Archive for the Ginsburg Category

NARAL holds Men for Choice event to push abortion rights

Posted in Bro-Choice, Ginsburg, Men For Choice, NARAL with tags , , , , , , , , , , on February 25, 2015 by saynsumthn

Nothing seems more unusual for so-called “women’s rights” than a bunch of Brochoice men getting together to promote abortion all while using the name of a radical FEMALE advocate of population control!

NARAL Ma Men for Choice 2015

NARAL mass Men for Choice Rep harold Naughton abortion 395_3648275792262145694_n

This week’s NARAL Men for Choice event, featured, Rep. Harold Naughton and Ma. State Senator Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) representing the Middlesex & Worcester District.

NARAL Mass Men for Choice

NARAL Men for Choice Jamie Eldridge 2

In promoting the event the Massachusetts abortion lobby group incorrectly titled it the Ruth Bader GINsberg which, if spelled correctly would be Ginsburg – but- you can’t expect abortion advocates to get their facts straight- right?

NARAL RBGinsburg Feb 2015 Men for Choice FB  2 852689446501722369_n

Maybe they got the spelling off this old tweet their national office sent out in 2014:

NARAL Ginsberg Tweet

Hey- I completely understand how one could make a mistake in spelling- I do it all the time- but- Ginsburg is the abortion lobby darling- I mean- how could they mess that up?

Oh…look – someone must have caught their mistake – NARAL corrected the spelling:

But not before tweeting it here here here here here and on Facebook here among other times.

NARAL RGG Men for Choice

Men for Choice RBG B-ppkrDUMAEMuZr

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an advocate of population control otherwise known as eugenics:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said , “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Recently the good Justice expounded on which populations we don’t want too many of – the poor !

Ruth Ginsburg and Bloomberg 2015 abortion

In an interview with Bloomberg’s Greg Stohr and Matthew Winkler, the radically pro-abortion Justice says that restricting abortion targets the poor – uh – the exact same people she once said abortion was created for.

Is that not ironic?

Ginsburg was asked if American women should be concerned about all the abortion restrictions across the county.

Ginsburg replied, “Women should be concerned because abortion restrictions in practical effect target poor women and poor women only.”

But…I digress…Back to NARAL’s Men for Choice celebration:

NARAL’s Men for Choice event looked pretty boring based on their tweets:

NARAL 2015 Men for choice Harold Naughton

NARAL Men for Choice Tweet 2

NARAL Men for Choice Tweet 3

NARAL Men for Choice Tweet 4

NARAL Men for Choice Tweet

However, this tweet of an old man sitting on the floor with a little child to advocate abortion was pretty disturbing and read, “Spotted at #MenForChoice 2015: multiple generations of activists. The future of #ReproRights is looking bright.”

Men for Choice NARAL Future generations

Well…I doubt that. If the future of abortion rights is to beg support from men – I would say it is in deep trouble!

Ginsburg: Abortion restrictions target poor, the populations we don’t want too many of

Posted in Ginsburg with tags , , , , , , on February 13, 2015 by saynsumthn

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said , “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

RuthBaderGinsberg

When she made that statement in 2009 people were stunned.

It eventually made it into the powerful documentary on eugenics and the racism of abortion, Maafa21, because her statement proved that abortion was created to get rid of “certain” populations.

And now the good Justice has told us which populations those are – the poor !

Ruth Ginsburg and Bloomberg 2015 abortion

In an interview with Bloomberg’s Greg Stohr and Matthew Winkler, the radically pro-abortion Justice says that restricting abortion targets the poor – uh – the exact same people she once said abortion was created for.

Is that not ironic?

Ginsburg was asked if American women should be concerned about all the abortion restrictions across the county.

Ginsburg replied, “Women should be concerned because abortion restrictions in practical effect target poor women and poor women only.”

Poor women only – why- we don’t want poor women to not be able to get abortions, now do we?

Ginsburg pulled out the illegal abortion days when so-called “rich” women could jump from state to state to continue to obtain abortions.

She also wrongly presumed that abortions are “safe” today yet- women are dying in abortion clinics still. In fact, they are also being raped and maimed- but- then again, from a eugenics point of view, it’s only the poor ones dying from abortion now – so who cares, right?

Planned Parenthood suggests population control advocate for Halloween costume

Posted in Ginsburg, Halloween with tags , , , , , , on October 27, 2014 by saynsumthn

Planned Parenthood is promoting a Halloween costume by a woman who who wanted to “Get rid of populations we do not want to have too many of.”

NYT Ginsburg Place of Women Court

The quote comes from a 2009 interview Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave to the New York Times with Emily Bazelon and she stated, “…I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

RuthBaderGinsberg

That statement was so outrageous that it made it into a powerful documentary on eugenics called Maafa21.

