Population Control 101

[mudwhistle]

Why do Democrats support abortion? Is it because it gives a woman freedom, because Democrats aren't about freedom. Isn't it just a way to control the population?

Why do Democrats support Global Warming legislation? Many of their solutions don't work. All they seem to do is make the problem worse. These are the people that came up with "Carbon Credits" which is essentially a license to trash the place. Many of the libs that are the strongest supporters of GW policies are the most wasteful people on the planet. Yet they feel they can tell us what kind of car we can drive and they have an EPA that has driven the cost of AC refrigerant from $30/ jug to over $500/ jug.

Why do Democrat constantly advocate a vaccination program by using fear tactics? The same people that are into population control also say that breast cancer screenings aren't necessary, or instead of getting a hip replacement just take a pill.

Fact is, this is the dirty little secret of the left. They feel that the worst disease on the planet is the human race. The only way to cut down on CO2 is reduce the number of people through abortions, vaccinations, and government control of health care, deciding who gets proper care and who doesn't.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064]Bill Gates Admits Vaccines Are Used for Human Depopulation - YouTube[/ame]

Links

Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973

 

[mudwhistle]

The Liberal Quest for Population Control
Jeannie DeAngelis

Slowly but surely, the Obama administration is introducing the general public to the idea that fewer people born translates into health care cost savings. Liberals are so committed to the idea of fewer live births that by issuing conscience-disturbing mandates, Barack Obama, honorary doctor of obstetrics and gynecology, has even found a way to restrain the growth of prolific, pharmaceutical birth control-shunning Catholic families.

In addition to promoting contraception, the United States Preventative Services Task Force has also indicated that annual preventive breast cancer screening should be considered a luxury. Thus, without yearly mammograms, if breast cancer isn't detected until it's too late, women on birth control pills may also contribute to the left's initiative to foster fewer human beings.

From the looks of things, it certainly appears as if the Obamacare concept of prevention seems obsessed with curtailing the population. And while birth control is not exactly a 'death-panel' per se, it could be described as a life-preventative. The death panel idea may be reserved for those who manage to make it out of the womb and who, after being tethered to a tax burden for 65 years, tap the health care system for expensive geriatric care.

With that in mind, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' recent appearance before a House panel takes on new meaning. Ms. Sebelius testified that reducing the number of human beings born in the United States will "compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions."

Speaking before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health on behalf of Barack Obama's 2013 budget proposal, Secretary Sebelius argued that the hope is that in tandem with a predicted drop in American babies being born, the "estimated cost" for insurances payouts will go "down not up."

Therefore, based on Ms. Sebelius's formula for fiscal solvency, it's clear to see what's up ahead on the road to universal/socialized health care. Fewer human beings keep costs "down not up," which is why the fewer the better -- from deterring live births to the potential for cost saving implementation of early death.

Read more: Blog: The Liberal Quest for Population Control
Follow us: [MENTION=20123]American[/MENTION]Thinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
​

 

[mudwhistle]

Obamacare Horror: Stepping Over the Dead in America’s Doorway
Monday, January 6, 2014

Originally posted at The Blacksphere

More and more Obamacare horror stories are beginning to trickle out.

Within the last week, the sick in need of emergency care have been turned away in Virginia, prescription benefits have been cut or capped, and six million previously insured individuals have been thrown off adequate, affordable health insurance.

And while the Obama administration and the lapdog media would have Americans think otherwise, the situation is only going to get worse.

Doctor’s offices are spending two hours on hold with insurance companies waiting for surgery authorization that never comes. Overwhelmingly, Medicaid patients are showing up in emergency rooms. And people with life-threatening conditions, such as cancer, are paying more for the health insurance necessary to cover expensive treatments they need to survive.

In other words, Obamacare confusion is negatively impacting a nation where 54% of the population already resents the government extending symbolic bureaucratic benevolence to the small percentage of uninsured at the expense of the insured.

Yet none of this surprises those who have kept their ear to the ground, monitoring the passing and subsequent implementation of Barack Obama’s devastating signature legislation.

Sure, those who’ve never had insurance but managed to surmount the website difficulties that plagued so many may be thrilled with Obamacare.Why wouldn’t they be?

