Ebola Czar Ron Klain Says "Overpopulation" Top Concern

originally posted by: ValentineWiggin
Par for the freakin course at this point. You can't make this ish up! Obama doesn't even care anymore, he's going for some kind of record.

Or he may be the one to finish up whatever agenda started years ago
Well maybe not finish, but add a few more nails into the coffin so to speak

as a kid growing up in America in the 50/60s I heard about the starving children around the world and how they needed our help and support with humanitarian and 'peace corps' type services.
now here we are and we're talking about the planet is just about overpopulated and we might want to think about reducing our numbers.

there are people in the field and many studies have been done
sometimes data can be manipulated to swing either way

a reply to: Destinyone

I don't think this guys opinion is anything to worry about. He seems calm about it and doesn't appear to be hiding anything. Now, I don't know how good of an Ebola Czar he is going to be, he may just be a parrot that passes down everything that he is told without question. Many of the people who are in positions like that are just yes men. It depends on who is pulling the strings and telling him what to say. I can't say he is bad but can say he is probably just a puppet like a lot of people in his situation. We hardly ever know who the puppeteer is or their motives.

originally posted by: Destinyone
a reply to: rickymouse

I can agree with you one some of your opinion. If you can't afford to feed and raise your own children, then stop having them. Or better yet, don't have any. If you are a baby making machine to get more government freebies, you are a drain on society, and Mother Earth.

Des

How about we start with limiting the number of kids for those on welfare/food stamps
These people already know that they get so much per kid, hence why they have 5 or 6 kids

If you figure $300-$500 per kid, depending on state, that adds up after the 5th kid

And yes, we've talked to several couples that say that's the way to go
They don't get married, daddy works & momma gets free checks for the kids

What a scam!!

America is being dismantled.

9/11 attacks 13 years ago should have been the wake-up call for any American with half-a-brain. There was overwhelming evidence implicating Zionist Israel in these self-serving attacks and the fabricated "war on terrorism." Now a dual Israeli-U.S. citizen by the name of Ron Kain stands at the helm of America's unfolding Ebola crisis.

Next phase, the war on bio-terrorism.



Warning: A Massive Government Solicitation Could Cause a Shortage of Protective Clothing, Gloves, Masks

No Hazmat Suits for the Soldiers

I complain that the Human population is getting too high, but I do not want to kill off anyone. I think that we should do something to limit the amount of kids in a family myself. Two kids is fine, three kids is a little excessive but still not bad. Not all people want to have two kids, preferring only one, so this would keep the population almost the same. If we do nothing, everyone will be at each others throats in fifty years or less as foods and water dwindle.

I see nothing wrong with this interview.

Ha ha ,instantly thought of a future scenario reading this last bit . All people upon reaching maturity get have one free baby rights .( better just call maturity 21 for men ,otherwise we will never get one ) If you don't want a kid sell your rights .Want them later buy one back.
Just kidding people . But seriously the world has to many people . How that is addressed i don't know

The title of this thread is insinuating that Klain's agenda is to depopulate the world using Ebola. That is completely irresponsible for the OP to title the thread that way, when Klain is clearly discussing the problem of overpopulation. Show us evidence that Klain is responsible for the Ebola outbreak.

a reply to: hutch622

But, I am saying two kids, maybe three. That should keep the population steady. It is when people have five to ten kids that it becomes a problem. There are less invasive ways to do birth control than the birth control pill they are pushing on women. I have been studying the MAO activity that happens with Estrogens and I think there could be a better way. I don't know why they chose the method they did for birth control.

a reply to: rickymouse

I also fairly agree with your points. It is unfortunate that the word "depopulate" is a loaded word more or less so from historical incidents across the world. As far as "across the world" goes these days, some nations are declining in populations. Some severely so in terms of births versus deaths. Russia is one such as is Japan. In the US, the typicall repoduction rate is about 1.5 offspring for a couple. So there is an automatic social/cultural aspect in play that has nothing (or little) to do with higher policies.

