Archive for the Politics Category

#Gifs requested for Lawmaker who filibustered in Texas on Abortion

Posted in Politics with tags , , , , , , , , on June 26, 2013 by saynsumthn

Planned Parenthood stood to lose much if Texas had voted for SB5 abortion restrictions.

According to Jezebel – a known pro-abortion / pro-choice blog, When Planned Parenthood reported that SB5 was dead and the blogger suggested sending Gifts to Texas State Senator Wendy Davis after she filibustered on the floor of the State Senate.

Jezebel writes: According to Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the bill is dead. That means many things, but most (least?) importantly: GIF PARTY.

One problem- wouldn’t that look like a PAYOFF of some kind?

You decide:

Jezebel PP Wendy Davis

PP Thanks Wendy Davis

PP Thanks WendyDavis

Wendy Davis does Death Dance while media ignores After Birth Abortions

Posted in Karpen, Late term abortion, Media Bias, Politics, pro-choice with tags , , , , , , , on June 25, 2013 by saynsumthn

UPDATE: June 26, 2013: #SB5 passed then failed in #Texas. Last night the #abortion dance by Senator Wendy R. Davis was suspended, then, as lawmakers tried to cast their votes after the filibuster attempt, chaos from abortion promoters overwhelmed the Senate floor causing the vote to go past the midnight cutoff for the special session. At first the media declared SB5, Texas’ most restrictive abortion legislation as passed, then at 3:00am LT. Gov. Dewhurst announced that the vote had failed.


Today, radically pro-abortion Texas State Senator Wendy Davis has announced that she will filibuster in the Texas legislature to try and keep several abortion restrictions from moving forward in the state.

Republicans pushed the restrictions through the House early Monday in a special session that will end tonight. To be successful in her filibuster, Davis will have to remain standing and speak nonstop, without bathroom breaks for 13 hours.

Life Dynamics Logo

Life Dynamics Inc., a national pro-life organization in Denton, points out that while Davis does her pro-death dance today, state and national media will likely cover the filibuster while ignoring accusations that after birth abortions are being performed in the state.

KARPEN Clinic Workers Pic
A few weeks ago, Life Dynamics released an interview with three former abortion clinic workers who accused Houston, Texas abortionist, Douglas Karpen of killing babies after birth.


Since Life Dynamics’ video was released, Texas District 61, State Representative Phil King along with several other state lawmakers have called for a full investigation of the late term abortion doctor. In addition, Rep. King has mailed a copy of the testimony to the Homicide Division of the Houston Police Department. According to Harris County DA’s Office spokeswoman Sara Marie Kinney, the Harris County District Attorney’s Office is cooperating with an investigation by the Houston Police Department.

While Wendy Davis, along with abortion giant Planned Parenthood claim the whole world is watching Texas, Life Dynamics asks when will the media do their job and report these Gosnell style accusations to the nation?

TEXAS Filibuster

KARPEN PHOTO 2-942f39ee34

Mark Crutcher, President of Life Dynamics said, “They’ve seen these things go on; they’ve participated in them. He’s delivering them live and killing them outside the womb…He sometimes twists their heads off – he would just grab them by the shoulders and by the head and twist their necks, ring their necks like a chicken, literally.

What we have witnessed in our video is the nature of the beast. Simply put, this is Abortion! If the abortion lobby thinks this issue is going away, they are, literally, whistling past the graveyard.”

A portion of the interview conducted by Life Dynamics interview can be viewed here:

Video Link:

Abortion clinic employee, “I thought, well, it’s an abortion you know, that’s what he does, but I wasn’t aware that it was illegal…Most of the time we would see him where the fetus would come completely out and of course, the fetus would still be alive..”

“He does a lot of huge abortions. A lot of the times, we would bring the big fetus that were over age, we would re-open the bag and just look at it and be like, ‘Oh my gosh, it’s so big!'”

“Sometimes he couldn’t get the fetus out. He would yank pieces – piece by piece – when they were oversize. And I’m talking about the whole floor dirty. I’m talking about me drenched in blood.”

Life Dynamics was founded in 1992 by Mark Crutcher and has gained a trusted reputation for ongoing research into the abortion industry.

