Byam Elementary School apparently has a gift shop they arrange every year during the holiday season. But in the interest of political correctness, religion must of course be promptly removed — we wouldn’t want to anger the atheists, after all — and Christmas is the holiday that’s most in the crosshairs.

After meeting with members of the Byam Elementary School PTO, two mothers asking to put the holidays back into the school’s annual holiday gift shop say Byam isn’t budging.

Kathryn McMillan and Kathleen Cullen, who both have children at Byam, asked school officials to allow all holiday items at the gift shop following a ban on Santa, candy canes, stockings, and all Christmas, Hanukkah and other “religious items.”

But a meeting with some PTO parents on Thursday night grew heated as emotions got in the way.

Red and green tissue paper to wrap presents was also crossed off the list because it looked too “Christmasy,” McMillan said.

“One of the parents said, ‘If we allow Santa, what do we say if a child brings in a swastika? Do we allow that too?’ ” McMillan said. “All I could think of was, are you kidding? You’re comparing a Christmas ornament to a swastika? It seems as if reason is lost somewhere and I just hope we can find it again.”

Superintendent Donald Yeoman told The Sun on Tuesday that the rules for the gift shop are under the authority of Byam Principal Jane Gilmore. Ultimately, said Yeoman, the policy for the gift shop was set so no child would feel left out.

“It’s operated under those same rules for a number of years with success and without complaint,” Yeoman said.

Until now.

Gilmore did not return a reporter’s phone call yesterday.

McMillan and Cullen have asked that if the children can’t celebrate their traditions – whatever they may be – at the holiday gift shop, then maybe the school should move the gift shop to another time of year.

Not all Chelmsford schools have adopted the same policy as Byam. The South Row Elementary School, and the former Westlands Elementary that closed last year, had no restrictions on gift-giving.

“It makes sense that the school probably makes the most money by holding the gift shop over the holidays,” McMillan added. “So all we’re asking is that if you’re letting kids buy gifts for the holidays, let them donate stuff that celebrates those traditions and use it as a teachable moment so these kids can learn.”

McMillan and Cullen will appear before the School Committee on Tuesday, Nov. 24.

It seems like these parents are the only ones who possess any reason whatsoever. But, as always, there is the one parent who gets OFFENDED!! for their children’s sake, and must ban Christmas, Santa, Christianity, and anything that might even resemble it. But going so far as to link Santa Claus to Nazi swastikas is taking it further than I think I’ve seen before. I mean, really, let’s see… we have Santa Claus, a saint who has grown into a myth, a man who believes in kindness and giving. And then there’s Nazis, who were responsible for the torture, starvation, slavery, and murders of over six million people. How does one’s mind link Santa Claus and Nazis? When someone mentions Christmas or Santa, how screwed up do you have to be to automatically think that letting a kid celebrate that in school means that you’re opening the door to celebrating Nazis? I mean, that’s one hell of a leap there. On top of that, the rules seem more than a little outrageous. You can’t even have red or green wrapping paper because it just might remind someone of Christmas? Good Lord, this takes worshipping at the altar of political correctness to a whole new level.

And for what it’s worth, I think the suggestion of McMillan and Cullen seem perfectly sound to me. If they won’t let children celebrate their respective holidays at the gift shop — Christmas, Hanukkah — then why not just move the gift shop to a different time of year and avoid the whole issue? Instead, the school has seemingly gone out of their way to deliberately snub religion. It’s simple, though. The school wants to capitalize on the holiday season without having to actually deal with those pesky holidays, and they know that having the gift shop in the middle of, say, September just wouldn’t be as profitable. I don’t begrudge them wanting to make money, but it seems hypocritical to want to make money off of the holiday season — and also by taking advantage of the festive, giving holiday spirit of parents — while being completely unwilling to include the holidays they’re capitalizing on.

And while surely if enough parents complain enough, the school will change the rules, it’s disturbing enough that this would even happen. This was a country built on faith-based principles, after all — and now, we have more and more schools trying to keep faith out of the public eye in any way, shape, or form.

Jane Gilmore, the religion hating principal of Byam Elementary School.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

We read:

“A swastika along Highway 36 flown on private property in Junction City is just one example of hate speech in Lane County, according to County Commissioner Pete Sorenson. He says flags like this are legal on private property, but he still doesn’t want to see them. “This kind of hate speech is just not welcome in our community,” he says.

