…non-rep Grayson (D-FL) for stating that the republican health care plan is for you to die quickly if you get sick.
Non-rep. Grayson’s comment could be considered a lie, except he probably has not read H.R. 3438 introduced by Darrell Issa, R-CA which allows Americans access to the federal employees’ health care package. Hit the link, read it, and then email it to dipstick Grayson. You may want to email it to your friends and family also.
The second Today’s AYFKM? Award goes to Science Czar John Holdren for espousing a strong enough belief that he put it into a college textbook he co-authored stating that the government should seize babies born to unwed mothers and put them up for adoption (among other brilliant ideas).
Proposed government force adoption if mother refused to get abortion
Obama science czar John Holdren stated in a college textbook
that “illegitimate children” born to unwed mothers could be taken by the government and put up for adoption if the mother refused to have an abortion.
Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, argued that “illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged” as a socioeconomic measure imposed to control population growth.
As previously reported, WND has obtained a copy of the 1970s college textbook “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment” that Ehrlich co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich’s wife, Anne. The authors argued involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by “climate change.”
On page 786, the authors wrote that one way to discourage illegitimate childbearing “might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption – especially those born to minors who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone.”
Alternatively, the authors suggested unwed mothers might place their babies up for adoption, writing: “If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it.”
While observing that government-imposed coercive measures should be considered “only if milder measures fail completely,” the authors acknowledged extreme ecological situations could justify governmental intervention with coercive population control measures,
“It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society,” they write.
“Some people – respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included – have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right,” the authors continued on page 838. “Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce.”
In a similar fashion, the authors argued that a right to privacy did not extend to an unlimited right to have children, elaborating on page 838 that, “Where the society has a ‘compelling, subordinating interest’ in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. If society’s survival depended on having more children, women could be required to bear children, just as men can constitutionally be required to serve in the armed forces. Similarly, given a crisis caused by overpopulation, reasonably necessary laws to control excessive reproduction could be enacted.”
Go over and read the rest and if you are not already saying Are You Freakin’ Kidding Me? you will be. Un-frakkin-believable! I wouldn’t want this guy anywhere near my dirty laundry, let alone DC or the White House.
Can we impeach Obama yet?
(P.S. Glenn Beck now has 5 refounders)