Justice Ginsburg’s remarks appear to align her expectations for abortion with those of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and other prominent members of the 20th century’s eugenics movement. Sanger and her eugenicist peers advocated forced sterilization and the use of contraception, sterilization, and abortion to reduce the numbers of poor, black, immigrant and disabled population.

So…it is no surprise that Planned Parenthood, founded in racist eugenics is suggesting girls dress up like Ruth Bader Ginsburg for Halloween even calling the SCOTUS judge “Princess Ruth” on their Pinterest page:

Princess Ruth bader Ginsburg PP Halloween

Ginsburg, as with so many of her ilk, never stop at limiting the births of the poor or the feeble minded as described by many in the early days of eugenics. They also believe that everyone, except their small circle of elites, should be subject to population control limitations.

As displayed in a more recent interview with the Justice.

Ginsburg Elle

Ginsburg was again asked about abortion by Jessica Weisberg for Elle’s September 23,2014 edition, “Fifty years from now, which decisions in your tenure do you think will be the most significant?”

Ginsburg replied, “Well, I think 50 years from now, people will not be able to understand Hobby Lobby. Oh, and I think on the issue of choice, one of the reasons, to be frank, that there’s not so much pro-choice activity is that young women, including my daughter and my granddaughter, have grown up in a world where they know if they need an abortion, they can get it. Not that either one of them has had one, but it’s comforting to know if they need it, they can get it.

“The impact of all these restrictions is on poor women, because women who have means, if their state doesn’t provide access, another state does. I think that the country will wake up and see that it can never go back to [abortions just] for women who can afford to travel to a neighboring state…”

Weisberg then asked Ginsburg, “When people realize that poor women are being disproportionately affected, that’s when everyone will wake up? That seems very optimistic to me.”

Ginsburg replied, “Yes, I think so…. It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.

Promote is the key word here. If this is all about choice why does the government need to “promote” birth control at all?

Ginsburg hit on something that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger once admitted, that birth control must become a national policy to control populations.

Sanger 1965 Population Control

In 1964, Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger said she believed that it would take the US Government to accept “Population Control” to convince other nations to do the same.

I just don’t see how we can control the birth rate until we get the government to agree that this is something which should be taken seriously. Other countries feel that if our government is against it, it must be bad. Americans would be much more acceptable when they go abroad to work on the problem if we get our government to approve it- perhaps under some such term as population control,” Sanger stated.

And so they have….to be continued…..

Margaret Sanger and Ruth Bader Ginsburg : population control a national policy

Posted in Ginsburg with tags , , , , , , , on September 24, 2014 by saynsumthn

In 2009, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg outraged the public by admitting that abortion should be legal to “Get rid of populations we do not want to have too many of…”

NYT Ginsburg Place of Women Court

The quote comes from an interview Ginsburg did for the New York Times with Emily Bazelon and she stated, “…I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

RuthBaderGinsberg

That statement was so outrageous that it made it into a powerful documentary on eugenics called Maafa21.

Ginsburg, as with so many of her ilk, never stop at limiting the births of the poor or the feeble minded as described by many in the early days of eugenics. They also believe that everyone, except their small circle of elites, should be subject to population control limitations.

As displayed in a more recent interview with the Justice.

Ginsburg Elle

Ginsburg was again asked about abortion by Jessica Weisberg for Elle’s September 23,2014 edition, “Fifty years from now, which decisions in your tenure do you think will be the most significant?”

Ginsburg replied, “Well, I think 50 years from now, people will not be able to understand Hobby Lobby. Oh, and I think on the issue of choice, one of the reasons, to be frank, that there’s not so much pro-choice activity is that young women, including my daughter and my granddaughter, have grown up in a world where they know if they need an abortion, they can get it. Not that either one of them has had one, but it’s comforting to know if they need it, they can get it.

“The impact of all these restrictions is on poor women, because women who have means, if their state doesn’t provide access, another state does. I think that the country will wake up and see that it can never go back to [abortions just] for women who can afford to travel to a neighboring state…”

Weisberg then asked Ginsburg, “When people realize that poor women are being disproportionately affected, that’s when everyone will wake up? That seems very optimistic to me.”

Ginsburg replied, “Yes, I think so…. It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.

Promote is the key word here. If this is all about choice why does the government need to “promote” birth control at all?

Ginsburg hit on something that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger once admitted, that birth control must become a national policy to control populations.

Sanger 1965 Population Control

In 1964, Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger said she believed that it would take the US Government to accept “Population Control” to convince other nations to do the same.

I just don’t see how we can control the birth rate until we get the government to agree that this is something which should be taken seriously. Other countries feel that if our government is against it, it must be bad. Americans would be much more acceptable when they go abroad to work on the problem if we get our government to approve it- perhaps under some such term as population control,” Sanger stated.