In light of this recent swastika flag, county commissioners met late last month and voted on the “Proclamation Against Hate Speech.” Basically, commissioners are using their free speech to condemn this type of speech. They can condemn it but not change it. “As most people know, the swastika is a symbol of hatred,” says Sorenson. “We feel while we cannot regulate that kind of speech under the federal and Oregon constitution, we feel we certainly can condemn it. And that’s exactly what we did.”

Source

It’s difficult to know who is the dimmest here. The flag illustrated is NOT a symbol of hate. It is an Indian good luck symbol. You see them all over the place in India. In the Indian “swastik”, the arms normally point to the left. In the Nazi Hakenkreuz, they point to the right. The Nazis did NOT refer to their symbol as a “swastika”. It was the English who created that confusion. The German term translates as “Hooked Cross”.

But the learned commissioner was not the only dummy. The guy who put the flag up apparently was comparing Obama to Hitler — which is legitimate political speech, though something of an exaggeration. After all, Bush=Hitler was repeated ad nauseam from 2000 to 2008.

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Such thinking was once dominant in Anglo-Saxon philosophy schools but the great expansion of tertiary education in recent decades has meant that many less rigorous thinkers have been employed as philosophers, some even being third-rate enough to find enlightenment in the words of an obsolete economist called Karl Marx. So philosophy schools are now replete with people who seem to think they are being profound when they say: “There is no such thing as right and wrong” or “There are many realities”. To an Anglo-Saxon empiricist, such statements are simply confused.

Such confused thinking is usually described (rather fancifully) these days as “postmodernism” but for historical purposes it is probably best subsumed under the broad category of “existentialism” — and there were many prominent existentialist thinkers in the first half of the 20th century, particularly in Germany. And many existentialist thinkers at that time were sympathetic to National Socialism (Nazism), just as their counterparts today are solidly in favour of all sorts of Leftist thinking. So existentialist thinking and Leftism have always been intimately associated among many who call themselves philosophers. And it should therefore be no surprise that prewar existentialists sound very profound to existentialists today.

The Nazi connection is however embarrassing. Heidegger, Carl Schmitt, DeMan and others sound very good and wise and profound to Leftist philosophers today so how do you cope with the Nazi connection? Easy: In the traditional Leftist way of dealing with all inconvenient facts — by ignoring it.

One of the holier of today’s existentialists has however recently upset the applecart by pointing out that the great god Heidegger was a Nazi and calling for all Heidegger’s thinking to be denounced and renounced. Leftists are not letting go of such an inspiring (to them) figure as Heidegger, however. What Heidegger says is central to what they say, so to denounce Heidegger would be to denounce most of their own thinking. And there the matter rests at the moment. A small excerpt from a NYT story about the matter below. That Nazi thinking is one subset of socialist thinking is, of course, never acknowledged:

For decades the German philosopher Martin Heidegger has been the subject of passionate debate. His critique of Western thought and technology has penetrated deeply into architecture, psychology and literary theory and inspired some of the most influential intellectual movements of the 20th century. Yet he was also a fervent Nazi.

Now a soon-to-be published book in English has revived the long-running debate about whether the man can be separated from his philosophy. Drawing on new evidence, the author, Emmanuel Faye, argues fascist and racist ideas are so woven into the fabric of Heidegger’s theories that they no longer deserve to be called philosophy. As a result Mr. Faye declares, Heidegger’s works and the many fields built on them need to be re-examined lest they spread sinister ideas as dangerous to modern thought as “the Nazi movement was to the physical existence of the exterminated peoples.”

First published in France in 2005, the book, “Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism Into Philosophy,” calls on philosophy professors to treat Heidegger’s writings like hate speech. Libraries, too, should stop classifying Heidegger’s collected works (which have been sanitized and abridged by his family) as philosophy and instead include them under the history of Nazism. These measures would function as a warning label, like a skull-and-crossbones on a bottle of poison, to prevent the careless spread of his most odious ideas, which Mr. Faye lists as the exaltation of the state over the individual, the impossibility of morality, anti-humanism and racial purity.

