Archive for the Czar Category

Protected: Is White House Adviser a Former Abortion Advocate ?

Posted in Czar, Obama with tags , , , , , , , on October 21, 2014 by saynsumthn

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Gun Czar Joe Biden “I Guarrantee you Barack Obama ain’t tak’n my shot gun”

Posted in Czar, Gun Control, Gun Violence, Joe Biden, Second Amendment with tags , , , , , , , , , , on December 20, 2012 by saynsumthn

Vice President Joe Biden is expected to lead the White House task force to examine more gun control legislation, but back in 2008 he did everything he could to convince voters that his running mate supported the Second Amendment.

“I guarantee you Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey,” Biden said to voters during a campaign stop in Castlewood, Virginia on September 20. “Don’t buy that malarkey. They’re going to start peddling that to you.”

Biden informed the crowd that he was the proud owner of two guns.

“If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem,” Biden added, referring to Obama.

In April of 2012 , Remington Arms has been awarded a multi-million dollar contract that could create up to 50 jobs in the Mohawk Valley, federal government sources confirmed to NEWSChannel 2.

The nearly $84 million contract is for manufacturing equipment for the U.S. Army through April 2017. The project consists of making nearly 100,000 M-4 rifles.

Senator Chuck Schumer responded to the Army’s contract with Remington Arms saying, “Today is a great one for Remington Arms in Ilion, its workers and the Mohawk Valley economy as a whole. The Ilion plant has secured an expanded role in producing high-quality equipment for our brave men and women overseas, and this contract will provide a huge boost to Central New York’s economy.”

Schumer
James Rabbia, plant manager of the Remington Arms facility in Ilion, and U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer talk during a tour of the Remington Museum on Tuesday.

Chuck Schumer’s Secret Meeting to change the Constitution

Will US Taxpayers get the same deal on “flexibility” as bailedout Banks?

Posted in Czar with tags , , , , on April 13, 2011 by saynsumthn

this just in from Reuters:

U.S. Pay Czar Allows AIG Flexibility with Pay Packages at AIG
The U.S. pay czar will allow bailed-out firms American International Group, Ally Financial and General Motors to be flexible with their compensation packages for certain high-paid employees, according to letters released on Friday.

The Obama administration’s pay czar must give her stamp of approval on pay packages for the top 100 earners at the four remaining companies that have received exceptional government assistance from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Patricia Geoghegan, TARP’s special master for executive compensation, already reviewed the pay packages for the top 25 executives at the bailed-out firms. According to Friday’s letters, the compensation structure for the next 75 highly paid employees was approved with minor modifications.

A significant portion of compensation must be based on performance in order to win Geoghegan’s blessing.

Under the law, pay packages are subject to restrictions and must be approved by Geoghegan to ensure that taxpayers are not excessively rewarding executives at companies that received the most government help.

Another news agency reports that Acting Assistant Treasury Secretary Timothy G. Massad said some banks who received BAILOUT funds from the Federal Government, will repay their loans with money from another federal program, the Small Business Lending Fund, which was created to encourage smaller banks to make loans to small businesses. – Will taxpayers be able to get these loans to save theior homes and pay their taxes?

But the Washington Post reports that Linus Wilson, an assistant professor of finance at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette who has analyzed TARP data noted that 164 small banks and credit unions that had received TARP funds — nearly a quarter of those that got aid — missed their most recent TARP repayments. He also said that despite TARP’s positive results, it had posted far lower returns than private investors who made similar investments.

One of TARP’s harsher critics remains Neil Barofsky, the outgoing special inspector general for the program. He has disparaged the handling of the lack of transparency and the handling of TARP, particularly the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP.

“It fulfilled its promises to Wall Street, as reflected in the return to record profitability of the nation’s largest banks,” Barofsky said in his testimony on Capitol Hill this week. “But unfortunately, it’s failed to live up to some of its promise to Main Street.”

Barofsky often has warned that TARP could leave a legacy of “moral hazard,” meaning that financial firms might take more risk in the future if they think the government will step in during a crisis.

So…the banks get a BAILOUT and lag time to repay the loans- will you get one when you do your taxes on April 15th…Just say’n?

Science Czar Refuses to Answer Journalists Questions on eugenic writings

Posted in Czar, Ehrlich, Eugenics, Holdren, New World Order, Obama, Population Control with tags , , , , , , , , , on October 1, 2010 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

White House Science Czar Advocated Worldwide Re…, posted with vodpod

White House Science Czar Advocated Worldwide Redistribution of Wealth, But Declines to Comment on It
When CNSNews.com started asking Holdren about the statement, he said, “I’m not talking to you. Bye bye. Have a nice day.”

Wednesday, September 29, 2010
By Nicholas Ballasy

(CNSNews.com) – John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said “have a nice day” and otherwise declined to comment on Tuesday when asked about a statement he made that worldwide redistribution of wealth is “absolutely essential” in order to provide all human beings with a decent life.

“Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being,” Holdren wrote along with Paul and Anne Ehrlich in the final chapter of Human Ecology, a book the three co-authored in 1973. Paul Ehrlich is also author of the famous 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb. Holdren, President Obama’s top science adviser, advises the administration on issues that include health care and climate change.

CNSNews.com approached Holdren to ask him about his statement on redistributing wealth after he gave a speech on “Science, Technology, and Sustainable Economic Growth” at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C.

When CNSNews.com started asking Holdren about the statement, he said, “I’m not talking to you. Bye bye. Have a nice day.”

CNSNews.com said: “You said in your book Human Ecology, quote, ‘Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.’”

“I hope you have a really nice day,” Holdren said as he boarded an elevator, declining further comment.

Holdren was accompanied by Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, which oversees Holdren’s White House Office of Science and Technology.

Later on Tuesday, CNSNews.com submitted a written question to Holdren about his statement on the need to redistribute wealth via email through his spokesman at the White House.

“In the ‘Synthesis and Recommendations’ section of your book, Human Ecology, you wrote, ‘Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.’ Is the Obama administration doing enough to redistribute wealth both within and among nations to provide a decent life for all?”

Neither Holdren nor his spokesperson responded.

In 1995, 22 years after Human Ecology was published, Holdren joined with Paul Ehrlich again and also Gretchen Daily of Stanford University to co-author an essay on “The Meaning of Sustainability” that was published by the World Bank. In that essay, the authors cited “maldistribution of consumption and investment” as one of the “ills that development must address” and “reduced disparities within and between countries” as one of the “requirements for sustainable improvement in well-being.”

“The large gaps between rich and poor that characterize income distribution within and between countries today are incompatible with social stability and with cooperative approaches to achieving environmental sustainability,” Holdren, Ehrlich and Daily wrote in giving their “rationale” for listing “reduced disparities within and between countries” as a requirement for sustainable well-being.

In that same essay, the authors said mankind eventually needed to face up to “a world of zero net physical growth.”

The Wilson Center, according to its website was established by Congress “in 1968 as the official, national memorial to President Wilson. Unlike the physical monuments in the nation’s capital, it is a living memorial whose work and scholarship commemorates ‘the ideals and concerns of Woodrow Wilson.’”

“Our goal,” the center says, “is to encourage experts and the media to continue the open, informed, nonpartisan discussion of timely issues and events upon which the Center is founded.”

Kristof’s Error: Population Control is an Easy, but Wrong Solution

Posted in Abortion, Black Women, Brian Clowes, China One Child Policy, Czar, Ehrlich, Eugenics, Holdren, NSSM200, Planned Parenthood with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 1, 2010 by saynsumthn

Commentary by Bryan Clowes, Research Manager, Human Life International
October 1, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Nicholas Kristof’s entire article “Birth Control over Baldness” [New York Times, Sept. 25, 2010] is constructed around a single sentence: “It’s impossible to fight poverty effectively when birthrates are sky high.”

His answer to this problem, of course, is the simplistic, short-sighted and dangerous solution that many others seem to endorse: Put everyone on birth control. He thus falls into the pit occupied by so many others – the fallacy that complex social problems have a “quick fix” that will make everything better, or at least greatly improve the situation.

Let us get one thing straight before proceeding: The goal of the developed nations is not to improve the standard of living of the people in developed nations. If it were, we’d see billions going toward building schools, investing in business, and other proven methods of helping the people of Africa and Asia flourish. The true objective of population control efforts is neatly summed up by the 1974 top-secret U.S. National Security Study Memorandum 200, revealingly subtitled “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests,” which said that:

The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. … Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States.
We must also be clear about another thing: The ultimate objective of the population controllers is not to ensure the widespread availability of contraception, but the worldwide availability of abortion.

NSSM-200 said that, “No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion.Shortly after NSSM-200’s release, Malcolm Potts, former Medical Secretary of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), and perhaps the most knowledgeable person in the world about population matters, said that “No developed country has brought down its birth rate without a considerable recourse to abortion, and it appears unlikely that developing countries can ever hope to see any decline in their fertility without a massive resort to induced abortion, legal or illegal.”

Today, the most powerful population control groups in the world are quite frank about their desire to legalize abortion worldwide. For example, in its 1996 Charter on Sexual and Reproductive Rights, the IPPF claimed that “All women have the right to information, education and services necessary for the protection of reproductive health, safe motherhood and safe abortion and, which are accessible, affordable, acceptable and convenient to all users.” The 1994 Program of Action of the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) demanded that all nations make abortion available and free to all women by the year 2015.

Perhaps this impending deadline is goading these groups into getting more and more extreme in their rhetoric; in 2008, one United Nations “expert group” ludicrously claimed that “Withholding legal abortion is a form of gender-based discrimination and violence against women.