And so they have….to be continued…..

Ginsburg cards only net $100.00 donation for abortion giant Planned Parenthood

Posted in Ginsburg, Pro-choice People with tags , , , , , , on July 5, 2014 by saynsumthn

Ann Arbor, Michigan graphic designer Alisa Bobzien has designed Ruth Bader Ginsburg cards which she is selling on Etsy:

She has offered to give a donation for purchases of the cards of the radically pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice to Planned Parenthood. Ginsburg has been praised for her recent dissent in the Hobby Lobby case after the ruling agreed that the religious freedoms of the owners were in conflict with the Obama HHS abortion / birth control mandate to ObamaCare.

Tweet

il_570xN.516700456_tdut

il_570xN.516700486_abj9

il_570xN.516700520_mqxj

il_570xN.516700640_key5

_____________________________

The cards sole for $24.00 a set. The graphic designer bragged on twitter and facebook that she raised a whopping $100.00 for abortion giant Planned Parenthood which means she sold 4 sets !

100 PP

Alisa FB Page

Pro-choice Daily Kos author joins population control – eugenics pushers in dreaming of a ‘global super plague’ to stop ‘overpopulation’

Posted in Agenda 21, Al Gore, birth control in water, Dr. Eric R. Pianka, Ehrlich, Environment, Eugenics, Ginsburg, Holdren, Overpopulation, Population Control, Ruth Bader Ginsburg with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 23, 2011 by saynsumthn

“I’m socially liberal on a lot of things. I believe in legalizing marijuana and gay marriage. I believe in a woman’s right to choose. In fact, I often describe myself as “Not Pro-Choice, Pro-Abortion. There are too many god*am people already.” And while this is meant to be facetious, nevertheless there is a seed of truth in it, because I believe that the world is wildly overpopulated and that we must take steps as a society to reduce it. This will undoubtedly be met with accusations of callousness, but we would could really use is a global superplague. The Black Death may have been horrible, but without it there would never have been a Renaissance.”

Daily Kos writer: We could use ‘global superplague’ to stop overpopulation
by Jeremy KrynMon Aug 22, 2011 11:21 EST

August 21, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A prominent left-wing American political blog has come under fire after publishing one writer’s quip that the world needs “a global superplague” because “there are too many goddam people already.” Daily Kos contributor Jon Stafford’s August 10 post, in which Stafford described himself as “Not Pro-Choice, Pro-Abortion,” drew immediate attention in the blogosphere.

While Stafford said that his remarks are partly “facetious,” he went on to say, “nevertheless there is a seed of truth in it, because I believe that the world is wildly overpopulated and that we must take steps as a society to reduce it.

“This will undoubtedly be met with accusations of callousness, but we would could really use is a global superplague. The Black Death may have been horrible, but without it there would never have been a Renaissance.”

Read Rest here

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is nothing new…listen to this PROFESSOR of Overpopulation myths: University of Texas professor advocates the mass death of 90% of the world’s human population.
Dr. Eric R. Pianka gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March of 2006 in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus. Pianka’s chilling comments, and their enthusiastic reception again underscore the elite’s agenda to enact horrifying measures of population control.Standing in front of a slide of human skulls, Pianka gleefully advocated airborne ebola as his preferred method of exterminating the necessary 90% of humans, choosing it over AIDS because of its faster kill period. Ebola victims suffer the most tortuous deaths imaginable as the virus kills by liquefying the internal organs. The body literally dissolves as the victim writhes in pain bleeding from every orifice.

Pianka was later presented with a distinguished scientist award by the Academy. Pianka is no crackpot. He has given lectures to prestigious universities worldwide.

Pianka suggests that we should begin to sterilize the human population now….

Recently former Vice President Al Gore, prominently known for his climate change activism, took on the subject of population size and the role of society in controlling it to reduce pollution.

He offered some ideas about what might be done for females in the name of stabilizing population growth.

“One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women,” Gore said. “You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children have, the spacing of the children.

“You have to lift child survival rates so that parents feel comfortable having small families and most important — you have to educate girls and empower women,” he said. “And that’s the most powerful leveraging factor, and when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices.”

Not to long ago, another sinister plan was joked about when an ‘off-handed’ joke by new Schools Chancellor Cathie Black about using birth control as a means of dealing with school overcrowding isn’t going over well with some people.

The Chancellor has since apologized for the comment and Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said people should move on.

Good Day New York co-hosts Greg Kelly and Rosanna Scotto see the issue from opposite sides.

Watch the video for the exchange.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

NY City School Chancellor suggests birth contro…, posted with vodpod

The off-color quip came in response to concerns by public-school dad Eric Greenleaf, who said at a meeting of parents and officials at state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver’s downtown office that there will be “huge shortages” of classroom space in lower Manhattan in coming years.