The book is the most radical attack yet on Heidegger (1889-1976) and would upend the philosophical field’s treatment of his work in the United States, and even more so in France, where Heidegger has frequently been required reading for an advanced degree. Mr. Faye, an associate professor at the University of Paris, Nanterre, not only wants to drum Heidegger from the ranks of philosophers, he wants to challenge his colleagues to rethink the very purpose of philosophy and its relationship to ethics.

At the same time scholars in disciplines as far flung as poetry and psychoanalysis would be obliged to reconsider their use of Heidegger’s ideas. Although Mr. Faye talks about the close connection between Heidegger and current right-wing extremist politics, left-wing intellectuals have more frequently been inspired by his ideas. Existentialism and postmodernism as well as attendant attacks on colonialism, atomic weapons, ecological ruin and universal notions of morality are all based on his critique of the Western cultural tradition and reason.

I go into some detail about the confusions of “postmodernist” thinking here

(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, DISSECTING LEFTISM, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . List of backup or “mirror” sites here or here — for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is “down” or failing to update. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The worst thing that you or I can do for the planet is to have children. If they behave as the average person in the rich world does now, they will emit some 11 tonnes of CO2 every year of their lives. In their turn, they are likely to have more carbon-emitting children who will make an even bigger mess. If Britain is to meet the government’s target of an 80% reduction in our emissions by 2050, we need to start reversing our rising rate of population growth immediately.

All children are bad, but Western children are particularly bad, because according to the Gaiaist religion,

the poorer you are, the less carbon you emit. By today’s standards, a cull of Australians or Americans would be at least 60 times as productive as one of Bangladeshis. …one less British child would permit some 30 women in sub-Saharan Africa to have a baby and still leave the planet a cleaner place.

As usual, the role model for liberals is communist China, which is praised for reducing its population by hundreds of millions by dictating to parents that they can only have one child — a policy that often results in infanticide for baby girls.

If communism and Nazism could leave tens of millions dead, what will be the death toll if the evil freaks driving the environmentalism movement get the leverage to inflict their anti-Western and anti-human fantasies?

In the US, we already have a Science Czar who has advocated putting sterilants in the water supply. Why not use poison instead? After all, it may only be a matter of years before global warming inconveniences the polar bears unless the human race is reduced to a few barefoot peasants cowering before their socialist overlords.

Hat tip: The Blogprof. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

That has been enough to ignite a huge outpouring of hate speech directed at conservatives from the Left. They have built huge castles in the air over that one word “fed”. Apparently every conservative radio host in America is directly responsible for the death and all other conservatives are guilty for listening to such hosts. Never mind that the police investigation is in its early stages and that even suicide has not been ruled out. Michelle Malkin has the details.

But when their little bubble pops, the Left will move on with no sign of guilt or contrition for their outpouring of unjustified hate. They will act as if nothing had happened. If conservatives had done anything similar, you would never stop hearing about it.

There are no doubt some murderers with conservative views but the Left is INHERENTLY murderous. The American Left has to pretend that conservatives are murderous in order to deflect attention from the direct involvement in mass murder by socialists worldwide from the French revolution on, including self-described socialists in Soviet Russia and Mao’s China. And the American Left supported, condoned and excused the murderous Soviet regime right up until the end of that regime. They used to say that Communists “are just liberals in a hurry”. The obvious corollary — that “liberals” are slowed-down Communists — never seemed to bother them. All the great mass murders of the 20th century were the work of “socialist” regimes under men like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot. And to this day, see if you can find a single American Leftist who will condemn the “socialist” tyranny in Cuba. When “Fidel” dies there will be mourning throughout the USA. That he came to power over the blood of tens of thousands of Cubans will be ignored. Killing doesn’t bother Leftists at all — for all that they pretend it does when it suits them.

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me (John Ray) here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

On Huffington Post, Lincoln Mitchell bills himself as the “Assistant Professor in the Practice of International Politics” at Columbia University but I think he’s better suited to a job as a minion in a ministry of truth in some Orwellian dystopian fantasy novel. In any case, his latest screed on the evilness of evil Republicans and their Nazi-like attack on those peace-loving, kind, and pure Obamacare policies certainly serves as a perfect sample of his propensity to propagandize. Truth be damned because here comes Linc Mitchell to the rescue of Obamacre.