Trampling the Rights, Laws and Traditions of Developing Nations

In their rush to legalize abortion worldwide, the population controllers have no trouble with trampling on the laws of pro-life nations. In its 1984 document The Human Right to Family Planning, the IPPF baldly stated that “Family Planning Associates and other nongovernmental associations should not use the absence of law or the existence of an unfavorable law as an excuse for inaction; action outside the law, or even in violation of it, is part of the process of stimulating change.” Other population control groups, including Marie Stopes International and Medecins Sans Frontieres, have admitted to committing illegal abortions in nations with pro-life laws.

When the only objective is to meet population control quotas, human rights are the first thing to go out the window. NSSM-200, which has never been officially repudiated as United States population policy, outlined the possibility of forced population control programs and the withholding of food as coercion:

… mandatory [population control] programs may be needed and that we should be considering these possibilities now. … On what basis should such food resources then be provided? Would food be considered an instrument of national power? Will we be forced to make choices as to whom we can reasonably assist, and if so, should population efforts be a criterion for such assistance?

Most of us are familiar with the hideous Chinese one-child and forced-abortion program, which “celebrated” its 30th anniversary this week. It is telling indeed that no population control organization has ever condemned or criticized this inhumane program. In fact, many of them have actually praised it. Nafis Sadik, former Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), has said that

China has every reason to feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning policy and control of its population growth over the past 10 years. Now the country could offer its experiences and special experts to help other countries.

This slavish dedication to suppressing the population has inevitably led to horrible abuses all over the world. Forced abortion and sterilization programs have been exposed in many countries, including Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Czechoslovakia, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines, Sweden, Switzerland, Tibet, Vietnam, and even the United States.

This trend seems to show no signs of slowing down. John Holdren, President Barack Obama’s “Science Czar,” wrote a 1977 book entitled, Ecoscience: Population, Resources and Development, with Paul and Anne Ehrlich [Paul Ehrlich is the author of the thoroughly debunked but still influential The Population Bomb]. In this book, Holdren and the Ehrlichs said that minority women and other undesirables should be forced to have abortions against their wills; that sterilizing agents should be put in the water supplies of the United States to help hold down the population; and that a “Planetary Police Force” should enforce population control measures.

This callous attitude is reflected in the public statements of countless population controllers around the world. After a number of Bangladeshi women died due to the side effects of injectable “contraceptives,” gynecologist Josas Kon said that “In order to have a good thing there is always a price to pay. If two or three women die — what’s the problem? The population will be reduced.”

This kind of uncaring attitude led Indian citizen Amartya Sen, winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize for economics, to remark that “Promoting a “family planning first” strategy can send a message to poor people: `Wish you weren’t here’.”

Having traveled to nearly forty poor nations in the Southern Hemisphere, this writer can confirm from personal experience that nothing contributes more to the image of the “Ugly American” than our attempts to compel the citizens of other nations to adopt our values ? particularly in the most sensitive area of deciding how many children they should have.

The Poor of the World Need Plows, Not Pills
What the poor people of the world need is not pills and condoms, but authentic economic development. Studies have demonstrated that, when the standard of living of poor people is raised, they tend to have fewer children. Urbanization, the education of women, increased consumerism, and job opportunities for women outside the home are among the factors that influence people to have smaller families.

But correcting such deficiencies is too difficult and complex for the population controllers. They prefer the simpler and more direct policy of “Find ‘em, bribe ‘em, neuter ‘em and forget ‘em,” which does nothing more than make large poor families into small poor families.

The world’s richest nations, led by the United States and the United Kingdom, have poured more than $75 billion into population control over the past two decades, wreaking havoc in the families and cultures of the developing world. Imagine how many tens of millions of people could have been raised out of poverty to a higher standard of living had all that money been invested in the future of these nations’ future rather than in eliminating their future, their children.

Brian Clowes speaks about NSSM200 in the film on eugenics called- Maafa21 (Clip Below)

Here is a segment with Dr. Clowes in the powerful 2.5 hour film- Maafa21

White House Science Czar Says He Would Use ‘Free Market’ to ‘De-Develop the United States of America

Posted in Czar, Ehrlich, Harrison Brown, Holdren, Population Control with tags , , , , , , , on September 20, 2010 by saynsumthn

9/16/2010

In a CNS News video interview this week, White House Office of Science and Technology Director John P. Holdren told CNSNews.com that he would use the “free market economy” to implement the “massive campaign” he advocated along with Paul Ehrlich to “de-develop the United States.”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

White House Science Czar Says He Would Use ‘Fre…, posted with vodpod

After researching eugenics and I reading several chapters of the book, Ecoscience, written in the 70’s, by Paul Holdren, who is Obama’s Science Czar, I can see clear signs that everything that is coming down from Washington was being birthed in our society in the 70’s and before. If you read Holdren’s writings, you will see the philosophy behind CAP and TRADE spelled out . Based on population control writings, they truly believe that unless we involuntarily depopulate the earth- we will see an end to human civilization as we know it. Back in the 70’s people like Holdren and Paul Ehrlich predicted that if the US reached 200 million, it would be divesting. They predicted that when people have reduced economic spending power, they have fewer children. Now that America is over 300 million and considered a society which leaves the largest carbon footprint, they are frantic. They do not have a Creationist/ Godly basis for their beliefs and thus they are not at all concerned about sacrificing a few million humans for the salvation of the planet.