“Could we just have some birth control for a while?” Black cracked. “It could really help us all out a lot.”

She sounds a lot like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said abortion should be legal to “Get rid of populations we do not want to have too many of…”

Shocking fact:

In a 2009 New York Times interview , Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told Emily Bazelon that, “…I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
watch the film- Maafa21 (clip below to see why:

</a

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Maafa21 has a section in the DVD about how people discussed placing birth control pills in minority areas in the water and food to keep population down..hmmmmmm

In 1969, Alan Guttmacher as then President of Planned Parenthood-World Population, said this: “ I would like to give our voluntary means of population control full opportunity in the next 10 to 12 years. Then , if these don’t succeed, we may have to go into some kind of coercion, not worldwide, but possibly in such places as India, Pakistan, and Indonesia, where pressures are the greatest…There is no question that birth rates can be reduced all over the world if legal abortion is introduced…” ( SOURCE: Family Planning: The needa and the Methods, by: Alan F. Guttmacher; The American Journal of Nursing, Vol. 69, No. 6. (June, 1969) PP. 1229-1234)

And in February of 1970 Alan Guttmacher was interviewed by the Baltimore Magazine and said this
Our birth rate has come down since we last talked.. I think we’ve hit a plateau- the figure’s not likely to drop much more unless there is more legal abortion. , or abortion on request as we call it…My own feeling is that we’ve got to pull out all the stops and involve the United Nations…If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the Black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage.”

In 1967 president, Lyndon B. Johnson made this statement LBJ Faces up a Crisis: Johnson also stated, “Nations with food deficits must put more of their resources into voluntary family planning programs.” ( SOURCE: Lewiston Evening Journal – Feb 2, 1967 , from Johnson’s 1967 State of the Union Address )

On December 10, 1974, the United States National Security Council promulgated National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), also called The Kissinger Report. This document explicitly laid out a detailed strategy by which the United States would aggressively promote population control in developing nations in order to regulate (or have better access to) the natural resources of these countries.

In order to protect U.S. commercial interests, NSSM-200 cited a number of factors that could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from lesser-developed countries, LDCs as it called them, to the United States, including a large population of anti-imperialist youth, who must, according to NSSM-200, be limited by population control. The document identified 13 nations by name that would be primary targets of U.S.-funded population control efforts.

According to NSSM-200, elements of the implementation of population control programs could include: a) the legalization of abortion; b) financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates; c) indoctrination of children; and d) mandatory population control, and coercion of other forms, such as withholding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.

John Holdron – Obama’s Science Czar told us this Global Warming Strategy would be used:

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.”

In a CNS News video interview, 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

___________________________________________________________


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


____________________________________________________________

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

Maafa21 exposes racism, eugenics, and elitism all connected to Black Genocide in 21st Century America

Posted in Abortion, Africa, African Countries, African Nations, Agenda 21, Alva Myrdal, Alveda King, American Birth Control League, American Eugenics Society, Bill Gates, birth control in water, Black Abortion Stats, Black Babies, Black Church, Black Conservative, Black Deaths, Black Genocide, Black History Month, Black Neighborhood, Black Panthers, Black Pastor, Black Victims, Black Women, Brian Clowes, Charles Davenport, Civil Rights, Clarence Gamble, Clenard Childress, Clinton, compulsory birth control, Connie Eller, Conspiracy, Constitution, Darwin, Davenport, Democrat, Dr. James Watson, Ehrlich, Elaine Riddick, Elite, Ernst Rudin, Eugen Fischer, Eugenics, Evolution, Faye Wattleton, forced abortion, Forced Sterilization, Galton, Garret Hardin, Garrett Hardin, Ginsburg, Guttmacher, Haiti, Harry Laughlin, Hilda Cornish, Hitler, holocaust, Huxley, Jesse Jackson, Johnny Hunter, Joyce Tarnow, LBJ, Leon Whitney, Levon Yuille, Life Dynamics, Lothrop Stoddard, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Mark Crutcher, MLK, NAACP, Nazi, Nobel Prize, North Carolina Eugenics, NSSM200, Pastor Stephen Broden, Planned Parenthood, Poor woman, Population Control, pro-choice, Pro-Life, Racism, Ravenholt, Religious Coalition of Reproductive Choice, Republican, Richard Nixon, Rockefeller, Roosevelt, RU-486, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Yette, Slavery, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water, Sterilizing agents in water, Supreme Court, United Nations, Urban League, Walte Ashby, Warren Buffet, William Bouie Haden, William Shockley with tags , , , , , , , , , , on March 18, 2011 by saynsumthn

Know the Truth- Get Maafa21 here