing they feel overwhelmed since many parents still take their responsibilites seriously, so now they will try to shame people out of having children. And it's a matter of time before school kids start hearing about how they shouldn't grow up and become parents. Schools will preach for years that it's wrong to bring more children into the world and the left will fight for tax paid birth control and abortions in the school nurse's office. Seriously, they want to do this. They already made rules that allow young girls to have abortions or get birth control without the consent or knowledge of parents. You can't give a kid a fucking Tylenol without forms being signed, but they can have a potentially risky surgery to aid with the liberal's population control.

"Should We Be Having Kids In The Age of Climate Change?"

That was the audacious question NPR’s website and All Things Considered radio show asked on Aug. 18, as it promoted a college professor’s "radical" proposal that people need to have fewer children because of the "prospect of climate catastrophe."

The academic proposed a "carbon tax" on children, to decentivize procreation, in wealthy nations.

NPR correspondent Jennifer Ludden reported that Professor Travis Rieder presented "moral" arguments to James Madison University students, claiming the best way to protect future generations from the threat of climate change is "by not having them."

A philosopher, Rieder told them that having fewer children reduces carbon emissions more effectively than not eating meat, driving hybrid cars, and using eco-friendly appliances. Ludden’s article posted on the NPR website about the interview with Rieder was even more positive. In it she wrote that his claims "sound pretty persuasive in the classroom."

Such anti-life arguments are typical of the left, including the environmental left.

According to the article, Rieder and his Georgetown University colleagues, Colin Hickey and Jake Earl, have a plan to save the earth which was described as "carrots for the poor, sticks for the rich."

They are asking richer nations to "do away with tax breaks for having children and actually penalize new parents."


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/business/mira-ebersole/2016/08/19/

Let's hope the morons who come up with this stuff DON'T breed.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Do our tax dollars support this asinine propaganda?

 

[Norman]

Do our tax dollars support this asinine propaganda?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was completely paid by tax dollars once all the connections were traced.

 

[Snouter]

The propaganda to keep white birth rates down has been going on for decades. Instead of teaching American history, the great inventions, etc., they present the "population explosion" to the white students, which was always the darkie population explosion. But it is part of the establishment's stealth genocide of whitey, to get whitey apprehensive about having children. Notice they never encourage darkies to stop having offspring which darkies invariably cannot afford and cannot handle without whitey help. That would be racist. Thus we have the coming of the planet of the apes.

 

[g5000]

Do our tax dollars support this asinine propaganda?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was completely paid by tax dollars once all the connections were traced.

No, it is 25 percent funded, give or take, by tax dollars.

They do some advertising nowadays. And they are funded by Bill and Melinda Gates, and the Ford Foundation, and other foundations. "And by listeners like you".

They have on-air fundraising drives every three months.

 

[g5000]

The propaganda to keep white birth rates down has been going on for decades. Instead of teaching American history, the great inventions, etc., they present the "population explosion" to the white students, which was always the darkie population explosion. But it is part of the establishment's stealth genocide of whitey, to get whitey apprehensive about having children. Notice they never encourage darkies to stop having offspring which darkies invariably cannot afford and cannot handle without whitey help. That would be racist. Thus we have the coming of the planet of the apes.

 

[RodISHI]

Do our tax dollars support this asinine propaganda?

Most of these foundations Soros and others started begin with a bit and then start applying for federal grants.

 

[turzovka]

Typical liberal bullshit. It's no wonder they push abortion. Of course, it's predominently lib women, mostly minorities, who choose that route. So, the left realized that not enough Republicans were aborting children and that is why they decided to take over schools and start indoctrinating children because they can't tolerate dissenting views. They are against homeschooling because they can't stop parents from teaching their values and morals to their children. The left wants to control what people think and they start early. I am guessing they feel overwhelmed since many parents still take their responsibilites seriously, so now they will try to shame people out of having children. And it's a matter of time before school kids start hearing about how they shouldn't grow up and become parents. Schools will preach for years that it's wrong to bring more children into the world and the left will fight for tax paid birth control and abortions in the school nurse's office. Seriously, they want to do this. They already made rules that allow young girls to have abortions or get birth control without the consent or knowledge of parents. You can't give a kid a fucking Tylenol without forms being signed, but they can have a potentially risky surgery to aid with the liberal's population control.