For an interview, call Life Dynamics at (940) 380-8800


Partial transcript from the interview:

Clinic Worker: “ Most of the time we would see him where the fetus would come completely out and of course the fetus would still be alive because it was still moving, of course, you could see the stomach breathing and um that’s when he would do his um, he would snip the spine, as they were saying this doctor did and of course the soft spot was one of the spots that he um would take one of the forceps, or what is it called? The dilators and stick it down the soft spot of the fetuses head.”
Interviewer: “You saw this happen?”
Clinic worker: “Oh yes. I think every morning I saw on several occasions. If we had um, if we had 20 something patients, of course maybe 10 or 12, or 13 or 15 would be large procedures – out of those large procedures I’m pretty sure I was seeing 3 to 4 fetus that were completely delivered in some way or another.”
( View here

Interviewer: “You would see the baby alive”
Clinic Worker: “Yes, sir.”
Interviewer: “and him kill that baby outside the womb?”
Clinic worker: “Yes, sir”
Interviewer: “And this would be done by jamming some kind of instrument into the soft spot?”
Clinic worker: “Either that or actually twisting the head off the neck, kind of with his own bare hands?”
Interviewer: “And you saw that happen?”
Clinic worker: “Yes, sir”
Clinic Worker: “Sometimes he would go through the stomach as well”
Interviewer: “Sometimes he would do what?”
Clinic Worker: “He would like, force it through the stomach.”
Clinic Worker: “The, the instrument…”
Clinic Worker: “and he’d twist it”
Interviewer: “And you saw that?”
Clinic Worker: “anything that he could get to…like she said..”
Clinic Worker: “I normally saw either the snipping of the spine or the introduction of the instrument in the soft spot of the fetus normally or twisting of the neck”
Clinic Worker: “Remember he would like take his finger”
Clinic Worker: “Or his finger, he’d take his finger”
Clinic Worker: “uh, through the throat”
Clinic Worker: “Yeah”
( View clip Here – )

Watch several minutes of the clinic workers interview Here:
View Rep. King’s Letters here –
About Life Dynamics:
Mark Crutcher’s Bio
View photos here ( WARNING VERY GRAPHIC)

Fox News’ Frank Luntz to pro-lifer, make pro-life politicians Shut Up

Posted in Politics, pro-choice, Pro-Life, Republican with tags , , , , , , , , , on November 8, 2012 by saynsumthn

Bryan Kemper, Director of Youth Outreach at Priests for Life posted this on his Facebook Page:

“On my flight to Los Angeles this Morning I say [sic] next to Frank Lutz the FOX News pollster, he was very grumpy. He tried to tell me to make pro-life politicians to shut up about pro-life. Needless to say we disagreed. He put on his headphones and ignored me the rest of the flight.”

Frank Luntz is a world-renowned speaker, and appears frequently on television and radio. He is a Fox News contributor and a CBS News Analyst, and often appears during major political events and on his own Fox News specials. He speaks to groups around the globe.

One pro-lifer responded:
“That is so disappointing. You should write to Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and also post on their FB wall. Frank needs to be called out on this.”

As Frank says, “Anyone want to weigh in on this?”

“Show of hands for those who agree”?

Head of Jewish Org, speaks against Romney for President

Posted in Politics with tags , , on January 13, 2012 by saynsumthn

850 Rabbis Issue a Plea to the Church Leaders and Church Goers of South Carolina: What Are (Y)our ‘Primary Concerns’?

View Rabbi Yehuda Levin’s Making His Statement Here

Contact: Rabbi Yehuda Levin, 718-469-6999

BROOKLYN, N.Y., Jan. 13, 2012 /Christian Newswire/ — We all remember the story of Jonah and Nineveh. The prophet warned that G-D had decreed the destruction of the city in forty days.

America’s fate will likely be determined in the South Carolina Presidential Primary January 21. The man who the voters choose will probably become the Republican Presidential nominee, the man charged with defeating President Obama and reversing the moral and economic freefall he and his allies have encouraged.

One leading candidate is a businessman whose basic concern is money and power. In a recent televised Republican presidential debate, Governor Romney, a dangerous homosexualist, boasted that he will continue to pander to the lowest elements of American society in many areas, including appointment to the (Supreme) court(s).

