Thursday, April 26, 2018 05:47

Archive for the ‘Eugenics’ Category

Is Your PC Red?

Sunday, April 25th, 2010

– Elphaba

Here’s the lasted Commie Tunes from Commie Blaster:

George Soros seems to pull the strings of the Obama administration…this postulates that he controls much of our information technology, as well, particularly Google (no surprise).   Apple and Microsoft apparently have similar political leanings, and are directly influenced by Soros’ “open society” (i.e., socialist) vision for the world.  Pay particular attention to part where Bill Gates is discussing ways in which to reduce the world population (this is particularly creepy): vaccines, health care, and reproductive health services (code words for abortion).  The abortion part, I get.  No babies = fewer people, if that is your objective.  But vaccines and health care are supposed to improve life expectancy, so WTF does he mean by that statement?  It sounds kinda sinister.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Share

Wiccan Imbalance (We Make Stupak Look Good)

Friday, March 26th, 2010

– Sebastian Page
V Sebastian Page

Let’s face it, I’m an a**hole. Back in the day when I was a “sold-out, the whole route”, Bible-bangin’, both barrels blazin’, born again Christian, I had a real love for eschatology. But more importantly, I absolutely loved apologetics. For those not in the know, this is essentially the field of study that seeks to rationally and historically support the validity and truth claims of the Bible, and to a degree, the Christian perspective as a whole. Yeah, I was an ardent self-styled defender of the faith. Even now, although the religion and views may have changed, I remain very much the same.

But I have always had a knack of being especially critical of the group I belonged to first and foremost. It has always occurred to me that in terms of truth and ethics, we must always strive to hold ourselves to the highest standards if we are to be worthy of claiming our religious system, and more importantly, if we are to be ambassadors of it. In short, I’ve simply always felt that we must be not only able but eager to call BS in our own house, particularly before we consider any others. This is likely one of many reasons why I prefer to navigate the outer perimeter of the Wiccan community, because most within it tend to have strong reflexive reactions to any critical assessment of what we really are, rather than what we tell others and ourselves we are.

Wiccans have a lot of self-descriptors, most of them cribbed from a stack of neo-pagan books by modern day hippies and pseudo-intellectuals who seem to have opted out in getting a clue throughout life. Favorites tend to shift from time to time, with the currents of fashion occasionally sweeping us into new levels of understanding and communal “self-awareness.” You know, all that clap-trap. But as an example of how we fancy ourselves, let’s consider a few of these. Let’s see…we Wiccans are: nature-reverencing, goddess-worshiping, life-affirming, ecologically aware, tolerance-promoting, non-judgmental, and balanced. For any who’ve ever known a Wiccan or neo-pagan, you’ll agree that the last thing we are is balanced. We might hold it as an ideal, meaning a goal for which we strive (and we should), but in all honesty, we don’t really take it all that seriously (which is sad). But aside of the balance issue, another item from that list is the notion of being a “life-affirming” religion. I’ve always found that this is a somewhat preposterous description for this group claiming it, for one glaring and simple reason: Wiccans are almost exclusively sold out to the radical political left, and absorb without question virtually each and every one if its dogmas, including an absolute endorsement of the pro-abortion agenda. (more…)

Share

Obama and Eugenics, Redux

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

– Wiccapundit

As a follow-up to Elphaba’s post on Obamacare and Eugenics, I present this startling short video on Obama’s approval of policies that are straight out of Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project” – a self-described “weeding out” of the black race. That Obama could stand in support of Planned Parenthood either shows his astonishing ignorance or his total venality.

Share

Obamacare and Eugenics

Monday, March 15th, 2010

– Elphaba

Fetus at 5 months of gestation

I have been following the abortion subsidy debate with regards to Obamacare with great interest.  I think that many Democrats are showing their true colors in the sense that “pro-choice” for them really means pro-abortion, and this raises some major ethical concerns.  James Taranto in his WSJ’s Best of the Web column, discusses this subject so well that I am excerpting it here, as I don’t think I can articulate it any better than he does:

National Review’s Bob Costa catches up with Rep. Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat who, although not opposed to ObamaCare, has said he and a dozen or so like-minded colleagues will vote “no” if it includes subsidies for abortion:

Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. “I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.

“What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue–come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

Stupak frames his argument too narrowly. Forget about “life” for a while–the Democratic leaders’ position ought to be equally shocking to those on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate.

What Stupak is hearing from his colleagues is not the pro-choice argument that the government should permit abortion as a matter of individual liberty. Rather, they claim that the government should encourage abortion as a social expedient–a cost-cutting measure. (more…)

Share