"Should We Be Having Kids In The Age of Climate Change?"

That was the audacious question NPR’s website and All Things Considered radio show asked on Aug. 18, as it promoted a college professor’s "radical" proposal that people need to have fewer children because of the "prospect of climate catastrophe."

The academic proposed a "carbon tax" on children, to decentivize procreation, in wealthy nations.

NPR correspondent Jennifer Ludden reported that Professor Travis Rieder presented "moral" arguments to James Madison University students, claiming the best way to protect future generations from the threat of climate change is "by not having them."

A philosopher, Rieder told them that having fewer children reduces carbon emissions more effectively than not eating meat, driving hybrid cars, and using eco-friendly appliances. Ludden’s article posted on the NPR website about the interview with Rieder was even more positive. In it she wrote that his claims "sound pretty persuasive in the classroom."

Such anti-life arguments are typical of the left, including the environmental left.

According to the article, Rieder and his Georgetown University colleagues, Colin Hickey and Jake Earl, have a plan to save the earth which was described as "carrots for the poor, sticks for the rich."

They are asking richer nations to "do away with tax breaks for having children and actually penalize new parents."


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/business/mira-ebersole/2016/08/19/

Is this going to end up being another "Onion" article exposed by Snopes?
Because it sounds that insane and hard to believe.

If not, to summarize --- NPR is promoting and the liberal educators are teaching "Demonology 101." Yes, there are that stupid.

 

[Conservative65]

Typical liberal bullshit. It's no wonder they push abortion. Of course, it's predominently lib women, mostly minorities, who choose that route. So, the left realized that not enough Republicans were aborting children and that is why they decided to take over schools and start indoctrinating children because they can't tolerate dissenting views. They are against homeschooling because they can't stop parents from teaching their values and morals to their children. The left wants to control what people think and they start early. I am guessing they feel overwhelmed since many parents still take their responsibilites seriously, so now they will try to shame people out of having children. And it's a matter of time before school kids start hearing about how they shouldn't grow up and become parents. Schools will preach for years that it's wrong to bring more children into the world and the left will fight for tax paid birth control and abortions in the school nurse's office. Seriously, they want to do this. They already made rules that allow young girls to have abortions or get birth control without the consent or knowledge of parents. You can't give a kid a fucking Tylenol without forms being signed, but they can have a potentially risky surgery to aid with the liberal's population control.

"Should We Be Having Kids In The Age of Climate Change?"

That was the audacious question NPR’s website and All Things Considered radio show asked on Aug. 18, as it promoted a college professor’s "radical" proposal that people need to have fewer children because of the "prospect of climate catastrophe."

The academic proposed a "carbon tax" on children, to decentivize procreation, in wealthy nations.

NPR correspondent Jennifer Ludden reported that Professor Travis Rieder presented "moral" arguments to James Madison University students, claiming the best way to protect future generations from the threat of climate change is "by not having them."

A philosopher, Rieder told them that having fewer children reduces carbon emissions more effectively than not eating meat, driving hybrid cars, and using eco-friendly appliances. Ludden’s article posted on the NPR website about the interview with Rieder was even more positive. In it she wrote that his claims "sound pretty persuasive in the classroom."

Such anti-life arguments are typical of the left, including the environmental left.

According to the article, Rieder and his Georgetown University colleagues, Colin Hickey and Jake Earl, have a plan to save the earth which was described as "carrots for the poor, sticks for the rich."

They are asking richer nations to "do away with tax breaks for having children and actually penalize new parents."


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/business/mira-ebersole/2016/08/19/

Let's hope the morons who come up with this stuff DON'T breed.