The fly in the ointment, however, is that economies suffer when there are not more and more consumers to cause growth in all areas of a business-dominated society. This is what complicates the matter when businesses help drive the policies of a government. They want consumers even if they have to lower/ignore the laws of immigration to overcome the lower birth rates. Floods of new, lower class people are welcomed even if it lowers the typical standard of living for the mass in general. --So what? The businesses simply grow and evolve to providing services to those lower echelons of society in terms of more McDonalds, Walmarts, cheap little buggy cars and electronic toys. the elite flourishes as they are on the profit end of the pyramid (either in government or industries).

The solution then is to lower the population in those places where the edge-of-survival souls don't amount to much of a benefit to their own country, any outside business or agencies that supply aid. That puts the spotlight on Third World countries and those like India and China that are are becoming powerhouses despsite grinding poverty of most of their populations. Education about birthcontrol does not seem to be working very in the ignorant masses so, other means may be called upon to provide the desired balance. Diseases and sterilization via covert means seems to be the answer.

In effect, the word "depopulation" doesn't have much credibility in a country with a cozy relationship between government and business. In places where feet are bare and the back is barely covered by a filthy rag, it is a whole another matter.

originally posted by: infolurker
Really?

You have got to be kidding us?

www.youtube.com...


On the coincidence side:

Ebola commercial of all things with a guy who looks like him from 2001. Prophetic?

www.youtube.com...

So don't worry, he may not be a doctor or scientist but he did stay at a Holiday Inn!!!!

I'm sorry, I didn't catch where he said "depopulation agenda". He made a point that the worlds population is expanding while relying on a system which doesn't take into account the finite resources we use/over use, while mentioning overpopulation.

I'm sorry but the population of the planet is an issue. More so the issue tied to it is HOW we divvy up and consume the resources we all use. Capitalism or any other ism will not solve this issue.

That said, I think everyone on the planet can live with a high standard of life if we stopped using monetary economics.

I'm not standing up for this guy, but it seems you are manipulating his words.

Please, correct me if I am wrong or if I have missed something.

a reply to: Aliensun

That post is worth two stars. I never really made a correlation between customers and population before, but now I feel that this customer base definitely is worth considering.

Remember that the birth rate is about 1.5 per couple, but this includes the immigrants that come here and have a lot of children. This could mean that the actual rate might be 1.3 per couple. There are many couples that are adopting who couldn't have kids for various reasons. I have been doing some studying on ways to make this happen. Food chemistry changes can cause this to happen, some natural foods can do this and some food additives may accomplish this. Even vitamins and supplements can contain chemistry that is not tolerated and can actually dampen fertility.

Now, I understand that we need to control our population worldwide, but still believe we should be able to keep our genetic line going. For someone to introduce food chemistry that makes it hard for some people to have a kid if they want one is not right, it has no effect on some people but effects some. Who gets to choose? In my mind I do not think someone in Washington should have that right. I would rather have it that they limit the number of children than to kill off a whole genetic line in a few generations. I am sure the people designing this chemistry make sure it doesn't effect their genetic line. I live on in my children and their children, I am not interested in dying totally.

The only problem I see about overpopulation resides in the 0.1 %. I would eliminate them first.

If we would stop relying on fossil fuels, planned obsolescence, destruction of the environement, GMO's and start focusing on sustainability, supressed technology and cooperation, this planet would be big enough for 10 billion humans and more.

It's a wide known fact that most of the elite making those retarded desicions are psychopaths. Depopulation is like the easy solution for the people in power, because it doesn't affect them, their firends or their families.

Ironic that those that speak of depopulation being a such a problem to the planet and its inhabitants NEVER offer to to dispose of themselves for the greater good. It's always someone else that should sacrifice themselves.

a reply to: infolurker

How can anyone who truly believes humans are the cause of Global Warming not eventually support the idea of controlling the human population? What I don't get is why do we support the growth of populations of people past the sustainable levels of their local environment.

Example: Area C is only fertile enough to produce enough food for 1,000 people, but we provide aid allowing that population to grow to 10,000 people. Area C and the population of Area C is forever only sustainable by aid. Area C and the population of Area C will continue to produce offspring, and will need more aid for those offspring. This leads for a perpetual cycle of starvation. Our Government should develop a strategy of determining how much food an area can produce, and then it should work to make sure that area doesn't surpass its own sustainable point due to aid.

