Skip to content

How to Stop Fake Global Warming? Abort Icky Babies!

December 12, 2009

So, not only can we women be  “punished by a baby,” but so can the entire World, evidently. So says Diane Francis, of the Financial Post, echoing the true beliefs of many “greenies.”

For those who balk at the notion that governments should control family sizes, just wait until the growing human population turns twice as much pastureland into desert as is now the case, or when the Amazon is gone, the elephants disappear for good and wars erupt over water, scarce resources and spatial needs.

For those who balk? As if it is just some weird new idea that we aren’t swift enough to embrace right away. Sadly, it’s not even a new idea. In fact, it is the basis FOR a lot of the global warming hysteria – the true agenda behind it is far more troubling. Perhaps it is time people start studying up on the history of Eugenics, Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. As Allahpundit of Hot Air reminds us, hints of such things have been coming out of the “Green Movement” for years. They are just being more blatant about it now. Worse, our own President is, at the very least, embracing people who espouse such agendas: his very own science czar.

I think I get why they are called Czars now; they all appear to hate Capitalism. And, you know, people. At least the plebeian kind that are not part of the super-smart liberal aristocracy. First it was discovered that John Holdren was not pro-choice; but it was totally okay, because it wasn’t THAT kind of choice. It was the opposite, in fact; he argued in favor of MANDATORY abortions as a means of population control. From FrontPage Magazine:

“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” (pp. 837-838). Moreover, if the United States government refuses to take proper measures, they authorize the United Nations to take compelling force.

The excerpt is from his book, Ecoscience, which he co-authored, and which also espoused a World Government that would have global authority, including population control, and advocated for a global Redistribution of Wealth. Oh, but that was 30 years ago, Obama and his surrogates shrieked. Stop nitpicking you nutty wingnuts! Racists! Shut up, Shut up, Shut up! Also, st00pid George Bush.

Um, this video was taken 2 years ago.  In it, Holdren argues for a redistribution of wealth, achieved, in part, by green policies. Oh yeah, he also said that America isn’t really exceptional. I suppose everything that America has done as the greatest source for good in the world has really been a ruse perpetrated by nefarious, racist, evil mongers. Or dum-dum crackers. I can’t really keep straight which one we are supposed to be. I’m also no longer sure if being called Un-American is an insult to the Left.

What other radical views does Holdren still embrace? And how will we know if his vetting, or lack thereof, was anything like it was for Van Jones? Or worse; if the President knows — and just doesn’t care. On the other hand, does it matter? The President and Congress have clearly jumped onboard of the whole Global Warming scam, which has, at its very roots, the end goal of population control. Hello, Brave New World!

The Environmental Eugenicists (Environgenicists?) have always been the clandestine, yet driving force, behind the “green movement.” Now, however, they are becoming emboldened, more mainstream. If only we got rid of all those pesky, you know, PEOPLE, everything would be just fine. They are using climate hysteria as a justification for abortion and euthanasia. What started as just a slippery slope, became a patch of black ice, quite possibly leading to our own demise.

As stated earlier, this proposed nonsense isn’t new and should have been easily recognized by anyone paying attention. The first time it ticked me off was when The London Times took us Mommies to task. (Hey, greenies: GET OFF MY UTERUS. Thankies!) The London Times ran an article a couple of years ago, entitled “Having Large Families Is An Eco-Crime!” Exclamation point included. Because it is very serious, you know, and we had better listen up!!! (3 for good measure). It was the first step in attempting to make the “rationing” of those less “cost-effective” totally acceptable.

As usual, it was all Mom’s fault. I knew we’d  eventually be blamed for destroying the planet, because we are ALWAYS the one first blamed in any whiner’s therapy session — “I wasn’t allowed to lick the cake bowl!”– and Environmentalists are among the biggest whiners of all. Well, actually, I suspected either Moms or George Bush!, who seems to be the cause of everything bad in the entire world. I don’t know how he managed it all – conjuring up tornadoes & hurricanes, arranging to make steel melt (which everyone knows is impossible) and foreclosing on people’s homes. Not to mention that illegal war for oil.

What did the London Times call our most recent crime? MOTHERHOOD. We Moms are eco-hogs of the first order, apparently. We, by dint of having the utter gall to actually have sex and *gasp* procreate, have carbon footprints the size of Michael Moore’s waistband. (Or Al Gore’s; they are becoming somewhat interchangeable in both mind and girth. And not the good girth.) This  article was based on the findings of a  “think tank” called Optimum Population Trust. (What?) Their co-chairman, John Guillebaud, an emeritus professor of family planning (again, what?) ( I think I’ll start calling myself Professor Emeritus of Remembering to Take a Pill or Professor Emeritus of Knowing How to Roll Down a Condom) at University College London, said:

“The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet. The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”

Um, OK, whiner. I only have one child and I intend on keeping her, but thank you very much for passing judgment and intruding into my life uninvited, Mr. Guillebaud. I also do not “fly across the planet” so I think I should be exempt. How about this? I propose, to lower total carbon output of course, that you, sir, be boiled in a vat of your own urine (it’s organic!)

In fact, throw your fellow whiners Leonardo DiCaprio, Laurie David, Al Gore and Janeane Garofalo into the vat as well. And Robert Gibbs, just because he annoys the hell out of me. That will offset the carbon emissions of my entire immediate family and then some. There! Mommy can even take a totally fake problem and make it all better! I also intend to go on a “smear campaign.” By smear campaign, I, of course, mean the Newspeak definition: finding out annoying things like facts and evidence and hidden agendas on my own. Because apparently, neither our government nor our “Press” care.

(originally / cross-posted at

One Comment leave one →
  1. December 14, 2009 6:52 am

    I guess my wife and I should both qualify as Professors Emeritus of knowing how NOT to use condoms in the first place. We and our 15 children must be a serial criminal dynasty to the liberal left. Thank God we don’t live on a farm and have dairy cows farting up the atmosphere! I guess we’ll name our next kid “Iceberg killer”. Tell me how many kids to have? Let me use some of the Sign Language I DIDN’T learn for my 5 year old to express my views on that, Diane Francis!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: