Archive for Feature

Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren has espoused controversial views on population control in the past.

Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren has espoused controversial views on population control in the past.

Previously posted on our website, Political Integrity Now

By now you’ve heard the outrageous ideas put forth by Obama’s science Czar John Holdren in Ecoscience . This is the book where Holdren, joined with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, suggested that sterilants placed into our water and essential food supply would be a good way to limit population growth. The trio also tossed around the idea of mandatory adoptions for children born to mothers out of wedlock or to teen mothers, that is if the teens hadn’t already been forced to abort-as the book also suggests.

You may be thinking that this is a far-fetched notion, that these were just wild ideas in the world of academia, and that people don’t really believe this stuff. Think again.

Youthquake is a report put out by the radical group Optimum Population Trust. It is an urgent call to action to save the planet, not only from pollution, but from people. It’s OPT’s contention that overpopulation is killing our planet, and to save it, we should push for population reduction.

Without action, longages of humans – the prime cause of all shortages of resources – may cause parts of the planet to become uninhabitable, with governments pushed towards coercive population control measures as a regrettable but lesser evil than conflict and suffering.

OPT released a briefing in 2007 which says the following:

Population limitation should therefore be seen as the most cost-effective carbon offsetting strategy available to individuals and nations – a strategy that applies with even more force to developed nations such as the UK because of their higher consumption levels. A non-existent person has no environmental footprint: the emissions “saving” is instant and total. Given an 80-year lifespan and annual per capita emissions (2006) of 9.3 tonnes of CO2 (Defra, 2007, provisional), each Briton “foregone” – each addition to the population that does not take place – saves 744 tonnes of CO2, equivalent in emissions to 620 return flights from London to New York (1.2 tonnes of CO2 each).

Well there you have it! “A non-existent person has no environmental footprint.” A non-existent person also has no dissenting political views, no burden on society, no addition to health care costs, and no demand on social services. Whether people want to admit it or not, Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, believed strongly in eugenics. This is the theory that we can and should weed out the undesirables–you know, those who might be emitting too much CO2–or in her day, who were too poor, or too dumb, or too weak, or too black. Sanger’s idea was that we could use “family planning” to keep those “unfits” from reproducing.

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the “black” and “yellow” peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger’s other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as “scientific” and “humanitarian.” And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America’s human “breeding stock” and purging America’s “bad strains.” These “strains” included the “shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South.”

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as “unfit,” a plan she said would be the “salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were “irresponsible and reckless,” among whom she included those ” whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers.” She further contended that “there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.” That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered “unfit” cannot be easily refuted.

The History of Coerced Sterilization in the United States

The History of Coerced Sterilization in the United States

Still shaking your head thinking that forced sterilization can’t happen here? Unfortunately it already did. From 1930s to the 1970s, mass sterilization was taking place in Puerto Rico. Women were encouraged to get hysterectomies. Children in schools were taught that the key to economic success was having a small family. The average age for those who were sterilized was 26, with a full 1/3 of the island’s female population being sterilized by 1965! Many of those women were not told that the procedure was irreversible, and some were not even told that it was a surgery at all. Planned Parenthood had a hand here as well, after all, this primarily targeted poor and impoverished women–or as Margaret Sanger would say, “unfit.”

Which brings us back to recent studies on population control and dire warnings from environmentalists. Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost is literally a cost/benefit analysis of population control and pollution. Simply put, the study found that “family planning” is the “cheapest way to combat climate change.” Oregon State University statisticians have recently released a study that claims that having fewer children is the best way to reduce your carbon footprint.

While the OSU researchers make it clear they are not advocating government controls or intervention on population issues, we cannot ignore the fact that there are groups who are advocating coercive measures and that someone who has written about such things in the past, has the president’s ear. In a political environment where every day is the potential for a new crisis, as the next big thing, we have to wonder how many ways this new research can be used by an uber-progressive administration. Holdren has written about compulsory abortions and coerced sterilization, all in the name of the environmental movement. Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones, recently resigned amid revelations of his radically controversial views. Obama has said that he wants to put science before ideology–but whose science and whose ideology?

Categories : Culture, Family, Feature
Comments (0)

In the latest round of Sarah Palin bashing, Vanity Fair has sunk to an all-time low and is apparently now recruiting writers in a jr. high playground. We’re led to believe that “V.F.’s red-pencil-wielding executive literary editor, Wayne Lawson” has given Palin a knock-out punch. What bothers me is the ignorance of both the “editors” of this particular piece, and that of their readers.

 

The "evidence."

The "evidence."

Certainly the likes of a major magazine’s “red-pencil-wielding executive literary editor,” with the help of said magazine’s “research and copy departments” are literate enough to realize that they are editing a transcript from Federal News Service. I’m not even employed by a major magazine, much less a “red-pencil-wielding” anything, and I can see the text plainly typed at the top of the page. The Huffington Post crew obviously skipped that obvious point when they decided to post the article.

My guess is the brains behind the hit-job decided that their readers were easily fooled and wouldn’t mind their trickery–after all, in the MSM, a joke with Sarah Palin as the punch line is worth a thousand words. Am I the only person in America who can spot a fake document when I see it? Does no one else realize that the magazine went to the trouble to falsify a hard-copy background to insinuate that Sarah Palin wrote the document and read from it? This point is especially important because the Palin-hating audience of this audience goes so far as to claim she is a narcissist because “she typed the word “applause” at the end.” This same reader goes on to degrade Sarah Palin by stating that he can picture her sitting on her “bear rug” and listening to audio of applauses in the same way that other people listen to whale calls. The ignorance and thirst for blood is mind-blowing.

The “colorful” results from the dutiful editing team are laughable at best. They imply that Palin’s words are in error, when in most instances, they are nothing of the sort. The first paragraph is a prime example. Palin states that she appreciates speaking directly to the people that she serves as governor. The editors mark through this as if it is improper. It is most certainly not improper, nor does it go against the code of the English language. The only thing that the editors achieved by that “correction” was to add more color to the falsified document, thereby creating the illusion of Sarah Palin’s ignorance. Sadly, it reminds me of a child on a playground with low self-esteem making fun of another child for having a name that the bully dislikes. There is nothing particularly wrong or offensive about the name, the bully just cannot think of anything better to say and will feel better if he insults someone else. It’s pathetic and I would hope that there are still Americans out there who can see through such tactics.

The editors go on to “correct” Palin by nixing the phrase “This is a source of inspiration for my family,” but apparently the editors are overpaid and have possibly had their intellect run off in the same manner that they claim Palin’s speech writers did. Palin was clearly referring to Lake Lucille when she said “This is a source of inspiration,” but again, the editors thought that more red ink would make her look bad, so they erroneously applied it.

In the second paragraph, the “editors” insert a comma behind what they have assumed is Palin’s period. Maybe it’s just me, but I think that Borat is the only person who would give a speech and say the words, “period…pause…begin sentence.” No, it’s not just me, the editors were wrong AGAIN. Sarah Palin did not transcribe her speech, she spoke the words, and even those at the Federal News Service cannot determine if her intent was a pause for a comma or a pause for a period. Yet again, the addition of red ink leaves the naive reader with the assumption that Palin created some writing faux pas. Regardless if there was an intended period or comma, the statement is not grammatically incorrect as it was spoken by Palin. “It’s the eve of our celebration of independence as a nation.” This is the “error” that the overpriced editors have called her on. Wow! The audacity of Palin to make a statement. There is not one thing wrong with that statement.

Move forward four words and you will see them at work again, “It’s a time to remember our nation’s dear souls who sacrificed so selflessly…” This is not incorrect, it does not make her look ignorant. The editors replaced the phrase “our nation’s dear” with the word “those.” Granted the replacement is grammatically correct, BUT SO IS THE ORIGINAL PHRASE! This is no different than a woman telling a girlfriend she should wear a red dress when the friend wants to wear the exact same dress in blue–the friend is still clothed properly, the girlfriend just happens to prefer a different hue. A matter of taste does not make someone else’s efforts flawed, regardless of how much red, blue, or green ink one uses.