The previously uninsured never had a healthcare policy, so they have nothing good with which to compare their newly-acquired substandard health insurance. It’s sort of like someone living in a washing machine box moving into an abandoned shipping container and being thrilled about the roominess and sturdy exterior walls.

That aside, what’s even more disturbing about the avalanche of misfortune called Obamacare is that as it unfolds, it seems as though not one person is attempting to do anything about it. Where is the anger in Washington DC about a bill that was sold as being necessary to solve a healthcare crisis but seems to have purposely created a crisis that is far worse?

Nobody seems outraged that Obama made a big deal about individuals with pre-existing conditions never being denied health insurance again while conveniently forgetting to mention that there would be limited access.

For lack of a better example, it’s as if America has been reduced to a version of the story that has traumatized the nation. Where cold indifference to human life was revealed during the trial of Clarence Ross, a man convicted of shooting and killing Jheryl Wright.

During the trial, security camera footage was released that caught a fatally wounded Jheryl laying in the doorway of a Quick Stop in Kalamazoo, Michigan. The tape shows that the 24-year-old had collapsed after being shot. Despite Wright lying prone in the doorway, the clerk continued to serve the customers who stepped over Jheryl’s dead body as they entered and then exited the store.

The customers were unmoved and indifferent. Much like Barack Obama, who goes snorkeling and visits the zoo while five million Americans, some of whom have life-threatening illnesses, suddenly find themselves unable to get chemo thanks to his policies.

After seeing heartless people stepping over her son’s body, the dead man’s mother, Jackel Wright, said:

“I just can’t believe people in this world would do something like that. I can’t.”

Believe it, Jackel. Because that is exactly what is happening on a much larger scale. Worse yet, not one person who should care seems to care.

With each passing day, as a result of the president’s policies, millions of Americans are being wounded and abandoned without help. Meanwhile, the mastermind of the calamity ignores the misfortune he’s caused, and in place of concern for others spends time on a $4 million vacation, golfing, eating shave ice, and dining in luxurious restaurants.

Read more at Jeannie-ology​

 

[mudwhistle]

Fighting Climate Change with Family Planning
EcoWatch | June 5, 2012 9:01 am | Comments


By William Ryerson

I’m glad to see the recognition of the link between population growth and climate change. However, the statement regarding the first proposed solution is demonstrably false. The statement reads, “The U.N. Population Fund estimates that 215 million women worldwide who desire modern contraceptives are deprived of them. Access to contraceptives would reduce unintended pregnancies by more than two-thirds, from 75 million to 22 million per year, and save $5.1 billion in pre- and postnatal healthcare.”

Large family norms and the cultural and informational barriers to use of contraception are now the major impediments to achieving lower fertility rates, not lack of access to contraceptives.

In Kenya, which was the fastest growing country in the world in the 1980s, contraceptives were within reach of nearly 90 percent of the population by the late 1980s. Yet currently, only 39 percent of married women use them. “Unmet need” is used to describe women who want to delay their next pregnancy by at least two years but are not using a modern method of contraception. In the minds of many, “unmet need” is equated with “lack of access” to contraceptive services. However, demographers Charles Westoff and Luis Hernando Ochoa, in a review of numerous Demographic and Health Surveys, determined that about half the women categorized as having an “unmet need” have no intention of using contraceptives even if they were made freely available.

The situation in Kenya is illustrative of findings in numerous countries recently. In Kenya, according to the 2008-09 Demographic and Health Survey, 96 percent of currently married women and 98 percent of husbands know about modern contraceptives. Of the married women who are non-users, 40 percent do not intend to ever use contraception. Among all non-using married women, 8 percent give as their reason the desire for more children. Among the reasons given for not using contraception by women who are not pregnant and do not want to become pregnant, only 0.8 percent cited lack of availability of contraceptives, and 0.4 percent cited cost. The top four reasons among those who are still fecund:

1. Concern with the medical side effects of contraceptives (31 percent)

2. Religious prohibition (9 percent)

3. Personal opposition (8 percent)

4. Opposition from the husbands (6 percent)

These are all issues that are best addressed by information and motivational communications.