I thought Liberals supported people having more kids especially those using social welfare since it gets the Liberals more potential voters.

 

[Clementine]

Typical liberal bullshit. It's no wonder they push abortion. Of course, it's predominently lib women, mostly minorities, who choose that route. So, the left realized that not enough Republicans were aborting children and that is why they decided to take over schools and start indoctrinating children because they can't tolerate dissenting views. They are against homeschooling because they can't stop parents from teaching their values and morals to their children. The left wants to control what people think and they start early. I am guessing they feel overwhelmed since many parents still take their responsibilites seriously, so now they will try to shame people out of having children. And it's a matter of time before school kids start hearing about how they shouldn't grow up and become parents. Schools will preach for years that it's wrong to bring more children into the world and the left will fight for tax paid birth control and abortions in the school nurse's office. Seriously, they want to do this. They already made rules that allow young girls to have abortions or get birth control without the consent or knowledge of parents. You can't give a kid a fucking Tylenol without forms being signed, but they can have a potentially risky surgery to aid with the liberal's population control.

"Should We Be Having Kids In The Age of Climate Change?"

That was the audacious question NPR’s website and All Things Considered radio show asked on Aug. 18, as it promoted a college professor’s "radical" proposal that people need to have fewer children because of the "prospect of climate catastrophe."

The academic proposed a "carbon tax" on children, to decentivize procreation, in wealthy nations.

NPR correspondent Jennifer Ludden reported that Professor Travis Rieder presented "moral" arguments to James Madison University students, claiming the best way to protect future generations from the threat of climate change is "by not having them."

A philosopher, Rieder told them that having fewer children reduces carbon emissions more effectively than not eating meat, driving hybrid cars, and using eco-friendly appliances. Ludden’s article posted on the NPR website about the interview with Rieder was even more positive. In it she wrote that his claims "sound pretty persuasive in the classroom."

Such anti-life arguments are typical of the left, including the environmental left.

According to the article, Rieder and his Georgetown University colleagues, Colin Hickey and Jake Earl, have a plan to save the earth which was described as "carrots for the poor, sticks for the rich."

They are asking richer nations to "do away with tax breaks for having children and actually penalize new parents."


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/business/mira-ebersole/2016/08/19/

Let's hope the morons who come up with this stuff DON'T breed.

I thought Liberals supported people having more kids especially those using social welfare since it gets the Liberals more potential voters.

They want all the current ones on welfare, but they can only steal so much money to keep their promises. If the money were to run out, so would the support, so it's necessary to contain the number of people. Meanwhile, they are doing their best to indoctrinate young students in our schools. It's all about raising Democrats who want big government and are willing to cede some rights for the "greater good." Michelle Obama said something about how the next president will shape our children. They definitely see it as the states responsibility to teach kids about everything and they are not wanting input from parents, especially when it comes to morals and values.

 

[westwall]

The more wealthy a nation becomes, the lower its birth rate.

So let's keep making America rich. That sounds like a much better plan to me.

I have often said the anti-corporate environmentalist movement is marxism with a new hemp dress on.

How about we make the whole world rich? Progressives want to keep the Third World the third world. Gore is constantly lecturing about the evils of modernization in Africa. Destroy the third world and you can have a very stable population, and the best way to destroy the third world is to educate them and let them over throw their corrupt governments so that they can become First World countries.

 

[Conservative65]

Typical liberal bullshit. It's no wonder they push abortion. Of course, it's predominently lib women, mostly minorities, who choose that route. So, the left realized that not enough Republicans were aborting children and that is why they decided to take over schools and start indoctrinating children because they can't tolerate dissenting views. They are against homeschooling because they can't stop parents from teaching their values and morals to their children. The left wants to control what people think and they start early. I am guessing they feel overwhelmed since many parents still take their responsibilites seriously, so now they will try to shame people out of having children. And it's a matter of time before school kids start hearing about how they shouldn't grow up and become parents. Schools will preach for years that it's wrong to bring more children into the world and the left will fight for tax paid birth control and abortions in the school nurse's office. Seriously, they want to do this. They already made rules that allow young girls to have abortions or get birth control without the consent or knowledge of parents. You can't give a kid a fucking Tylenol without forms being signed, but they can have a potentially risky surgery to aid with the liberal's population control.