In his HuffPo piece Mitchell attacks anyone that opposes Obamacare casting them as evil monsters yet in this perfect example of propaganda offers not a shred of proof or a single example to prove out his claims of the evil machinations of anti-Obamacare protesters. In his sycophantic support of Obama he makes all sorts of charges about the motives and organizations supposedly behind the healthcare townhall protests yet offers nothing to connect the dots. He just says it’s so and moves on as if it is all a matter of obvious fact.

Mr. Mitchell also makes several pronouncements about the kindness and soft-spoken nature of the American left and makes to compare their supposedly more intelligent and mature form of debate to that of those loud, crass Republicans. Again, he simply states this nonsense as it if is true regardless of the last 100 years of loud, crass liberal riots, bombings, murders, and protests that prove his claims an outright lie.

It is amusing to me that extremist lefties like this Mitchell fellow are attempting to portray themselves as the even-tempered side of the argument when the history of the left in America is so filled with hatred and violence. These propagandists are sitting in faux wide-eyed shock as conservatives and Republicans are finally, practically for the first time since the birth of the party over 100 years ago, getting passionate about politics. (If you’ll remember, anti-slavery sentiment served as the imputes to start the GOP in the 1850s)

Any look at American history will see repeated examples of left wing violence. In 1910, for instance, union thugs went on a nation wide bombing spree that left many dead. And let us not forget the many race riots started by the unhinged left during the counter culture years, nor the many acts of arson perpetrated by animal rights nuts today, or the property destruction by the lefty anti-WTO protests. For more lefty ties to political violence we have but to recall that unions have been assaulting people for generations not to mention that three of our four presidential assassins were associated with leftist groups and ideologies.

And what of right wing groups? Well, there is little history of violence by comparison.

Now as it happens, I agree with Mitchell’s second paragraph.

This is unfortunate because health care reform is long overdue. A more efficient system that insures more people, simplifies the health care process, brings costs down and creates rational incentives for health care providers, health care seekers and everybody else would be of great value to the entire country. The creation of such a system would be very difficult, and perhaps not fully possible, but it should be the goal of Obama’s policy.

Certainly it would be great to have all those wonderful reforms that Mitchell waxes eloquent about. Of course, the problem is that not one of the bills currently wafting through Congress like a bad odor achieves any of these worthy goals.

But that is about the last sensible thing Mitchell says in his HuffyPo blather because he then goes on to attack those protesting Obamacare as but puppets of evil, shadowy conservative groups.

Moreover, any chance of a serious debate about how to balance competing needs and political realities has been shouted down. Because the anti-health care reform interests, in collaboration with broader right wing organizations, have invested in scare tactics, rumor mongering and fear to the preclusion of negotiation, communication or compromise, the Democratic health care bill will probably not be as inclusive as many of us would like; and a major progressive goal of more than half a century will still be unmet.

Sadly, Mitchell utterly discounts the real and wide anger felt by millions of common citizens deciding it is merely ginned up by mysterious forces. Yet does Mitchell name any of these shadowy “broader right wing organizations” that have stolen the debate from the fair-minded? Nope. He just states it as fact and moves on.

Also, notice that Mitchell uses his propagandist’s art to present the left as those interested in “negotiation, communication and compromise.” So can we for just a moment visit the sort of “compromise” that his leftists have offered?

How about when Obama said that he wants his opponents to shut up as he did on Aug 7 ? Is that the spirit of “compromise” we should emulate? Or how about when Speaker of the House Pelosi said that she doesn’t care what opponents think on healthcare because she has the votes to do what she wants to do? Or when she said any opposition to her rule is “un-American”? Or how about the fact that many on Mitchell’s extreme left side of the aisle are asking why they even need to have any bi-partisan effort at all? Again, is this the spirit of “compromise” that Mitchell claims is coming out of his side of the aisle? If so, it just doesn’t feel all that compromisey to me. How ‘bout you?

Amusingly, Mitchell next goes into a spasm of despair over the lack of hope-n-change that Obama claimed he wanted to institute once he triumphantly entered the White House. Why, the wonderfulness of hope-n-change is all doomed because of the evil status quo Republicans that refuse to let the new day dawn. Of course, the propaganda here comes in when Mitchell simply states as a fact that Obama is even trying for all that hope-n-changieness in the first place.