They believe that humans are polluting the earth and we are but ONE SPECIES among many that inhabit the planet.

They also forecaster a weird way of mixing global warming, ecology, the use of automobiles, freedom to travel and then slip in the fact that all these things could be used for the ultimate goal of restricting population. i

To demonstrate this, look in a section in the November 1970, Bulletin for Atomic Scientists entitled: Licensing for Cars and Babies – by Bruce M Russett, which states,

Broadly two methods of limiting population growth are suggested by the advocates of population control. One involves variants of coercion. Proposed remedies include, legally forbidding families from having more than two or three children; distributing contraceptives in some quasi-compulsory manner such as in the public water supply; and in extreme forms compulsory sterilization of couples with more than two or three offspring…… “

Why would compulsory sterilization be found in an article about licensing cars?

They also predicted that the growth of energy consumption per person could be slowed by “reducing waste and inefficiency” and that “practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put into use.”

___________________________________________________________


MALDISTRIBUTION OF PROSPERITY AND REDISTRIBUTING PEOPLE:

John Holdren’s 1973 publication: Population and the American Predicament: The Case Against Complacency was published the year after the Rockefeller Commission on Population and the American Future was recommended to President Nixon which opened the flood gates in government funded family planning and abortion.

In Holdren’s section Liabilities of “Direct” Approaches, Holdren writes,

No one has seriously suggested that stabilizing or reducing the size of the American population would, by itself, solve the problems of environment, physical resources, poverty, and urban deterioration that threaten us or that already exist. Attacks on the symptoms of these problems and on their causes other than population should be imaginatively formulated and vigorously pursued. There is evidence that the growth of energy consumption per person can be significantly slowed, by reducing waste and inefficiency, without adverse effects on the economy.15 Economic growth itself can be channeled into sectors in which resource consumption and environmental impact per dollar of GNP are minimized.16 Practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put to use. But those who advocate the pursuit of these “direct” approaches to the exclusion of population limitation are opting for a handicap they should not want and cannot afford.

For the trouble is that the “direct” approaches are imperfect and incomplete. They are usually expensive and slow, and often they move the problem rather than remove it. How quickly and at what cost can mass transit relieve the congestion in our cities? Redesigning the entire urban community is a possibility, of course, but an even slower one. If substantially more economical cars are designed, how fast will their share of the market grow, and how much of the gain will be wiped out by an increased total number of cars? If residences and commercial buildings that use energy more efficiently are developed, how long will it be until the tens of millions of inefficient buildings that now exist have been replaced? Fossil-fueled power plants can, in time, be replaced by nuclear reactors-trading the burden of the noxious routine emissions of the former for the uncertain risks of serious accident, sabotage, nuclear terrorism, and management in perpetuity of radioactive wastes. We could back away from energy-intensive and nonbiodegradable nylon and rayon and plastics in favor of a return to cotton and wool and wood, thereby increasing the use of pesticides, the rate of erosion due to overgrazing and overlogging, and the fraction of our land under intensive exploitation. It is evident, in short, that there are difficult trade-offs to be made, and that fast and comfortable solutions are in short supply.

It has sometimes been suggested that such population-related pressures as exist in the United States are due mainly to spatial maldistribution of people, and that, accordingly, the “direct” solution is redistribution rather than halting or reversing growth. It is true that congestion and some forms of acute pollution of air and water could be relieved by redistributing people. But many of the most serious pressures on resources and environment-for example, those associated with energy production, agriculture, and ocean fisheries-depend mainly on how many people there are and what they consume, not on how they are distributed. Some problems, of course, would be aggravated rather than alleviated by redistribution: providing services and physical necessities to a highly dispersed population would in many instances be economically and ecologically more costly than doing the same for a concentrated population. In the end, though, the redistribution question may be largely an academic one. People live where they do for relatively sound reasons of economics, topography and taste. Moving them in great numbers is difficult. Therefore, even those kinds of population pressure that might in principle be alleviated by redistribution are likely in practice to remain closely linked to overall size.

I point out these shortcomings of “direct” approaches not to suggest that intelligent choices are impossible or that pathways through the pitfalls cannot be found, but rather to emphasize that the problems would be tough enough even without population growth. Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue? Is it logical to disparage the importance of population growth, which is a significant contributor to a wide variety of predicaments, only because it is not the sole cause of any of them?

Holdren later writes, “My own suspicion is that the United States, with about 210 million people, has considerably exceeded the optimum population size under existing conditions. It seems clear to me that we have already paid a high price in diversity to achieve our present size, and that our ability to elevate the average per capita level of well-being would be substantially greater if the population were smaller. I am also uneasy about the possibility that 280 million Americans, under conditions likely to include per capita consumption of energy and materials substantially higher than today’s, will prove to be beyond the environmentally sustainable maximum population size…it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative until such time as the uncertainties have been removed and the problems solved.