Country by country, the Demographic and Health Surveys show a similar pattern. Lack of access is cited infrequently by those who are categorized as having an unmet need for family planning.​

Fighting Climate Change with Family Planning | EcoWatch

Fighting Climate Change With Family Planning - May/June 2012- Sierra Magazine - Sierra Club

On Fighting Climate Change with Family Planning

 

[Indeependent]

So Democratic Abortion is worse than Republican Military Action?

 

[mudwhistle]

So Democratic Abortion is worse than Republican Military Action?

Democrats advocate military action just like the GOP does.

Did you forget about Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, initially before the war in Iraq, and Vietnam?

 

[percysunshine]

It is it's own industry;

The Limits to Growth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Population Bomb is a best-selling book written by Stanford University Professor Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne Ehrlich (who was uncredited), in 1968.[1][2] It warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth.

The Population Bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Examples of mass starvation in the US in the 1970s and 80s were clearly avoided due to the heroric efforts of the Carter administration.

 

[Freemason9]

Population control is essential. If we don't manage it, nature will.

 

[Mr Natural]

There's over 6 billion of us.

How many more do you want?

 

[daws101]

the herd must be culled from time to time to keep it healthy...

 

[candycorn]

It would be easier to do than that; BHO just needs to issue an executive order stating that a picture of Ann Coulter must be in every bedroom by sundown. That would kill any chance at reproduction.

 

[daws101]

It would be easier to do than that; BHO just needs to issue an executive order stating that a picture of Ann Coulter must be in every bedroom by sundown. That would kill any chance at reproduction.

just thinking about that horrible possibility made my genitals tear loose from their moorings and run away....now I have to go find them ....thanks!

 

[Mr Natural]

It would be easier to do than that; BHO just needs to issue an executive order stating that a picture of Ann Coulter must be in every bedroom by sundown. That would kill any chance at reproduction.

just thinking about that horrible possibility made my genitals tear loose from their moorings and run away....now I have to go find them ....thanks!

I don't know, given enough Jack Daniels, I'd do her.

As long as she kept her piehole shut.

 

[daws101]

It would be easier to do than that; BHO just needs to issue an executive order stating that a picture of Ann Coulter must be in every bedroom by sundown. That would kill any chance at reproduction.

just thinking about that horrible possibility made my genitals tear loose from their moorings and run away....now I have to go find them ....thanks!

I don't know, given enough Jack Daniels, I'd do her.

As long as she kept her piehole shut.

no disrespect but but your standards aren't very high ,are they?

 

[Mr Natural]

just thinking about that horrible possibility made my genitals tear loose from their moorings and run away....now I have to go find them ....thanks!

I don't know, given enough Jack Daniels, I'd do her.

As long as she kept her piehole shut.

no disrespect but but your standards aren't very high ,are they?

No.

I'm 63 years old and if I can offer a bit of advice, lower your standards now.

You'll thank me later on.

 

[daws101]

I don't know, given enough Jack Daniels, I'd do her.

As long as she kept her piehole shut.

no disrespect but but your standards aren't very high ,are they?

No.

I'm 63 years old and if I can offer a bit of advice, lower your standards now.

You'll thank me later on.

thanks I'm 54 and know how you feel!

 

[alan1]

the herd must be culled from time to time to keep it healthy...

Imagine just how many of the herds weak would be culled if we stopped long term welfare.
Yes, I said that.
It's not my responsibility to support children that some person had that couldn't support them.

 

[daws101]

the herd must be culled from time to time to keep it healthy...

Imagine just how many of the herds weak would be culled if we stopped long term welfare.
Yes, I said that.
It's not my responsibility to support children that some person had that couldn't support them.

ok! let's see if you're as good as your word try to get that on a ballot initiative...

 

[candycorn]

It would be easier to do than that; BHO just needs to issue an executive order stating that a picture of Ann Coulter must be in every bedroom by sundown. That would kill any chance at reproduction.

just thinking about that horrible possibility made my genitals tear loose from their moorings and run away....now I have to go find them ....thanks!

I don't know, given enough Jack Daniels, I'd do her.

As long as she kept her piehole shut.

I would think there isn't enough whisky in the world to get the site of that adam's apple out of your head...eww

 

[LA RAM FAN]

two farts in a row from the agent trolls.