Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are partners in, and champions of, the culture of death: Buffett obviously has a lot in common with Kermit Gosnell: Jane Chastain adds a few more facts to Warren Buffetts charitable journey: Bill Gates is also big on abortions in addition to promoting vaccinations as a way to implement population controls. He is not alone. The pseudoscience of eugenics has been around for more than a century. Many of the wealthiest Americans, including Teddy Roosevelt, were eugenicists before the beginning of the twentieth century. As near as I can tell, legal abortion as a means of population control sprang from eugenics. Twenty-first century eugenicists include: NOTE: Sylvia Mathews Burwell will soon replace Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of HHS. Her Senate confirmation hearing began on Wednesday. Burwell has a long association with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Will any senator ask her about her views on eugenics, population controls, or funding abortions through Planned Parenthood? The long-running joke of Senate confirmation hearings makes the answer obvious. Being somewhat distrustful of population controls, I asked myself why the New World Order crowd is so committed to open-borders. One answer is that illegal aliens meet the requirements after they are sterilized with vaccines the ideal laborer works cheap without reproducing. Identifying wealthy bloodthirsty moralists serves no purpose. Too many average people cannot see the monster behind the dollar sign. It might make a difference in the preposterous humanitarian image they enjoy by pointing out that the tax collectors morality is also the morality of wealthy angels of death. Necessarily, Congress must overturn the entire concept of tax deductions for charitable donations in order to prevent blood-soaked moralists from further passing the cost of their morality onto the backs of every taxpayer. Should eliminating the charitable tax deduction in this country prove to be impossible at least eliminate the deduction when money is donated to foreign entities. If a charitable donation does not directly benefit Americans the tax deduction should be disallowed. (I mean a tangible benefit, not a touchy-feely philosophical benefit.) Its bad enough when characters like Gates and Buffett make everyone pay for their morality a morality most Americans reject. Congress should not let them get away with taking a deduction for giving money to United Nations programs or to foreign entities. The tax code and everything it pays for are creatures of Congress. The IRS denying conservative organizations tax exempt status is undeniable. Conservative groups are denied for trying to nominate and elect candidates who represent conservative values, yet so-called charitable foundations that actually implement an inhumane political agenda are never questioned. To me, Congress allowing Gates, Buffett, Rockefeller, and the rest of them to use tax dollars to enforce their personal beliefs is no different than the IRS establishing a religion. New world slaughter The New World Order crowd is leading the world to population controls by every available means. I doubt if anyone will find anything in writing. John Kerry did state the true reason behind abortion slip out in his losing bid for the presidency. Note that the US Senate confirmed Kerry as secretary of state by a vote of 94 to 3 well-knowing what he is: Obviously, the filthy sneaks are not proud of what they stand for. My best guesstimate is that over 80 percent of Americans have no understanding of how close to implementation population control is. The number of people in the Third World who never heard of population controls is probably well over 90 percent, or that they are scheduled for extinction at the hands of eugenicists. Finally, living well is the only legitimate reason for acquiring great wealth. The methods used to accumulate wealth vary. The fictional character, Gordon Gekko, had a motive other than living well although he made a good case for greed. Gekko was all about outsmarting his competitors. He makes no mention of greed being good for advancing barbarous political agendas: [video=youtube;R8y6DJAeolo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8y6DJAeolo&feature=player_detailpage[/video] The real life character of Jordan Belfort, portrayed in the movie The Wolf of Wall Street, acquired wealth for the sole purpose of living well in harmony with his own lights: [video=youtube;Gb1HrBCVOCU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=Gb1HrBCVOCU[/video] The fictional Gordon Gekko, and the flesh & blood Jordan Belfort, end up in jail because the methods used to acquire wealth always violate one law or another. Acquiring wealth for the wrong purpose is the true reason the government puts people in jail. Question: Did you ever see a movie where someone went to jail for funding a brutal political agenda? The answer is no, nor will you ever see such a movie because the smart ones pay others to do the killing. In most cases their top people are nothing more than hit men wrapped in legal niceties who never get caught either. Conclusion: Acquiring wealth to live well is the ultimate crime.