In the next sentence the editors replace “centuries” with “233 years.” I’m sorry, did I miss that day in elementary school? Is 200+ years not equal to the word “centuries?” Of course it is, but again, they wanted that gotcha moment because the MSM is hell-bent on hammering the nail in Palin’s coffin. I could go on and on, as the entire piece is filled with this sort of false “correction” and it is like pouring blood in shark infested waters for VF’s readers. I don’t know if I’m more outraged at the tactics of these so-called editors or at their readers for not realizing they’ve been duped. For anyone doubting the lengths that the magazine went through to create the illusion of an authentic speech mysteriously picked up by some Palin insider, don’t take my word for it. Read the article with your eyes open this time. There are the tell-tale staple holes and corner creases which would lead an unsuspecting reader to believe this was THE document that Palin used. The editors even attempted to correct the FNS by removing the ellipses as if Palin was so stupid that she placed ellipses at the beginning of her speech. The editors can’t be bothered with the fact that the Federal News Service is an independent source who typed up this transcription while listening to Palin’s speech because to do so would mean that they couldn’t credit Palin for those pesky ellipses and the lack of an extra space after the location and date of her speech. That would mean less color, less punch and let’s face it, less of an impact in their smear campaign.

While the HuffPo commenters were busy verbally pummeling Palin for her “lack of writing skills” and accusing her of not having a journalism degree or writing her latest op-ed, the VF editors were having the last laugh. They knew that their readers weren’t very observant and they didn’t care. They don’t get paid to inform, they get paid to sensationalize and they do that well. Just look at the photo evidence before your eyes. The supposed background is a crumpled up piece of paper which has been unfolded, but oddly enough, the text flows in a seamless line across the page. There is a fake coffee stain on the first page. The writer of this article is a fraud and should be exposed as such. The only thing Palin is guilty of is speaking off-the-cuff to her constituents, I don’t fault her for that. I would rather my elected representatives give it to me straight, even if that means that they get a name wrong, and even if it means they use the word “so” when someone else might have used the word “therefore.” If anyone knows the true source behind this editing, perhaps I’ve got the perfect Christmas gift for your acquaintance…a brand new thesaurus! I for one am embarrassed that as Americans we’ve allowed our media to sink to this level.
1-conservative-momma-transparent-sig

Categories : Feature
Comments (32)
June 18, 2004

June 18, 2004

My Dearest Chet,

I am the most blessed woman on this planet. Most women dreamt of their Prince Charming when they were little girls, and then grew up and decided that he didn’t exist. I am not one of those women. I am fortunate enough to wake up to my Prince Charming every morning.

Your first Father's Day--you never looked more handsome in my eyes.

Your first Father's Day--you never looked more handsome in my eyes.

You have shown me, for 5 glorious years, what it is like to be loved, and in turn how to truly love someone. You have provided a foundation for our children to use in forming their relationships down the road. You’ve given our daughter, Etta, a sort of model that shows her what to expect from the men in her life. I have no doubt that she will take your example and use it to guide her heart.  And you have shown our boys what being a good man is all about.  You are forever the voice of reason, calm, reassurance, security, honor and integrity.  You are understanding, forgiving and unashamedly loving.

Daddy and Etta

Daddy and Etta

 

I didn’t daydream about you when I was a little girl. I dreamt of someone who could never hold a candle to you. I never realized that men like you existed, and I certainly never knew that I was deserving of a love like yours.

Prince Charming, My Angel

Prince Charming, My Angel

Your smile melts my heart. You have a way of expressing the most heartfelt sentiments in the oddest of times. When my hair is a mess and I am completely exhausted, you’ll say something lovely and completely unexpected.  I know that those words aren’t planned, and your sincerity is overwhelming. You have made me feel like a princess from day one. On those rare occasions when we are not both pulling “parent-duty” and are able to just bask in each other’s company, anyone would swear that we were in that “honeymoon” stage of love. The cynics out there don’t believe that these feelings can continue for this long and beyond, but you and I are proof that they are wrong.