Mitchell ignores, for instance the fact that Obama has thus far lied about transparency, lied about excluding lobbyists, lied about stopping many of Bush’s war policies, and lied about eliminating the usage of signing statements just to name a very few of the hope-n-change promises that Obama has broken since he took the oath of office. And not one of these things have been opposed or stopped by any status quo Republicans. They are all, each and every one, wholly in Obama’s power to affect. But he has not done so.

Yet, Mitchell characterizes Obama’s failures as all the fault of those nasty, brutish Republicans… yes those same Republicans that are in such a minority that their votes hardly count for anything. Conveniently for his blame-the-GOP argument, Mitchell ignores all these facts.

Fittingly, Mitchell saves his worst lies for his ultimate paragraph.

The health care debate so far has clearly shown that Obama has brought change to Washington. Before Obama was president, major media figures did not compare the president’s administration to Nazi’s, opponents of the president’s policies and once and perhaps future leaders of major political parties did not suggest that the president was going to establish death panels, and elected officials of the party out of power sought to calm, not stoke, the noisiest and most radical opponents of the president. These changes are not the fault of the president, but speak to the extent to which the president’s opponents will go, and their willingness to use increasingly outrageous tactics, to oppose the president. Seven months into the Obama presidency the Republicans’ biggest, and perhaps only, success has been drowning the optimism from earlier in the year in a pool of red baiting, misinformation, comparisons to Nazis and intimidation. Defeating Obama on health care will be a big step towards making this Republican success permanent.

You just have to laugh at this claim that no one compared the Bush administration to Nazis and that such a calumny is all new only to Obama. Can anyone deny that all we heard the last 8 years was “Bushitler” this and “Dearth Cheney” that? All one need do is type Hitler and Bush into a search engine and many thousands of hits from the DailyKos, MSNBC, CNN and any manner of left wing blogs and websites will disabuse you of any notion that no one ever called Bush a Nazi. A recent story even reminds us of how badly leftists treated President Bush during his tenure.

Mitchell also seems to have forgotten that high placed Democrats repeatedly fanned the far left’s fury during Bush’s presidency. Did Mitchell forget when the number two Senate Democrat, Dick “Turbin” Durbin, compared American troops to Nazis? Or, how about when Al Gore screamed at the top of his lungs that Bush “betrayed this country”? Did our pal Linc forget those bits of political theater?

The simple fact of the matter is that Lincoln Mitchell is an out and out propagandist. He makes statements that he knows to be untrue, he sets up straw men arguments that he happily batters down for his Obammessiah, and he makes no efforts at all to prove his case with any actual facts, merely stating his propagandistic opinion as fact.

And then he wonders why Obamacare is starting to lose the argument?

Unfortunately, there isn’t much to see on Huffington Post that is any different than the nonsense offered by Linc Mitchell. In fact, his is pretty tame by comparison to the left wing hate so often on display there.

(Cross posted at HealthcareHorseRace.com.)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A judge has ruled that the Alaska governor’s office can use private email accounts to conduct state business, as former Gov. Sarah Palin sometimes did.

Superior Court Judge Jack W. Smith said in his ruling Wednesday that there is no provision in Alaska state law that prohibits the use of private email accounts when conducting state business.

The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Anchorage resident Andree McLeod.

McLeod contended such use of private emails denies citizens the right to inspect public records.

State lawyers argued that McLeod misinterpreted current state law. And if the practice is to be changed, lawyers said it was up to Alaska lawmakers do it.

According to the New York Times version, Ms. McLeod stated that she was “stunned.” Yeah, liberals tend to say that quite a bit when they realize that the law doesn’t say what they think feel it say.

