Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

You twice call Obama a Marxist/Fascist. These terms are entirely antithetical to each other, which suggests to me you know nothing about either.

I haven't been able to find direct quotes from any section of the book yet, but found this.

Notes
1. P. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (Ballantine, New York, 1968).

2. Ibid., p. xi. The mortality estimate is based primarily on information from UNICEF, WHO, and other sources on infant/child mortality and may be conservative. For example, it is now estimated that 40,000 children die daily (14.6 million a year) from hunger-related diseases, according to International Health News, September 1987. The number "at least 200 million" is based on an average of 10 million deaths annually for 21 years. See also a discussion in World Resources Institute/ International Institute for Environment and Development, World Resources 1987 (Basic Books, New York, 1987), pp. 18-19. The exact number, of course, can never be known with precision (see note 15, Chapter 4).

3. That is, 28 people will be born and 10 will die. The growth rate is now 3 people per second.

4. L. R. Brown, The Changing World Food Prospect: The Nineties and Beyond, Worldwatch Paper 85 (Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C., October 1988).

5. P. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, p. 61.

6. The situation has been analyzed and reanalyzed in the technical and popular literature. Two key technical papers are P. R. Ehrlich and J. P. Holdren, "The Impact of Population Growth," Science, vol. 171 (1971), pp. 1212-17, and J. P. Holdren and P. R. Ehrlich, "Human Population and the Global Environment," American Scientist, vol. 62 (1974), pp. 282-92. Much important information can be found in works by Lester Brown and his colleagues in the excellent State of the World series issued by Worldwatch Institute and published by W. W. Norton, New York, and in the World Resources series issued by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), (published by Basic Books, New York). Two other landmark works are the Global 2000 Report to the President, issued in 1980 by the Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of State, and the World Commission on Environment and Development's 1987 report Our Common Future (the "Brundtland Report," named for the commission's chairwoman, the Prime Minister of Norway), published by Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford. A detailed exposition of the connection of population growth to the rest of the human predicament can be found in P. R. Ehrlich, A. H. Ehrlich, and J. P. Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1977). The most recent extensive popular treatment is A. H. Ehrlich and P. R. Ehrlich, Earth (Franklin Watts, New York, 1987).

www.ditext.com...

Apparently this a-hole is not the only one who thinks like this.

In an interview to be published in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she thought the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion was predicated on the Supreme Court majority's desire to diminish “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

In the 90-minute interview in Ginsburg’s temporary chambers, Ginsburg gave the Times her perspective on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s first high court nomination. She also discussed her views on abortion.

www.cnsnews.com...

Here is part of the questions and awnsers which Bader gave.

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly 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. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

newsbusters.org...

These people are crazy, they should be the first ones to have no children what-so-ever.

Originally posted by andy1033

Sterilising people is the lesser of two evils. These people are all about power and when you get into these positions you think you know it all. Know it alls are the worst thing for the human race, as they are the ones that get into power normally, and want to run everyones lifes.

[edit on 7/13/2009 by andy1033]

Who exactly will decide whom is required to be sterilized? Will the individual have the opportunity to "volunteer"? Or will some "know it all" decide for us? The Creator gave each human the ability to procreate. The Creator is the only one with the moral right to decide if and who should not procreate, not some beaurocrat. This really upsets me.

When men and women set themselves up to dictate moral behavior, they have crossed the line IMHO. No one has the right to order and force anyone to do something against their will. Educate, yes. Enforce, NO!

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Ok, The first quotes acknowledge that there is a population problem (which is something that has been often discussed in the last 30 years).

The second set are from someone who is in no way associated with Holdren or his book, and are irrelevant in all respects except for stoking the lynch mob you're organizing.

None of what you posted sheds any light on the question of Holdren's ethics.

reply to post by suicydking


These people are talking about population control by force, and it would be them the ones to decide who should have children, and who doesn't...

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a Liberal justice in the Supreme court, so her statements have a lot to do with this...

Here is some more information about Holdren and his associates.

"A Comprehensive Planetary Regime"

Holdren believed a world government might play a moderate role in the future: setting and enforcing appopriate population levels, taxing and redistributing the world's wealth, controlling the world's resources, and operating a standing World Army.

Such a comprehensive Plenetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable...not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes...The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade...The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits...the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. (p. 943.)

Part of the power wielded by this "Regime" would be in the form of a World Army. The trio wrote that the United States must destroy all its nuclear arsenal. But this would not render us defenseless against Communist aggression. "Security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force...The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization" (p. 917, emphasis added).

www.frontpagemag.com...