Could you repeat that....I fell asleep during a rerun of Star Trek and am thinking I'm still asleep and dreaming.....
To FoxHastings: Another bumper sticker mentality heard from. Now you know not to open my messages, or is that too much for you to grasp?
Did a quick search on WND found this WorldNetDaily (WND) is an American web site that publishes news and associated content from the perspective of U.S. conservatives and the political right and stopped reading the rest of this rubbish.
While true, Gates is a strong advocate for population control, reduction and eugenics. There's video of him speaking about reducing the population via the healthcare system and immunization, with zero question he meant what he said. The rest of the OP, I haven't investigated. That Warren Buffet would donate the mass of his fortune to the Gates foundation is telling.
Completely wrong, the whole thing was taken out of context .. what Gates (and by the way I am in no way a great supporter of Gates as a whole) was saying that with the increase in good vaccinations they may not be a requirement for poorer people to have large families in order to ensure the survival of at least some of them, a knock on effect of this would be a reduction is CO2 due to a decreased world population. The video given is a severely doctored version. Alex Jones the conspiracy-monger-in-chief of the anti-government “Patriot” movement is the one who pretty much started all this crap and it was picked up by a number of people who posted edited videos, such as “grimreaperdutchphil.” The rest of the OP is just pure blind crap, using misinterpretation, half-truths, wishful thinking and a whole load of BS. I've seen exactly the same done with Margaret Sanger, misrepresentation, misquoting and basically lying about the things she said .. and even though she was a supporter of Eugenics that still doesn't give anyone the right to try and twist what she said, that to me is just complete and utter dishonesty.
To Fugazi: How original! Attack the source rather than dispute the message. To SMDBill: If you investigate you will find that the wealthiest Americans always funded the eugenics movement. Most of the linked video is about fluoridation. Dr. Blaylock talks about vaccinations which calls Bill Gates approach to population controls into question. Note that Dr. Blaylock correctly calls wealthy eugenicists elitists rather than elites. [video=youtube;23d11ipCcyQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23d11ipCcyQ&feature=player_detailpage[/video] The main difference between todays eugenicists and those in the 19th and early 20th centuries is that taxpayers are funding eugenic programs through tax deductions. To Fugazi: Try defending eugenics and population controls with more than accusing everybody else of being wrong.
Try stopping it....(if it exists)...The Golden Rule : the ones with the most gold rule.(see Koch Bros.)
Vaccines implement population control? How....by RAISING the population?!?!? Whew doggies....somebody needs to drink more distilled water or rainwater to keep the fluoridation from sapping and impurifying all his precious bodily fluids!!!! - - - Updated - - - "World Net Daily" is the home of the "Birthers", Fugazi. They're so crazy they make Breitbart News look like the Washington Post.
Unfortunately you can research Gates, and even his father as head of planned parenthood adds to the intrigue, you'll see more comments via interviews and speeches about population control, support of GMOs and other things that make his character questionable at best. Buffett donating so massively to Gates' foundation just makes Buffett's character questionable as well.
To FoxHastings: So who do you prefer? Harry Reids billionaires George Soros and Tom Steyer. To Gorn Captain: Interesting choice to make a point. General Jack Ripper was actually onto Bill Gates and population controls without realizing it: [video=youtube;Qr2bSL5VQgM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=Qr2bSL5VQgM[/video] To SMDBill: Exactly so. To Cady: That depends on what you are defending. Defending eugenics, or population controls, or infanticide certainly indicates serious character flaws.
So who do you prefer, the Koch brothers and the entire Republican party that they own? And Dr. Strangelove? Really! oooh THAT proves a point...some point somewhere ....something. Now please cite the incidences of infanticide......the other "infanticide is true because I say it is" bloke couldn't produce any proof either...