It is also obvious that this “optimum” condition cannot be achieved instantly. Unfortunately, the importance of achieving it sooner rather than later has been widely underestimated. In this connection, the recent rapid decline of fertility in the United States is cause for gratitude but not for complacency. Efforts to understand the origins and mechanisms of the decline should be continued and intensified, so that the trend can be reinforced with policy if it falters.”

Redistributing people ???? HUH? ?
__________________________________________________________________________

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY:

According to Terence P. Jeffrey who writes in CNS News, Holdren’s curriculum vitae lists as one of his “Recent publications” an essay entitled “The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects.” Co-authored by Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford, this essay served as the first chapter in a 1995 book—“Defining and Measuring Sustainability: The Biogeophysical Foundations”—published by the World Bank. The book is posted as a PDF on the World Bank’s Web site.

We think development ought to be understood to mean progress toward alleviating the main ills that undermine human well-being,” Holdren, Ehrlich and Daily wrote in this essay.

Table 1-1 of the essay lists both “excessive population growth” and “maldistribution of consumption and investment” as “driving forces” behind these “ills.”

Excessive population growth,” the authors assert, is “a condition now prevailing almost everywhere.”

Table 1-2 of the essay lists “Requirements for Sustainable Improvements in Well-being.” These include “reduced disparities within and between countries.”

The large gaps between rich and poor that characterize income distribution within and between countries today are incompatible with social stability and with cooperative approaches to achieving environmental sustainability,” the authors explain.

Table 1-1 lists among the “underlying human frailties” causing the ills of mankind as “greed, selfishness, intolerance and shortsightedness.” These vices, they say, “collectively have been elevated by conservative political doctrine and practice (above all in the United States in 1980-92) to the status of a credo.

The authors present a formula for understanding ecological “damage,” which they say “means reduced length or quality of life for the present generation or future generations.”

From the Footnotes:7 in The Meaning of Sustainability:Biogeophysical Aspects, Harm that would qualify as tolerable, in this context, could not be cumulative, else continuing additions to it would necessarily add up to unsustainable damage eventually. Thus, for example, a form and level of pollution that subtract a month from the life expectancy of the average member of the human population, or that reduce the net primary productivity of forests on the planet by 1 percent, might be deemed tolerable in exchange for very large benefits and would certainly be sustainable as long as the loss of life expectancy or reduction in productivity did not grow with time. Two of us have coined the term “maximum sustainable abuse” in the course of grappling with such ideas (Daily and Ehrlich 1992).
___________________________________________________________

The RICH/POOR Gap

In a 1992 Cambridge Press Publication Energy Efficiency and Human Activity: Past Trends, Future Prospects , cosponsored by the Stockholm Environment Institute, John P. Holdren wrote a 52 page prologue called “The Transition to Costlier Energy”. In it, he repeats his long-cherished vision of a planetary regime under which population control would be implemented more effectively.

From page 36 onward:
(…) the population can’t be frozen. Indeed, short of a catastrophe, it can hardly be levelled off below 9 billion. Indeed, without a global effort at population limitation far exceeding anything that has materialized so far, the population of the planet could soar to 14 billion or more by the year 2100.

Besides also mentioning to attempt reducing the world’s population to “manageable levels”, Holdren also pleads for a narrowing the “Rich-Poor gap”. Sounds noble enough, were it not that he is regurgitating Agenda 21: the UN program to redistribute wealth from the developed to the developing world. Holdren:

What is most striking (…) is that even the most optimistic assumptions about “early” population stabilization, increased energy efficiency, and narrowing the rich-poor gap still lead to world energy use in 2050 more than double that of 1990.

__________________________________________________________________________

FAST TRACK POPULATION CONTROL

Holdren and Ehrlich also cooperated on the article Human Population and the Global Environment. In the last paragraph of the article, Holdren and Ehrlich declare acceleration on human population control efforts:

“There is a temptation”, the authors declare, “to “go slow” on population limitation because this component is politically sensitive and operationally difficult, but the temptation must be resisted.

TAXING CHILDREN TO SLOW POPULATION GROWTH???

John Holdren “tax the bads …we’re trying to reduce” Could Children be next?

In 2002 – John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar said this in an interview with Living On Earth:

“We need to accept the principle that it is better to tax bads, things that we’re trying to reduce, and correspondingly, lower the taxes on good things, things we’d like to encourage, like income and capital investment. And in that way, changing the incentive system that’s out there, we would start to move the society off the “business as usual” trajectory, in the direction that would reduce the disruption of climate with which we’re going to have to deal.