[edit on 13-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

This man is a creep and should be removed from his office immediately! What he postulates in his book is very similar to the Nazi eugenic programs, and this guy believes in forced sterilizations and abortions across the board with government policy backing it. So this book was published in the 70's but that shouldn't let him off the hook because a zebra never changes its' stripes. These high and mighty types think they alone can save the world? Talk about delusions of grandeur and border-line megolomania. I think Mr. Holdren should remember that he is just as human as the rest of us and nothing more. He has to eat to live, puts his pants on one leg at a time, goes to the bathroom, and can die. Who makes these goons God?

I read in the post that President Obama shouldn't be held accountable for this guy being selected as his Science Czar? However, if he wanted the leadership role; he is accountable for all policy, legislation, cabinet decisions, and cabinet appointments. We call that in the military the burden of command. Anything goes wrong with the Commanding Officer's command he has to answer for it even if the problem was caused by a lower-level service-member. As I said many times, the media needs to start doing their jobs and going through the President's laundry with a fine tooth comb. This appointment is an utter disaster and Mr. Holdren needs to be shipped off to obscurity immediately!

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Jakes51]

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Jakes51]

reply to post by CRB86



Both are part of the radical left.... The right favours less government control, and more individual freedom, while the left wants to give power over to the STATE over any individual freedom, and of course the Left claims that the STATE represents all the people, which is never the truth.

Facists have Socialist ideals. They are against individualism and believe they can do better than Communists, and of course in Fascism the government controls everything, as Mussolini called it "the Corporate State".



[edit on 13-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by CRB86

 

Both are part of the radical left.... The right favours less government control, and more individual freedom, while the left wants to give power over to the STATE over any individual freedom, and of course the Left claims that the STATE represents all the people, which is never the truth.

Facists have Socialist ideals. They are against individualism and believe they can do better than Communists, and of course in Fascism the government controls everything, as Mussolini called it "the Corporate State".



[edit on 13-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Well, you're wrong about pretty much everything there, but well done for being so spectacularly wrong about it with such conviction.

Fascism is part of the radical left? Really? Wow. That is one of the most naive and reductionist political opinions i have ever read on these pages.

Fascists have socialist ideals? Again. Staggering that you could believe this.

For a start, Fascists are ultra-nationalist whereas the ultimate aim of Socialism is the eradication of nationhood.

Expansionist imperialism is a key tenet of Fascism. Empire building is vital. If you think that empire building is in any way related to Socialism then you do not have even a basic understanding of Socialism.

Fascists believe in the charismatic dictator as the ultimate authority. Marx wrote of the proletariat governing themselves, and of the equality of man.

Fascists were for a 'survival of the fittest' model of existence. No health-care, no welfare state. Please tell me how this could be in any way construed as pertaining to the radical left.

This is not to mention that Marxism, Socialism and Communism are all VERY different from each other.

Marxism and Fascism are diametrically opposed. I can't believe that just because the Nazis practised what was called 'National Socialism' that an entire generation of Americans equates Fascism and Socialism.

Literally unbelievable.

This needs to be moved under skunkworks.

zombie time is your source? and people s&f?

what a sham.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by CRB86

 

Both are part of the radical left.... The right favours less government control, and more individual freedom, while the left wants to give power over to the STATE over any individual freedom, and of course the Left claims that the STATE represents all the people, which is never the truth.

Facists have Socialist ideals. They are against individualism and believe they can do better than Communists, and of course in Fascism the government controls everything, as Mussolini called it "the Corporate State".



[edit on 13-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

I agree 100%. The radical left keeps trying to tell homosexuals they can't get married, and keeps lobbying to take away the rights of young pregnant women.

The worst though, was when Obama invented the Department of Homeland Security. That's a whole new chunk of big government who's only purpose is to take away the rights and freedoms of the American citizens.

Now Obama wants to sterilize us? What's next? Remember, Hitler was a radical left winger, and he was all about depopulation, too.

I'm surprised Henry Kissinger hasn't appeared again, seeing as he was such a proponent of depopulating 3rd world countries for fun & profit (source). You remember Kissinger? The guy from the Nixon administration, the war criminal the Dubya asked for foreign policy advice every day.

I'm for de-population through preventive birth measures (idiots outnumber smart people, clearly seen in what's popular in today's culture ^__~) but I would bet my life and much more that Obama isn't going to force abortions.


this guy might whisper it in his ear maybe but f*%^ that, forced abortions are going to cost $$ that gov't doesn't have.

No one ever said this administration was full of nice people.

2nd line.

Relax.

This is why we maintain high levels of gun ownership.

It isn't quite so convenient to forcibly terminate the pregnancy of a woman armed with a 7.62mm battle rifle.

Originally posted by WhatTheory
What is going on here?

