Obama Science Advisor: Trees Should Be Allowed to Sue in Court

This out of the Dakota Voice

www.dakotavoice.com...

"You just can’t make this stuff up, folks. If you made a movie with a character who said nutty things like this, it would flop because people just wouldn’t find it credible. Well, unless it was an “Office Space” type movie. The outer-space wacko record of President Barack Obama’s “science czar” John Holdren just keeps getting crazier and crazier. We’ve learned that he wants to “de-develop” the United States and make us a Third World cesspool, thinks children are not yet human beings, is a Malthusian population control fanatic, and is generally against the American way of life. Now this from CNS News: Giving “natural objects” — like trees — standing to sue in a court of law would have a “most salubrious” effect on the environment, Holdren wrote the 1970s. “One change in (legal) notions that would have a most salubrious effect on the quality of the environment has been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’” Holdren said in a 1977 book that he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich. “In that tightly reasoned essay, Stone points out the obvious advantages of giving natural objects standing, just as such inanimate objects as corporations, trusts, and ships are now held to have legal rights and duties,” Holdren added. Sadly, we’ve had this kind of nonsense influencing our government at high levels for decades; it just hasn’t been as bold and clear as we now see it in John Holdren."

Ok, this is my first OP so be kind...LOL.

So Holdren had flown off the deep end long ago, this wanker looks pretty delusional from here. Or maybe the information release was timed to steer some attention away from COP 15 maybe?

Actually a quick edit, it's funny how the past has come back to bite Holdren in the ass from so many years down the road. It's also interesting that Obama would consign a non-rational person to this position.

Did an edit to change wording a bit and add the CNS News Link.

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 12/7.2009 by bobs_uruncle]

[edit on 12/7.2009 by bobs_uruncle]

S & F mate.

Interesting thread about a very ''special'' person.

Wow there are some nutcases these days.

Jesus, I think we can finally have grounds to impeach Obama, he lacks the competence to be able to run this country effectively. I don't really know what else to say, I mean seriously these are the people that are in the top positions?

reply to post by bobs_uruncle


Anyone worried about the animal rights nutzoids at USHS or Peta knows John Holdren has been advocating for the right of dogs to sue their owners but this is the first time I have heard about him being a radical tree hugger.

On top of his recent email disclosures on global warming looks like tis time for him to return to the public sector - no wait he never was anything but a leach on the tax payer grant system. Sucking down research $$$ to bite the hand that feeds him.

So let me get this straight.
They will give rights to trees but not to unborn children?
They will treat a tree as a person but the real person is treated like useless pulp?
"Save a tree, chop a fetus instead"
Insane!

Now, where are the people backing the global warming scam at?

I want to see their position on this.

The same science adviser spouting this crap believes in the MMGW.

OP, you cannot make this stuff up.

Sometimes I think I went to sleep for 1000 years and woke up in the land of a bunch of inbred idiots. Hey, that would be a good movie idea.

Oh yeah, Idiocracy, it is already here!

They will give rights to trees but not to unborn children?

Actually Holdren has stated that if abortion of the preborn is legal then parents should be allowed to "post partrition terminate a prelegal protohuman" which could equate to killing children up to the legal age of consent. So he seems to think that seedling trees have more rights than seedling people. At least that is how I hear him.

Originally posted by urwatu8
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

Anyone worried about the animal rights nutzoids at USHS or Peta knows John Holdren has been advocating for the right of dogs to sue their owners but this is the first time I have heard about him being a radical tree hugger.

On top of his recent email disclosures on global warming looks like tis time for him to return to the public sector - no wait he never was anything but a leach on the tax payer grant system. Sucking down research $$$ to bite the hand that feeds him.

The whole thing disgusts me. You've got your POTUS deconstructing the US to make it in his image, the Obamanation, while the banksters pillage and plunder and we have our ZOTT (PM Harris, Zombie On The Throne). These political meat puppets have given us NAFTA, and GATT and the SPP and every other treaty, measure or law I don't think any of us really wanted. There sure as hell hasn't been a vote! and we certainly didn't get what we were being sold.

Now we, on both sides of the border have POTUS' and ZOTTs with idiot advisers in key positions, senates and parliaments littered with corrupt incompetent assholes that follow a rotating door policy with the companies we need protection from! WTF?

I know what needs to be done, but stating as much would be against ATS terms and conditions.

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by urwatu8

They will give rights to trees but not to unborn children?

Actually Holdren has stated that if abortion of the preborn is legal then parents should be allowed to "post partrition terminate a prelegal protohuman" which could equate to killing children up to the legal age of consent. So he seems to think that seedling trees have more rights than seedling people. At least that is how I hear him.