____________________________________________________________________

COMPULSORY BIRTH CONTROL AND STERILIZATION:

In the 1970′s Holdren published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Although Holdren may not have absolutely stated that he wanted to add sterilizing agents to the nation’s water supplies to keep the population down, he did say that if the population did not “voluntarily” decrease, this could be one option. And Holdren should know, because he was on panels and in touch with high level government officials, birth control pushers, pro-abortion enthusiasts, and Zero Population Growth experts who were, in fact, espousing this type of coercion. In his book Eco science, Holdren mentions that Compulsory abortions could be a solution to population control if it were feasible to enact it –

John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich wrote on Page 256 of their 1973 book, “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.
Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying,”

A far better choice, in our view,” they wrote, “is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”

____________________________________________________________

MENTOR: HARRISON BROWN

Paul Holdren, praised his mentor, Harrison Brown,
In this clip of Harrison Brown, he raises questions about whether eugenics is as “common sense”

What are the outstanding virtues we should attempt to breed in to our population? You might say intelligence, but what kind of intelligence? You might say attractiveness, but what kind of attractiveness?

The episode, “The Mystery of Life,” can be found in its entirety on the A/V Geeks DVD, Twenty-First Century.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "21st Century Mystery of Life ", posted with vodpod

INFANTICIDE:

Brown also wrote the book: The Challenge of Man’s Future.

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

In a speech he delivered as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren admitted that he admired Brown and read his book in high school. Holdren also admitted in his speech that he later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech.

Holdren quoted Brown as saying this during that same speech, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the under-developed areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked.

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

What is also interesting is that I obtained a copy of Harrison Brown’s book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, the one our Science Czar holds up as so important, and discovered this Nazi style infanticide statement by Brown on page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past. ”

These eugenic zealots believe they are saving the plant – it is the “Life Boat” theory that it is okay to throw overboard those who have the least chance to survive. The sanctity of Human Life hangs in the balance and will include the unborn, elderly, and the disabled to begin with.

__________________________________________________________________

For more on Eugenics and how it is used to exterminate entire people groups today go here: http://www.maafa21.com

Note the documentation to “Sterilants in the Water Supply”

In 2009, US Supreme Court Justice , Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that “at the time Roe was decided I thought it was to get rid of populations we don’t want to have too many of”

Just who are these Populations to be De-Devloped Watch this documentary on eugenics : Maafa21 and find out:

READ Full CNS News story here
____________________________________________________________

Other interesting Holdren articles, The Impact of Population Growth which he authored with population Control Guru Paul Ehrlich.

Population Control Obama Science Czar John P Holdren on the the maldistribution of prosperity and the redistribution of people

Posted in Abortion, Czar, Ehrlich, Eugenics, forced abortion, Forced Sterilization, Harrison Brown, Holdren, NSSM200, Population Control with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 23, 2010 by saynsumthn

After researching eugenics and I reading several chapters of the book, Ecoscience, written in the 70’s, by Paul Holdren, who is Obama’s Science Czar, I can see clear signs that everything that is coming down from Washington was being birthed in our society in the 70’s and before. If you read Holdren’s writings, you will see the philosophy behind CAP and TRADE spelled out . Based on population control writings, they truly believe that unless we involuntarily depopulate the earth- we will see an end to human civilization as we know it. Back in the 70’s people like Holdren and Paul Ehrlich predicted that if the US reached 200 million, it would be divesting. They predicted that when people have reduced economic spending power, they have fewer children. Now that America is over 300 million and considered a society which leaves the largest carbon footprint, they are frantic. They do not have a Creationist/ Godly basis for their beliefs and thus they are not at all concerned about sacrificing a few million humans for the salvation of the planet.

They believe that humans are polluting the earth and we are but ONE SPECIES among many that inhabit the planet.

They also forecasted had a weird way of mixing global warming, ecology, the use of automobiles, freedom to travel and then slip in the fact that all these things could be used for the ultimate goal of restricting population. i

To demonstrate this, look in a section in the November 1970, Bulletin for Atomic Scientists entitled: Licensing for Cars and Babies – by Bruce M Russett, which states,

Broadly two methods of limiting population growth are suggested by the advocates of population control. One involves variants of coercion. Proposed remedies include, legally forbidding families from having more than two or three children; distributing contraceptives in some quasi-compulsory manner such as in the public water supply; and in extreme forms compulsory sterilization of couples with more than two or three offspring…… “

Why would compulsory sterilization be found in an article about licensing cars?

They also predicted that the growth of energy consumption per person could be slowed by “reducing waste and inefficiency” and that “practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put into use.”

___________________________________________________________


MALDISTRIBUTION OF PROSPERITY AND REDISTRIBUTING PEOPLE:

John Holdren’s 1973 publication: Population and the American Predicament: The Case Against Complacency was published the year after the Rockefeller Commission on Population and the American Future recommended was recommended to President Nixon which opened the flood gates in government funded family planning and abortion.

In Holdren’s section Liabilities of “Direct” Approaches, Holdren writes,

No one has seriously suggested that stabilizing or reducing the size of the American population would, by itself, solve the problems of environment, physical resources, poverty, and urban deterioration that threaten us or that already exist. Attacks on the symptoms of these problems and on their causes other than population should be imaginatively formulated and vigorously pursued. There is evidence that the growth of energy consumption per person can be significantly slowed, by reducing waste and inefficiency, without adverse effects on the economy.15 Economic growth itself can be channeled into sectors in which resource consumption and environmental impact per dollar of GNP are minimized.16 Practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put to use. But those who advocate the pursuit of these “direct” approaches to the exclusion of population limitation are opting for a handicap they should not want and cannot afford.