Abortion is negative eugenics no matter how you look at it and for whatever reason you can dream up to rationalize it.
To FoxHastings: I asked you first. And for your further enlightenment, I am not a Republican. To FoxHastings: Talk to Gorn Captain on that one. To FoxHastings: Read the OP again. Incidentally, court decisions will extend the definition of infanticide beyond standard dictionary definitions: Federal judge: life begins at conception by Kathleen Gilbert Tue Jun 28, 2011 13:04 EST INDIANAPOLIS, June 28, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Planned Parenthoods request to block a provision of an Indiana law that requires doctors to tell women who are seeking abortions that human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm, was denied by U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt last week. Plaintiffs contend that in the context of abortion, the meaning of these words, both individually and in combination, represent a plethora of opinions and beliefs about life and its inception. The Court respectfully disagrees, wrote Pratt. When read together, the language crafted by the legislature in this provision supports a finding that the mandated statement refers exclusively to a growing organism that is a member of the Homo sapiens species. The judge disagreed with Planned Parenthoods suggestion that the phrasing was misleading. Here, the mandated statement states only a biological fact relating to the development of the living organism; therefore, it may be reasonably read to provide accurate, non-misleading information to the patient, the court wrote. Under Indiana law, a physician must disclose the facts and risks of a treatment which a reasonably prudent physician would be expected to disclose under like circumstances, and which a reasonable person would want to know. Planned Parenthood of Indiana (PPIN) had also sought an injunction against another part of the same law, House Enrolled Act (HEA) 1210, which barred federal Medicaid funds from going to the abortion provider. Pratt granted that request, noting that the Obama administration had threatened to gut the states entire Medicaid allotment to save PPINs portion. Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society, praised the judge for upholding scientific fact, but said that they would continue to ensure that the measure defunding Planned Parenthood goes into effect. While this is a significant partial victory for Life, we will press on to ensure that the full law will go into effect to defund Planned Parenthood in Indiana, Brejcha said. We stand ready to defend Life in other states as they plan to defund Planned Parenthood and require doctors to tell women that life begins at conception. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/federal-judge-life-begins-at-conception To smevins: Perfectly stated.
"""And for your further enlightenment, I am not a Republican.""" Oh, I see that English comprehension is the problem....I never said you were a Republican and it doesn't make any difference.... And how naive to think one billionaire is different from another.... And still NO proof/examples of infanticide...... NONE, NOT one....plenty of rant, no proof....
Definition of NEGATIVE EUGENICS : improvement of the genetic makeup of a population by preventing the reproduction of the obviously unfit http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/negative eugenics Based on that definition can you elaborate more what you mean by "Abortion is negative eugenics"?
To FoxHastings: Work on your own reading comprehension skills. You introduced the Republican party. I simply enlightened you so there would be no misunderstanding in the furure. To FoxHastings: Dont get clever with words. Youre not smart enough. You mentioned the Koch brothers as a negative force. Now, you are claiming billionaires are all the same off because I invoked George Soros and Tom Steyer. To FoxHastings: Does the name Kermit Gosnell ring a bell. And please dont tell me he was NOT convicted of infanticide. He fits the definition because he murdered babies after they were out of womb. I guess this went over your head:
You claimed abortion is negative eugenics. Considering the definition, how does it apply to abortion?
LOL! Kermit Gosnell was caught and punished...since you "infanticide" FANS can ONLY come up with old Kermit I gues your "infanticide " isn't as rampant as you make believe it is,. As far as all that eugenics crap... one big YAWN,,,,
To FoxHastings: Progress at last! You went from none to one. Perhaps youd care to revise your position even further after you do a little research: To FoxHastings: Is it the topic that puts you to sleep? or is that anyone talking about the cruelty eugenicists are setting in motion bores you?:
Is it just me or is the main character in The Wolf of Wall Street 100% the good guy? I was hell angry when he got put in prison at the end. The question, it seems to me, is whether or not Robin Hood is justified today.