The scary part is not that Romney “came out of the closet” politically, but that the Hannitys and Limbaughs failed us by not discussing the implications of Romney’s stance. Endless defense of “Capitalism” for days on end; nary 10 minutes about morality and Supreme Court nominations. FOR SHAME!

Another candidate in that debate took the opposite position. He condemned the murder of defenseless babies, openly defied the rampant immorality promoted in the media, etc., and clearly pointed out the connection between America’s financial and military success and its historical commitment to the Biblical principles of jurisprudence and morality. (Compare this to Romney’s homosexualist record chronicled in Amy Contrada’s book, “Mitt Romney’s Deception,” and Romneycare funding of Planned Parenthood abortion.)

If America is to regain G-D’s grace and rebuild our ruined economy, it is crucial that South Carolina actively reject Governor Romney’s previous record and future aspirations. Choose the right man. The man who has lived and shares our Biblical values, the moral man with the uncompromising moral positions who will thus bring G-D’s blessings, once again, to our society.

America is on the brink of collapse economically and morally. Capitalism alone can not save it. No amount of financial tinkering can save a country which is morally bankrupt-that is what we learn from the decline and fall of the great empires of history.

America became great, because it acknowledged G-D in every aspect of its public life-on the dollar bill, on public buildings, and in the schools-G-D as the author of America’s liberty and national success. G-dly values comprised the public and private moral code of America and Americans.

And G-D blessed this nation with an abundance of wealth and greatness unparalleled in human history.

But, over the last 50 years, secular libertines have succeeded in gradually excluding G-D and His moral code and value from the public square-from our schools, from our law, and from our public institutions.

It is up to the religious leaders and followers of South Carolina and other primary states to elevate the moral records of the candidates to the “primary” position of importance. Heed the message of Nineveh: We do right by G-D, He will do right by us!

The time is short. We are being judged. Will we choose wisely?

The above represents the feelings of many Rabbis in their capacity as private religious citizens. Nothing above is to be construed as an organizational endorsement. It is rather a plea to leaders to emphasize the records and statements of various candidates with regard to the moral issues and Supreme Court appointments.

Planned Parenthood VP tied to Obama and Democrat Elite Power Structure

Posted in Clinton, Democrat, Obama, Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood appointed, Planned Parenthood Democrat Party, Planned Parenthood Employee, Planned Parenthood's Politicians, Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , on November 9, 2011 by saynsumthn

Former Staffer of the Obama Administration now VP of public policy with the largest abortion clinic chain: Planned Parenthood, which was founded by a racist eugenisist , Klan speaker named: Margaret Sanger.

H/T National Right To Life:

New Planned Parenthood VP Has Loads of Political Experience
November 9th, 2011 Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D.

Dana Singiser, Planned Parenthood vice president of public policy and government ( PP announcement here)

In its 2003-2004 Annual Report, Planned Parenthood called itself “the world’s largest and most trusted voluntary reproductive health care organization.” In the following year, their self description was slightly different: “the nation’s leading sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider” (emphasis added).

It was a subtle change, but one that showed a side that Planned Parenthood glides over when it passes itself off as nothing more than a “provider of reproductive health care services” for women. What many people do not realize, however, is that the very same group is both the nation’s largest abortion chain–332,278 abortions in 2009—and one of the country’s most powerful abortion lobbies.

That’s why the revolving door relationship it has with the pro-abortion Obama administration is no surprise, including the recent hiring of Dana Singiser, Planned Parenthood’s new vice president of public policy and governmental affairs.

The fact that Planned Parenthood’s most recent figures reveal that its clinics performed easily more than a quarter of all abortions done in the U.S., tells anyone that they have an enormous footprint. They want influence in all the right places, including the halls of government, to keep the hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and contracts coming.
So, just who is Dana Singiser? You’ve probably never heard of her before, but she has been around for a long time. Not helping women at the abortion clinics, or even managing one at the corporate office.

She is instead a professional political operative working on Capitol Hill who has helped to run the campaigns of several prominent pro-abortion Democrats.

A puff piece published on November 7, 2011, written by the National Journal’s Naureen Khan, traces the path of Singiser all the way from the time she was a young college intern working for Vermont’s pro-abortion Senator Patrick Leahy in the early 1990s until her latest appointment as PPFA’s vice president of public policy and governmental affairs.
Singiser’s next stop was working on Bill Clinton’s1992 presidential campaign in Vermont. After working with the Clinton administration, Singiser got a law degree from Georgetown University in 1998 and went to work for a Washington law firm doing what Khan describes as “regulatory and lobbying work.”