For the trouble is that the “direct” approaches are imperfect and incomplete. They are usually expensive and slow, and often they move the problem rather than remove it. How quickly and at what cost can mass transit relieve the congestion in our cities? Redesigning the entire urban community is a possibility, of course, but an even slower one. If substantially more economical cars are designed, how fast will their share of the market grow, and how much of the gain will be wiped out by an increased total number of cars? If residences and commercial buildings that use energy more efficiently are developed, how long will it be until the tens of millions of inefficient buildings that now exist have been replaced? Fossil-fueled power plants can, in time, be replaced by nuclear reactors-trading the burden of the noxious routine emissions of the former for the uncertain risks of serious accident, sabotage, nuclear terrorism, and management in perpetuity of radioactive wastes. We could back away from energy-intensive and nonbiodegradable nylon and rayon and plastics in favor of a return to cotton and wool and wood, thereby increasing the use of pesticides, the rate of erosion due to overgrazing and overlogging, and the fraction of our land under intensive exploitation. It is evident, in short, that there are difficult trade-offs to be made, and that fast and comfortable solutions are in short supply.

It has sometimes been suggested that such population-related pressures as exist in the United States are due mainly to spatial maldistribution of people, and that, accordingly, the “direct” solution is redistribution rather than halting or reversing growth. It is true that congestion and some forms of acute pollution of air and water could be relieved by redistributing people. But many of the most serious pressures on resources and environment-for example, those associated with energy production, agriculture, and ocean fisheries-depend mainly on how many people there are and what they consume, not on how they are distributed. Some problems, of course, would be aggravated rather than alleviated by redistribution: providing services and physical necessities to a highly dispersed population would in many instances be economically and ecologically more costly than doing the same for a concentrated population. In the end, though, the redistribution question may be largely an academic one. People live where they do for relatively sound reasons of economics, topography and taste. Moving them in great numbers is difficult. Therefore, even those kinds of population pressure that might in principle be alleviated by redistribution are likely in practice to remain closely linked to overall size.

I point out these shortcomings of “direct” approaches not to suggest that intelligent choices are impossible or that pathways through the pitfalls cannot be found, but rather to emphasize that the problems would be tough enough even without population growth. Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue? Is it logical to disparage the importance of population growth, which is a significant contributor to a wide variety of predicaments, only because it is not the sole cause of any of them?

Holdren later writes, “My own suspicion is that the United States, with about 210 million people, has considerably exceeded the optimum population size under existing conditions. It seems clear to me that we have already paid a high price in diversity to achieve our present size, and that our ability to elevate the average per capita level of well-being would be substantially greater if the population were smaller. I am also uneasy about the possibility that 280 million Americans, under conditions likely to include per capita consumption of energy and materials substantially higher than today’s, will prove to be beyond the environmentally sustainable maximum population size…it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative until such time as the uncertainties have been removed and the problems solved.

It is also obvious that this “optimum” condition cannot be achieved instantly. Unfortunately, the importance of achieving it sooner rather than later has been widely underestimated. In this connection, the recent rapid decline of fertility in the United States is cause for gratitude but not for complacency. Efforts to understand the origins and mechanisms of the decline should be continued and intensified, so that the trend can be reinforced with policy if it falters.”

Redistributing people ???? HUH? ?
__________________________________________________________________________

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY:

According to Terence P. Jeffrey who writes in CNS News, Holdren’s curriculum vitae lists as one of his “Recent publications” an essay entitled “The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects.” Co-authored by Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford, this essay served as the first chapter in a 1995 book—“Defining and Measuring Sustainability: The Biogeophysical Foundations”—published by the World Bank. The book is posted as a PDF on the World Bank’s Web site.

We think development ought to be understood to mean progress toward alleviating the main ills that undermine human well-being,” Holdren, Ehrlich and Daily wrote in this essay.

Table 1-1 of the essay lists both “excessive population growth” and “maldistribution of consumption and investment” as “driving forces” behind these “ills.”

Excessive population growth,” the authors assert, is “a condition now prevailing almost everywhere.”

Table 1-2 of the essay lists “Requirements for Sustainable Improvements in Well-being.” These include “reduced disparities within and between countries.”

The large gaps between rich and poor that characterize income distribution within and between countries today are incompatible with social stability and with cooperative approaches to achieving environmental sustainability,” the authors explain.

Table 1-1 lists among the “underlying human frailties” causing the ills of mankind as “greed, selfishness, intolerance and shortsightedness.” These vices, they say, “collectively have been elevated by conservative political doctrine and practice (above all in the United States in 1980-92) to the status of a credo.

The authors present a formula for understanding ecological “damage,” which they say “means reduced length or quality of life for the present generation or future generations.”