"Should We Be Having Kids In The Age of Climate Change?"

That was the audacious question NPR’s website and All Things Considered radio show asked on Aug. 18, as it promoted a college professor’s "radical" proposal that people need to have fewer children because of the "prospect of climate catastrophe."

The academic proposed a "carbon tax" on children, to decentivize procreation, in wealthy nations.

NPR correspondent Jennifer Ludden reported that Professor Travis Rieder presented "moral" arguments to James Madison University students, claiming the best way to protect future generations from the threat of climate change is "by not having them."

A philosopher, Rieder told them that having fewer children reduces carbon emissions more effectively than not eating meat, driving hybrid cars, and using eco-friendly appliances. Ludden’s article posted on the NPR website about the interview with Rieder was even more positive. In it she wrote that his claims "sound pretty persuasive in the classroom."

Such anti-life arguments are typical of the left, including the environmental left.

According to the article, Rieder and his Georgetown University colleagues, Colin Hickey and Jake Earl, have a plan to save the earth which was described as "carrots for the poor, sticks for the rich."

They are asking richer nations to "do away with tax breaks for having children and actually penalize new parents."


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/business/mira-ebersole/2016/08/19/

Let's hope the morons who come up with this stuff DON'T breed.

I thought Liberals supported people having more kids especially those using social welfare since it gets the Liberals more potential voters.

They want all the current ones on welfare, but they can only steal so much money to keep their promises. If the money were to run out, so would the support, so it's necessary to contain the number of people. Meanwhile, they are doing their best to indoctrinate young students in our schools. It's all about raising Democrats who want big government and are willing to cede some rights for the "greater good." Michelle Obama said something about how the next president will shape our children. They definitely see it as the states responsibility to teach kids about everything and they are not wanting input from parents, especially when it comes to morals and values.

I had a heart-felt, intense, and educational discussion with one of my daughter's teachers a few years back. There was an incident in which my daughter happened to be in the area when something occurred. Although the ONE student that took the action admitted it, the teacher wanted all of those in the area where it occurred to write an apology letter. My daughter asked me why she had to write such a letter not having been the one that took the action. After telling her she wouldn't do it, the next conversation was with that teacher.

He was of the mindset that schools were a social setting where morals and standards needed to be taught at school much like a small society. In other words, he had the Hillary mentality of it takes a village. He was quickly informed that the next time he thought it was his place to teach my daughter anything related to morals or standards like that, I'd teach him a lesson it was apparent his dad never taught him and that was when it comes to things like this, the only thing he needed to know was mind his own business.

 

[Clementine]

The more wealthy a nation becomes, the lower its birth rate.

So let's keep making America rich. That sounds like a much better plan to me.

I have often said the anti-corporate environmentalist movement is marxism with a new hemp dress on.

How about we make the whole world rich? Progressives want to keep the Third World the third world. Gore is constantly lecturing about the evils of modernization in Africa. Destroy the third world and you can have a very stable population, and the best way to destroy the third world is to educate them and let them over throw their corrupt governments so that they can become First World countries.

Progressives never support anything that would decrease the number of victims. Who would they save if not for victims of evil whites/racists/wealthy people?

The left has the same approach to poverty here in the states as organizations do that help third world countries. For over 50 years, we have sent money to help people and never see any progress. Instead, we see the number of people in poverty increasing steadily. Seems designed to keep it going, not stop it.

But, as Margaret Thatcher said, eventually you run out of other peoples' money. If it keeps up at this pace, we will soon be overwhelmed. The left is using poor people now, just like the Clinton's used the poor to make big money for themselves and their associates. The poor peoples' usefulness will cease eventually and it will get ugly.