“When the political bug bit her again,” she joined Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign. She then went to work on Capitol Hill for pro-abortion Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and for three years for the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee.

Singiser went from there to Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, focusing on “women’s outreach.” However, “When Clinton bowed out of the race and endorsed Barack Obama, her former rival, Singiser got on a plane almost immediately for Chicago to lend a hand to Obama’s general election effort,” Khan reports. She notes that Singiser has been with the Obama administration from “Day One,” working on financial reform, health care and other aspects of his legislative agenda for the last couple of years.

We learn from the story that Singiser comes from a small rural community in Vermont, where her mom was town clerk and her dad was busy with church activities, but Khan lists no particular training or background in health care for Singiser. Singiser joins Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards as another Capitol Hill alum with loads of legislative and lobbying experience, but little background in actual health care.

Planned Parenthood has faced serious opposition on Capitol Hill this year, with the House voting to defund the group in a bipartisan vote earlier this year. Heavy lobbying by Planned Parenthood turned back that effort in the Democratically controlled Senate.

Planned Parenthood received over $363 million, or 33% of its entire $1 billion budget, from “Government Grants and Contracts” in its most recently reported fiscal year ending June 30, 2009. Much of that comes from Medicaid reimbursements and Title X funds for family planning.

Even when funds from the government are not directly used for abortion, they enable Planned Parenthood to pay staff and keep clinic doors open for its lucrative abortion business.
Singiser made just $300 a month when working on Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign . Nothing lists her new salary, but other V.P.s listed on Planned Parenthood’s 2009 tax return earned upward s of $200,000 per year.

Oh, by the way, according to The Hill newspaper, Singiser “was a key part in the team that shepherded his [Obama’s] healthcare reform law through Congress.”
Your feedback is so very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at

To get a fuller look at just who Planned Parenthood is , what they stand for, and how they were founded in racist eugenics, watch Maafa21

Herman Cain Interview regarding abortion / marriage stance

Posted in Herman Cain, Politics with tags , , , on October 24, 2011 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Republican Mitt Romney consulted Population Control Eugenics Czar John Holdren

Posted in Cap + Trade, Ehrlich, Eugenics, Holdren, Politics, Republican, Romney with tags , , , , , , , , on October 18, 2011 by saynsumthn

H/T Pajamas Media

So we’ve learned over the past few days that a trio of Mitt Romney’s chosen advisers helped the Obama administration craft ObamaCare. And on top of that, that Gov. Romney sought the advice of Malthusian green activist John Holdren, when Romney was considering a cap and trade regime for Massachusetts. Holdren was Appointed by PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA as his Science Czar and Holdrens’ clear abortion ideology is something we would expect from OBAMA in this as well as the next term.

Holdren’s views humanity as a plague on the planet and the Industrial Revolution as a tragic mistake. The fewer people, he believes, the better, and he’s not shy about the ways he would use to reduce their number.

Why Gov. Romney, a reasonable person, would pick such a man to advise him on anything is beyond us.

On Jan. 1, 2006, Massachusetts became the first state to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants, something the Obama administration is trying to do to all states through the Environmental Protection Agency’s draconian job-killing regulations and mandates.

A Dec. 7, 2005 memo from the governor’s office announcing the new policy listed among the “environmental and policy experts” providing input to the policy one “John Holdren, professor of environmental policy at Harvard University.”

This is the same person who wrote that a “massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States
Holdren wrote that along with Paul and Anne H. Ehrlich in the “recommendations” section of their 1973 book, “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.”

Paul Ehrlich is also the author of the 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” which warned of imminent mass starvation from overpopulation unless excess humanity is dispensed with.

Holdren has spoken in favor of such things as forced abortions, confiscation of babies, mass involuntary sterilization, bureaucratic regulation of family size, and a planetary regime to enforce climate regulation and population control.

Read Rest of story here

After researching eugenics and 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 devastating. 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 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 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.



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? ?


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).


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 leveled 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.



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.


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.



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.”



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


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:


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