From the Footnotes:7 in The Meaning of Sustainability:Biogeophysical Aspects, Harm that would qualify as tolerable, in this context, could not be cumulative, else continuing additions to it would necessarily add up to unsustainable damage eventually. Thus, for example, a form and level of pollution that subtract a month from the life expectancy of the average member of the human population, or that reduce the net primary productivity of forests on the planet by 1 percent, might be deemed tolerable in exchange for very large benefits and would certainly be sustainable as long as the loss of life expectancy or reduction in productivity did not grow with time. Two of us have coined the term “maximum sustainable abuse” in the course of grappling with such ideas (Daily and Ehrlich 1992).
___________________________________________________________

The RICH/POOR Gap

In a 1992 Cambridge Press Publication Energy Efficiency and Human Activity: Past Trends, Future Prospects , cosponsored by the Stockholm Environment Institute, John P. Holdren wrote a 52 page prologue called “The Transition to Costlier Energy”. In it, he repeats his long-cherished vision of a planetary regime under which population control would be implemented more effectively.

From page 36 onward:
(…) the population can’t be frozen. Indeed, short of a catastrophe, it can hardly be levelled off below 9 billion. Indeed, without a global effort at population limitation far exceeding anything that has materialized so far, the population of the planet could soar to 14 billion or more by the year 2100.

Besides also mentioning to attempt reducing the world’s population to “manageable levels”, Holdren also pleads for a narrowing the “Rich-Poor gap”. Sounds noble enough, were it not that he is regurgitating Agenda 21: the UN program to redistribute wealth from the developed to the developing world. Holdren:

What is most striking (…) is that even the most optimistic assumptions about “early” population stabilization, increased energy efficiency, and narrowing the rich-poor gap still lead to world energy use in 2050 more than double that of 1990.

__________________________________________________________________________

FAST TRACK POPULATION CONTROL

Holdren and Ehrlich also cooperated on the article Human Population and the Global Environment. In the last paragraph of the article, Holdren and Ehrlich declare acceleration on human population control efforts:

“There is a temptation”, the authors declare, “to “go slow” on population limitation because this component is politically sensitive and operationally difficult, but the temptation must be resisted.

TAXING CHILDREN TO SLOW POPULATION GROWTH???

John Holdren “tax the bads …we’re trying to reduce” Could Children be next?

In 2002 – John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar said this in an interview with Living On Earth:

“We need to accept the principle that it is better to tax bads, things that we’re trying to reduce, and correspondingly, lower the taxes on good things, things we’d like to encourage, like income and capital investment. And in that way, changing the incentive system that’s out there, we would start to move the society off the “business as usual” trajectory, in the direction that would reduce the disruption of climate with which we’re going to have to deal.

____________________________________________________________________

COMPULSORY BIRTH CONTROL AND STERILIZATION:

In the 1970′s Holdren published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Although Holdren may not have absolutely stated that he wanted to add sterilizing agents to the nation’s water supplies to keep the population down, he did say that if the population did not “voluntarily” decrease, this could be one option. And Holdren should know, because he was on panels and in touch with high level government officials, birth control pushers, pro-abortion enthusiasts, and Zero Population Growth experts who were, in fact, espousing this type of coercion. In his book Eco science, Holdren mentions that Compulsory abortions could be a solution to population control if it were feasible to enact it –

The video below gives you some insight to his writings:

John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich wrote on Page 256 of their 1973 book, “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.
Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying,”

A far better choice, in our view,” they wrote, “is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”

____________________________________________________________

MENTOR: HARRISON BROWN

Paul Holdren, praised his mentor, Harrison Brown,
In this clip of Harrison Brown, he raises questions about whether eugenics is as “common sense”

What are the outstanding virtues we should attempt to breed in to our population? You might say intelligence, but what kind of intelligence? You might say attractiveness, but what kind of attractiveness?

The episode, “The Mystery of Life,” can be found in its entirety on the A/V Geeks DVD, Twenty-First Century.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "21st Century Mystery of Life ", posted with vodpod

INFANTICIDE:

Brown also wrote the book: The Challenge of Man’s Future.

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

In a speech he delivered as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren admitted that he admired Brown and read his book in high school. Holdren also admitted in his speech that he later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech.

Holdren quoted Brown as saying this during that same speech, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the under-developed areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked.

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

What is also interesting is that I obtained a copy of Harrison Brown’s book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, the one our Science Czar holds up as so important, and discovered this Nazi style infanticide statement by Brown on page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past. ”

These eugenic zealots believe they are saving the plant – it is the “Life Boat” theory that it is okay to throw overboard those who have the least chance to survive. The sanctity of Human Life hangs in the balance and will include the unborn, elderly, and the disabled to begin with.

__________________________________________________________________

For more on Eugenics and how it is used to exterminate entire people groups today go here: http://www.maafa21.com

Note the documentation to “Sterilants in the Water Supply”

____________________________________________________________

Other interesting Holdren articles, The Impact of Population Growth which he authored with population Control Guru Paul Ehrlich.