If that is the case then he would be objectifying children. If I remember right from my psychology courses (35 years ago), isn't that what sociopaths and pedophiles do to justify their crimes to themselves? It would also mean that child labor is OK, since they would be defined as protohumans and therefore would have no legal rights.

I wonder what skeletons he has in his closet and if they are less than 4'6" tall? (could be midgets in which case he's just as bad!)

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 12/7.2009 by bobs_uruncle]

reply to post by urwatu8

Actually Holdren has stated that if abortion of the preborn is legal then parents should be allowed to "post partrition terminate a prelegal protohuman" which could equate to killing children up to the legal age of consent. So he seems to think that seedling trees have more rights than seedling people. At least that is how I hear him.

Sounds like he is laying the groundwork for legalized HONOR KILLINGS

This guy is one of many this adminstration is truly scary. Please I want a liberal shill to come and defend this guy. Lets here how in reality he is a great guy who would never do what he says. And how all of this stuff is made up and we are crazy for pointing out their own words.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by Subjective Truth]

Trees with legal standing,yet people don't have legal standing to question the validity of the POTUS?

What a world! I'd shed a tear but it might sue me for abandonment!!!

Not saying I agree with this. I don't. Trees can't sue.

People who represent trees and their benefits on the environment and who counter deforestation are able to sue, however. And they do. Thank goodness. Because we use them like an unending resource at a rate that isn't sustainable. We use them for so many things, without even thinking about it.

But really, trees are alive. And they don't really need upkeep. Or supervision. Or money. Or a home. Or things that maybe people are unwilling or unable to provide. They grow on their own. They're awesome.

How often do you think about that, hm?

Say what you want. I honestly do care more about my environment than some heartless people on an internet forum.

[edit on 12/7/2009 by ravenshadow13]

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Not saying I agree with this. I don't. Trees can't sue.

People who represent trees and their benefits on the environment and who counter deforestation are able to sue, however. And they do. Thank goodness. Because we use them like an unending resource at a rate that isn't sustainable. We use them for so many things, without even thinking about it.

But really, trees are alive. And they don't really need upkeep. Or supervision. Or money. Or a home. Or things that maybe people are unwilling or unable to provide. They grow on their own. They're awesome.

How often do you think about that, hm?

Say what you want. I honestly do care more about my environment than some heartless people on an internet forum.

[edit on 12/7/2009 by ravenshadow13]

Trees are a renewable resource,forest management has been working for many years. I don't understand how you can say that the use of trees is unsustainable?

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Well we have found someone that backs the theory of killing off humans for the good of the Earth.

Or should we move into mud huts? Except for the people that back the rights for the living and breathing entities known as trees.

Oh the "supposed" intellectual elites really burn my bottom!

Oh we heartless people on this forum, hmmm?

I think I will go out and commit murder tomorrow by cutting down some trees, then I will cut some of their limbs off and then quarter them. Next I will load the pieces and burn them at the stake.

Why don't you and Holdren come and try and sue me for this.

lol..what next? Water allow to sue us?

I am telling you guys, it look like the government worship Earth gods here....

reply to post by daddyroo45


The world's population is growing. That means we need more paper (trees). It also means that we need more food. Do you know where most food comes from? Farms. Do you know how they make farms? They cut down trees.

If we were actually replanting trees, or even keeping a trees from being cut down, as quickly as we were using them, they would be sustainable.

That just isn't happening.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by daddyroo45

 

The world's population is growing. That means we need more paper (trees). It also means that we need more food. Do you know where most food comes from? Farms. Do you know how they make farms? They cut down trees.

If we were actually replanting trees, or even keeping a trees from being cut down, as quickly as we were using them, they would be sustainable.

That just isn't happening.

well that what FEMA coffin are for! population control!

reply to post by endisnighe


No, actually.

It's called responsibly using resources.

People don't need to die. At all. People just need to be responsible for the implications of their actions.

[edit on 12/7/2009 by ravenshadow13]

Originally posted by IceDash
lol..what next? Water allow to sue us?

I am telling you guys, it look like the government worship Earth gods here....

If the Bohemian Grove rites, initiations and meetings where the politicians all dress up as Druids (or such), practice earth rites, "magic" and sacrifice animals to a big ass owl, well hey, could be the situation.

COP 15 will probably be like some nightmare driven "Eyes Wide Shut," you know, the merging with the earth goddess crap. Great excuse to nail a bunch of prostitutes. I hope it's catch and release and they let them go alive, I'd love to hear some of the stories. Of course with any luck the politicians will all get a Wooter Basson surprise (AIDS).

You know when a politician is the smartest? When he's screwing a hooker. Compared to him, he's plugged into a genius.

Cheers - Dave