Now people can say that is immoral but you will always have the point where starvation exists. The sad thing is that point where starvation exists only compounds as the population grows. We would be better off allowing areas with low sustainability to stay that way, versus creating a population of hungry people. This is where he discusses the climate change making it even harder for people to exist.

I've read a few articles that linked the Arab Spring to climate change, and many revolutions that have happened on our planet can be linked to climate change and the lack of food.

You honestly have to ask yourself. Would you rather the population that revolts due to climate change be a large population or a small population? I would love to see a study for ISIS that shows how those people were hooked on aid, and are still hooked on aid. I think most of your extremist populations are a product of aid work.

I like how in this thread "overpopulation" became "depopulation" instantly.

Overpopulation is a problem, we can agree on that.

Depopulation is a crime(or conspiracy), duh. Never does he say this, in fact he goes on to say we need to raise the standard of living for those less fortunate. which I agree with.

Scare Factor Level 10

NLBS thread

a reply to: nrd101

If you believe strongly in overpopulation.

When actually very soon the world will naturally enter a depopulation phase as only the most backward of the 3rd world countries are having more children than replacement rate. All 1st world countries are well below replacement rate birth rate. Within 100 years people will be worried about the huge number of aged and how few children there are. But the myth of a coming population boom that is unending is a part of the mythos of the environmental movement.

But there are some who just won't believe the truth and think overpopulation is a problem that needs solving.

Ok, needs solving, means getting rid of excess people.

Many environmentalists think that depopulation is necessary, culling the excess people from the world as a way to solve all environmental problems.

As a former hyper-environmentalist who worked for Al Gore, overpopulation problem easily slides into "allowing depopulation" to take it's course if pandemic disease comes along. After all, disease is natural and should be applauded as natural and a product of mother earth to rid the earth of the human vermin. Wouldn't that be the environmentalists natural thought process?

originally posted by: gpawnday
The title of this thread is insinuating that Klain's agenda is to depopulate the world using Ebola. That is completely irresponsible for the OP to title the thread that way, when Klain is clearly discussing the problem of overpopulation. Show us evidence that Klain is responsible for the Ebola outbreak.

I just copied the title of the youtube video, nothing more, nothing less.

a reply to: rickymouse

Iwas not having a go at you .If you can afford to clothe ,feed and bring your kids up properly . And the place/country where you live can sustain that population ,without wrecking the environment have as many kids as you want . However you cannot put 50 million people in a place where only 20 million can live . No example to give but unless i am mistaken famines have been occurring since i can remember .If there is not enough water or foods to go around people die unless someone gives aid .The answer to this problem ,i don't know . Surely the catholic church isn't helping in some counties . But that is only a small part of the problem as far as i can see .It is almost like their way of thinking is . i can barely feed 2 kids ,better have more in case i lose one or two. Hopefully i am wrong on that last one .Ideas none .Answers none .

a reply to: hutch622

I was just making sure you did not misinterpret what I was saying. I thought you may have misunderstood me. I only had one kid from each marriage, and neither wife had any other kids. It was expensive enough bringing up the daughter from the second wife, the first daughter got adopted by my ex's next husband. that daughter has five kids, my other daughter does not have any kids. Five is too much, he works construction in the summer and makes good money, but his unemployment is not enough to completely support them in the winter. They try to pay ahead on bills when he works. But they still need food stamps during the winter and also the Michild health care for their kids. His job does not supply healthcare for the family. If the winters weren't so long here, he wouldn't need the food benefits. Being laid off for five months is hard.

Would you expect anything less from this admin? I knew instantly when I heard there was a new czar in town who had zero medical background that there was likely a depop agenda. The hole Ebola thing is depopulation and they are focusing on America presently, because these guys think that Americans are too affluent(Agenda 21 literature and proponents say so).
Just another John Holdren type who believes he is important while the rest of us useless eater units should perish.