This is totally unbelievable that there is a person who has the ear of Obama and who Obama made czar with this sort of radical views and opinions.

This guy is a total fascist/marxist and it further supports the case of Obama being a marxist/fascist. How on Earth can anyone with these sort of radical views even be allowed any position of power.

This is some crazy [stuff]. Obama is dangerous! Look out!
Yay! Hope and change we can believe in.

zombietime.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 7/13/2009 by WhatTheory]

 

Removed censor circumvention and replaced it with [stuff]

[edit on 13/7/09 by masqua]

Usually it is impossible for someone to be a Marxist and a Fascist at the same time unless they have a split personality.

Originally posted by WhatTheory
This guy is a total fascist/marxist and it further supports the case of Obama being a marxist/fascist. How on Earth can anyone with these sort of radical views even be allowed any position of power.

This is moronic. Sorry to be mean, but it truly is. No one can be a Fascist/Marxist. If you know anything about either you would understand they are complete opposites. Fascism is a theory of government where the state is extremely strong and exercises its authority in many ways, and Marxism is a theory of government where there is no government, instead decisions are made by the people involved coming to a consensus.

Just look at history. Fascism and "Marxism" (leninism, maoism, etc - none really marxist but instead authoritarian states touted as "transitional" to a state of true communism) have always been mortal enemies. Spanish civil war? WW2? read up on the details.

I can tell you right now, they've taken steps. There's a 'voluntary' program thru medicaid where you can be sterilized. They call it 'family planning'.

I asked my case worker about it, and mentioned 'in my case, it'd be like turning off the water an in abandoned house' (no kids, no wife, no g/f).

So, they HAVE begun... It creeped me out finding out about it, too. It wont ever affect me directly, but still...

Originally posted by suicydking
Second, as far as the quotes being thrown around, has anyone verified who wrote those quotes originally? As Holdren is the co-author of the book, he may not have said any of the things that are being thrown around here.

There are screen shots of the aforementioned quotes on other sites. You are correct in that Holdren himself may not have written them as the book has three authors but i simply cannot see him not ascribing to those points of view considering he allowed himself to be associated with the authorship of the book and, by default, he allows himself to be associated with those quotes.

I think for complete clarity we need to see if there are any other solutions presented in the book. Unfortunately i won't be able to as i can't afford the book and you can't read the whole thing online.

Fascism, Marxism, Communism, ect ect...the common thread that binds them is top down centralized authortarianism thats true antithesis is liberty and freedom, which should be the real paradigm we look at this through. The true controllers dont care if its Hitler or Mao, Stalin or Musollini - they infact funded the rise or each of these leaders/ideologies and pitted them against eachother as another mode of control. As long as power is collectivised into the hands of a few, they care not about left or right.

Control is the game, everything else is just details. An eugenics, the power to decide who lives and dies, is the ultimate form of control.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Neo_Serf]

2 comments...

1. The only "Czar" I will ever trust is Mike Fratello, AKA the Czar of the Telestrator.

2. Someone said that Fascism and Socialism are completely unalike and are not interchangeable. I disagree, albeit on a technicallity. Fascism, Socialism, Communism, Marxism all have two things they strongly hold in common...
a. They all SUCK as forms of government
b. None of them are Constitutionally acceptable forms of governance for the Federal Constitutional Republic of the United States. As I am a firm supporter of the US Constitution (unlike many "Americans" who seem to only acknowledge the document in passing when convenient where this administration is concerned.) I find even the hint of the USA drifting toward any SUCK form of government style to be beyond distressing.

And for s-words and giggles, a third comment...
3. I am in no way surprised of this. The fight surrounding a woman's "choice" has always centered around smoke and mirrors at the highest levels of politics. Personally I don't believe that the legislators on either side care one iota about the actual ramifications of the issue, instead they view the fight itself as a tool to keep both sides constantly fighting themselves. I think there is probably an equal distribution of people on both sides who would agree with Holdern, just as there are many on both sides who find his views disgusting.

It is not unbelievable, it is a good thing, hope it happens. Why? Oh yeah, i know, you want your ******* freedom? You want to do what you want coz it is your right to act suicidal? No sorry, there are people in this world that think big and in long term, and humanity must be regulated. Dislike it? I dont care, i hope it is gonna happen and it seems it is coming slowly. You thought you had total freedom, the right to raise children as much as you want and to **** and being ****** anywhere anytime, spreading sin here and there without giving a ****? No, sorry, it is totally ridiculous and unconscious. Mass sterilization and surviving of the species or mass reproduction and species extinction? Nothing will be done softly, and we deserve it, it is a cause of our unconscious behaviour.