And You Wonder Why We Are Nervous?

The Resident keeps on mocking his detractors regarding the Healthcare bill, saying that they are resorting to “scare” tactics to try and kill this obamanation of a bill, but in reality, all one has to do is look at the architects of this bill- who had input in the formation of the terms by which these “people” ( and I say that provisionally) wish to dictate our lives. 

Take Professor Peter Singer- a man who believes that a baby is not human until it can have actual thoughts, and recognize that there is a tomorrow. That alone is scary stuff, but there’s more-

Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus. A preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, at least up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother’s preferences to have an abortion, therefore abortion is morally permissible.

Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns similarly lack the essential characteristics of personhood — “rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness”[28] — and therefore “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.”[29]

Kind of Nazi- like, isn’t it? But then he gets really bizarro- Don’t believe me? Okay, here we go-

In a 2001 review of Midas Dekker’s Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that “sex with animals does not always involve cruelty” and that “mutually satisfying activities” of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals, and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities.

Gee, now there’s somebody you don’t want working at the SPCA, much less having input in the most intrusive and expensive Healthcare bill ever to be debated.

Now we come to John Holdren, who, believe it or not, is the Resident’s Science Czar- Really? Allow me-

Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens. 

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both? 

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology — informally known as the United States’ Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that: 

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not; 
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food; 
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise; 
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. 
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

This, unfortunately, is just the beginning of the wrong- headed thinking that pervades the White House, and after becoming just a little acquainted with these two  sc**bags, you really feel like washing your eyes out. These are people we want to have power in deciding our fate? Is their “input” really something that  is positive? Or is it as repugnant to you as it is to me?

I know that after doing the researchI have done, I no longer feel that Sarah Palin’s “Death Panel ” comment is that far out of line- indeed, sorry to say, she might be right on in her assessment, because these are not the only two that (A)- have had input on this bill, and (B)- are “Czars” in this administration.

The Resident once said that if we want to know how he is going to make his decisions, to just look at the people he surrounds himself with. Well- we are looking, but the glimpse is certainly not reassuring us about the state of our Healthcare.

Tomorrow, I will introduce you to Ezekiel Emmanuel, the brother of the Resident’s Chief of Staff, and Van Jones, the Resident’s “Green Jobs Czar”. They also hold views that are puzzling, considering the Healthcare Debate.

In the meantime, study these people- the more you know, the more horrified you will be.

And if I was the Resident, I wouldn’t leave Peter Singer and Bo, the Resident’s dog, in the same room.

It’s just not safe.

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

9 Responses to “And You Wonder Why We Are Nervous?”

  1. Adam says:

    I’m having a hard time tracking down official confirmation of what Peter Singer’s connection to Obama is and in what capability he is working at for Obama. Got any sources? I’m not seeing him listed as a “czar” either confirmed or appointed.

    As for John Holdren, the attack you quote is complete rubbish. Read this article defending Holdren and poking a few holes in the article you are quoting. Apparently in some eyes writing a research paper discussing methods for population control equates to supporting said methods of population control.

    Looking forward to your stuff on Emmanuel. It’s probably based on the same sort of rubbish.

    • Blake says:

      Look- ANYONE who wants to give trees- TREES- standing in court, to sue someone, you have a lunatic with a VERY tenuous grasp on reality.
      The truth is that he wrote those words, or at the very least, ENDORSED with his name those theories, and in order to get confirmed, I believe he would say ANYTHING, anything at all- I do not trust him, and believe his thoughts, especially considering he has the Resident’s over-large ear, are especially dangerous. The same applies to Singer.

      • Adam says:

        When you dumb down a large volume of scientific writing to “ANYONE who wants to give trees- TREES- standing in court…” then of course it sounds dumb. Unfortunately for your argument their case has much more meat to it than you want to let on.

        If you read even what little of the book is available online you can see that it is an outline of techniques not a “I think we should do X, Y, Z…” kind of garbage. It questions the morals of such things but proposes the possible inevitability of many of them in the developing world due to population disaster, something that most of those involved in the writing say nearly 40 years later are no longer the case.

        • Blake says:

          Yes, and true, they MIGHT have changed their minds, OR they could be lying to get into the halls of power- I have my suspicions, especially since he did not deny the writings until SPECIFICALLY asked.

    • Blake says:

      My post on Emanuel is up, when you care to give it a glimpse.

  2. Erasmus B. Stanky says:

    You obviously know nothing about Holdren’s book and what he actually wrote, but go ahead and propagaqte the lies of others. It’s all wingnut bloggers caN DO WELL.

  3. Blake says:

    Adam, you are correct in that Singer is nor an official czar- he is an “advisor” to sunstein.
    Stanky- well, there is just no defense against such a fake name- you are obviously proud of whatever the hell you do-please feel free to make more nonsensical attacks- they are so amusing.
    Of course to you I am a “Wingnut”- that seems to be the pejorative du jour for those of your stripe. Glad you like Holdren- you can keep him.

  4. Adam says:

    Singer is an adviser to Sunstein in what capacity? I’m not seeing records of that either.