We already know that the Left is scared to death of Palin, and will do anything to personally destroy her. I wonder what their next attempt will be? Could it have something to do with Nazi’s? As a sidebar, while looking for a photo of Sarah to go with post, I ran across some other interesting ones, so, perhaps the Left could set aside their outrage at some of the Nazi and Hitler references at the protests, some of which are faked

Those are just a few of the references I found. Oh, and then there is this one

So, where do you think you can shove your moral outrage, libs?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Jim Simpson at Truth & Consequences put the following post up at Maggie’s Notebook. Please note this comment in the article:

If you care at all about this issue, or for that matter the future of this country, it would behoove you to know just how the thugs operate when Americans stand up for themselves. This is a REAL fight, right now. And it is about power, theirs versus America’s. Make sure you understand that! They are coming out of hiding, which means they think they will win

I hope you will read Jim’s article, follow the link and see what we are facing.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

John Holdren, the Science Czar of the United States, has long expressed an intense admiration — one that bordered on hero-worship — of a man named Harrison Brown, a respected scientist from an earlier generation who spent his later years writing about overpopulation and ecological destruction. In fact, as Holdren has pointed out several times (including very recently), it was Harrison Brown’s most famous book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, which transformed the young Holdren’s personal philosophy and which inspired him to later embark on a career in science and population policy which in many ways mirrored that of his idol Brown.

Holdren’s regard for Brown was so high that in 1986 he edited and co-wrote an homage to Brown entitled Earth and the Human Future: Essays in Honor of Harrison Brown, in which Holdren showers Brown with accolades and unrestrained applause.

Like the famous progressives Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) and Adolf Hitler (murderer of 6 million Jews), Brown was a big proponent of eugenics. He called for “sterilizing the feeble-minded” and others regarded by the State as “unfit,” so that undesirables could be “pruned from society.” Brown’s totalitarian worldview is the basis of Holdren’s.

Quoting Holdren, from Earth and the Human Future: Essays in Honor of Harrison Brown:

Harrison Brown’s most remarkable book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, was published more than three decades ago. By the time I read it as a high school student a few years later, the book had been widely acclaimed. … The Challenge of Man’s Future pulled these interests together for me in a way that transformed my thinking about the world and about the sort of career I wanted to pursue. I have always suspected that I am not the only member of my generation whose aspirations and subsequent career were changed by this book of Harrison Brown’s. … As a demonstration of the power of (and necessity for) an interdisciplinary approach to global problems, the book was a tour de force. … Thirty years after Harrison Brown elaborated these positions, it remains difficult to improve on them as a coherent depiction of the perils and challenges we face. Brown’s accomplishment in writing The Challenge of Man’s Future, of course, was not simply the construction of this sweeping schema for understanding the human predicament; more remarkable was (and is) the combination of logic, thoroughness, clarity, and force with which he marshalled data and argumentation on every element of the problem and on their interconnections. It is a book, in short, that should have reshaped permanently the perceptions of all serious analysts.

Here’s his idol Harrison Brown, from The Challenge of Man’s Future:

The feeble-minded, the morons, the dull and backward, and the lower-than-average persons in our society are outbreeding the superior ones at the present time. … Is there anything that can be done to prevent the long-range degeneration of human stock? Unfortunately, at the present time there is little, other than to prevent breeding in persons who present glaring deficiencies clearly dangerous to society and which are known to be of a hereditary nature. Thus we could sterilize or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. We could go further and systematically attempt to prune from society, by prohibiting them from breeding, persons suffering from serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness, blindness, or absence of limbs. … A broad eugenics program would have to be formulated which would aid in the establishment of policies that would encourage able and healthy persons to have several offspring and discourage the unfit from breeding at excessive rates.

Given the terrifying rate at which the current government has been expanding its power, and especially in light of its ongoing full-court press to seize control of the entire healthcare industry, a Science Czar who wants to revive the ideology of the Third Reich ought to jolt even a few liberals out of their Kool-Aid–induced stupor. Zombie has the full story.

Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.

We knew that human fetuses aren’t human, according to liberal ideology. Now we learn that they remain nonhuman even after they are born, until such a time as priests of The State like Holdren deem them to have been sufficiently socialized.

Genocide has long been used by progressives to advance their objectives. Violating his pact with Stalin put Hitler out of favor, but Margaret Sanger — who openly advocated industrial-scale abortion as a form of social engineering — is still a hero to our rulers.

If they can kill babies, who wouldn’t they kill? Their only restraint is their squeamishness, which they overcome with bogus euphemisms (CHOICE!) and by yelling inane bumper sticker slogans (SAFE LEGAL AND RARE!) loudly enough to drown out thought. Once you turn against God, conscience isn’t a factor.

On a tip from V the K. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Also see Michelle Malkin

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post