I want to shout it from the rooftop what a wonderful man you are. When I hear of women who are in less than ideal relationships, it saddens me to know that they are missing out on the kind of love that you have blessed me with. Even sadder still is the fact that so many of them have given up on finding someone of your caliber. You are that fabled “knight in shining armor,” only you are as real as the sky is blue.  You are my best friend and the love of a lifetime.  You encourage me in every crazy venture that I take.  You honestly want me to be happy even when my whims change like the wind.  You push me when I need pushing.  I always know that if I should stumble and fall, you will be there to catch me.  I feel so proud to call you my husband, and honored to be the mother of your children.   Your mom and dad did such a great service to me when they instilled in you the values that you have.  I could never have thanked your mother enough for doing such an awesome job in helping you to become the man that you are.    I know that she looks down on you and adoration and pride well up in her heart.

Soul Mates

Soul Mates

You promised to “show [me] a whole new world,” and boy did you ever. You’ve opened my eyes to unconditional love, and love of myself, and for that I am forever grateful. We are not perfect. We disagree sometimes and we have spirited debates. Even in those moments, your love shines through, and makes me want to be a better person. You have so much good in your heart that you bring out the best in those around you. You can take a volatile situation and with your words, diffuse it. I am constantly in awe of you–whether I constantly show it or not.

December 2008

A "Match" made in Heaven.

I never thought that I would look forward to getting older, but I do. I get tears in my eyes when I see a loving, elderly couple because I long for the day that we ARE that couple. I want nothing more than to sit on the porch with you and marvel at a beautiful sunset and what a beautiful life we’ve shared together. We may have found each other later in life than I would have liked, but we did find each other. As corny as it may sound…in our case, I swear that Match.com created a match that was made in heaven. I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are the one creature that was put on this planet solely for me. I know in the depths of my soul that God intended for you to love me, and for me to love you. I am overcome with emotion when I think of what a beautiful union He formed with our hearts, so much so that it is hard to swallow at this very moment.

Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for allowing me to love you. Here’s to a lifetime of anniversaries, Angel.

With all of my love…today, forever, and always,

Natalie

Categories : Feature
Comments (4)

I’d like to be one of the first to formally invite everyone to check out Smart Girl Nation. If you haven’t already become a member of Smart Girl Politics, take a moment to do that now.  Smart Girl Nation is the new webzine where the thoughts and views of conservative women reign supreme.  We will bring all of the important issues to light that you might not be reading in the MSM.  Also, at every turn, we will support other conservative women in their quests to seek government office and help our country get back on track.  There many awesome writers, with great perspective on a wide range of issues. You’ll all find someone who is saying exactly what you’ve been thinking. It’s a conservative woman’s view on politics and the world. I am thoroughly excited to be a part of this new adventure.

Categories : Feature
Comments (4)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29813588/

This is an article about the proposal to outlaw sex with animals in certain states where it is not expressly prohibited. Good. I am all in favor of outlawing sex with animals. You may be wondering how I’m drawing a comparison between this and abortion. I’ll assure you, most things can be made to draw a comparison with abortion because if you strip everything away and look at the simple facts, we as a society ignore the plight of unborn babies. I just read about the Dept of Homeland Security issuing warnings on domestic terrorists, and specifically stating that people or groups who pick out one issue (like abortion) are in a category that is likely to be a domestic terrorist. This got me to thinking. I wonder if the members of PETA are in that group too?

This article is stating that some animals have been injured so badly in their sexual abuse that they have died. Some are just injured and maimed. Some of the offenders have a higher incidence of already being or becoming a sexual predator of humans. All of these are great reasons to outlaw the practice. But what about one other reason? What about the fact that it is forbidden in the Bible? There is another thing there that is forbidden, it’s called murder. We, as a society, have decided to negate murder if it was due to a mother’s choice. If the same baby is murdered, in utero, by someone else, against the mother’s will, a murder charge can be brought in some states–depending on the state of gestation. But if dear old mom decides she wishes to “terminate the pregnancy” then she is well within her rights, and we seem to think this is socially acceptable. Sure, we pretty it up by stating that it is not ideal, and that we would rather it not happen, but we do not punish it. How can this be?

I have just included an article for you to read which shows that most states, and now some others, will punish a person for choosing to have sexual relations with an unwilling animal. The article even states, “The act of forcing a living creature to engage in a sexual activity without the ability of consent cannot simply be viewed as a personal choice — no more than forcing a child or an impaired adult would be.” Don’t get me wrong, I’m an animal lover, and a rational person, so I whole-heartedly agree with this statement. But then, as a rational society with any standard of morals, how can we apply this line of thinking to animals, but not to unborn HUMAN babies? Sure this proposed law is discussing unwanted sexual activity, and I’m talking about murder. Maybe it’s apples and oranges. I certainly think that animals and unborn human children are apples and oranges. In this instance though, one would think that we might give a little bit more credence to the fruit of the human variety.  I also think it’s important to note here that, while an animal could never consent to sex with a human, that animal is not entirely defenseless.  At the very minimum, he/she can bare his/her teeth in protest, at most he/she can do some real damage with those teeth.  On the converse, a babe in the womb can do nothing.  Depending on the type of abortion being performed, there is no warning, no sense of impending danger, and most certainly no chance to outrun his/her attacker.  God created animals, and they are beautiful.  But why must we, as the supposed more intelligent species, place our young beneath that of animals?  I’m sure most people have seen a “save the polar bears” sign during the election recently.  Good.  I’m proud of those people in exercising their right to free speech.  But I am disgusted by the fact that most, if not all, who displayed those signs think that our unborn children don’t deserve the same protections and defense of life.

I am so sick of hearing pro-choice supporters say that it is a woman’s choice, and we can’t infringe upon that. If this is true when we’re talking about human babies, how does the same not apply to animals and humans? Why is a man not able to just “choose” to engage in sex with his dog/horse/goat, at will? Why does the thought of such a thing turn our stomachs, as a whole, but the thought of abortion is just a necessary evil? If we’re not able to infringe on a mother’s right not to mother, then why does it stop after said baby is born? Why do we punish a new mother who drowns her child? Shouldn’t she get some credit for her choice too? Maybe she decided she just couldn’t handle it, or it wasn’t working out with her romantic relationship, or she wanted to go back to school and make a future for herself and any future children? Oh right, I forget, we’ve got to argue about whether “it” is actually a baby or some alien being living and growing inside “its” mother’s womb.

Maybe I’m the deluded one, but I’m thinking that might not be the case. I continually argue that it is a case of semantics which has been conjured up to make the supporters of abortion better able to sleep at night. I’ve heard too many times, “I would never have an abortion, but I would never tell another woman she couldn’t have one.” Well, I for one would never shoot my child, and yet I still have no qualms about telling another mother that she can’t do the same! Why? Because it is just wrong! We, as a civilized people, are not allowed to kill our own species. Heck, we’re not even entitled to kill a dog, lest we be charged with animal cruelty (something I entirely support). But when the victim is a child who hasn’t yet escaped the womb, all bets are off.

Categories : Feature
Comments (0)
My family

About

I am a mother of 4. I love my children, I love my husband, I love God, and I love my country. I think that makes me a good and patriotic person. According to recent reports though, it may make me likely to be a domestic terrorist. I never thought that driving a SUV, raising children, and standing up for the rights of those with no voice - like would be aborted babies - would place me in that category. I think someone's got their priorities screwed up, and I'm betting it is not me.

Contact the author, aka me, at natalie@conservativemomma.com.

Subscribe to our Feeds

Subscribe to Natalie Nichols – Conservative Momma

Get the latest updates delivered via email

RSSTwitterFacebookFlickr