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

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/ ^ | 7/10/2009

[JRochelle]

Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology -- informally known as the United States' Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not; • The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food; • Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise; • People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. • A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things.

Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no exaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and this report contains the proof. Below you will find photographs, scans, and transcriptions

[listenhillary]

Didja see this?

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

[BuddhaBrown]

"Alarm bells anyone?"

I completely agree with you!

It is NOT conspiracy nutcase stuff. It would be very easy for an Obamacare type of system to mandate some shot for... whatever... and it would be difficult to know what you are being injected with.

I won't go into detail, but my youngest daughter was forced by the gov't (district court), against our will, to take two different medications for six months. One of them was specifically NOT recommended by the manufacturer for kids (she was 12 at the time), but they made her take it anyway.

They treated my wife and I like we were some kind of aliens because we did not trust the 'professionals' to make decisions for us. And, no, it was not cancer treatment or anything like that. They were psychiatric drugs. It was all due to one incident at school. She is normal and healthy now that we got her off the drugs - thank God.

I would NEVER let my girls be given the HPV 'vaccine' by the schools/gov't.

I'm suspicious of many health care scams in general. But the HPV stuff really pisses me off. Texas, I believe it was, came close last year to making that mandatory did they not?

[I'm ALL Right!]

This was Hitler’s vision, wasn’t it?

[BuddhaBrown]

Thanks for the book recommendation. I will look into it.

One of my pet peeves is people, including some Freepers, who think science is some always holy, never corrupt endeavor that lowly folks like me should not question. That is utter nonsense.

Science is no more pure than politics!!!

[Albion Wilde]

Science is no more pure than politics!!!

Boy, is that ever true! That was the point of Michael Crichton's book about global warming hysteria, State of Fear. He really laid into the "politicization of science", and had a nice few jabs for a Martin Sheen-like character as well.

[Nachum]

The list, ping

[melsec]

China and Japan have plenty of open space just not in the cities - poor urban planning does not mean that the earth cannot support more people. USA, Canada have so much open space and the tech boom in foods means that there is no problem feeding everyone on the planet many times over - don’t believe the lies!

Mel

[truthguy]

China and Japan have plenty of open space just not in the cities - poor urban planning does not mean that the earth cannot support more people. USA, Canada have so much open space and the tech boom in foods means that there is no problem feeding everyone on the planet many times over - don’t believe the lies!

Yeah cut down all the forests. Pave all the meadows. Develop every square inch of land. Are you saying there is no limit to population. I work with some people from both Japan and India and they tell a very different story. In California we live on the edge every year concerning water supplies. It's a constant problem in the West. And yet people are saying there is plenty of everything for more people. Are you crazy. Just because you have open space doesn't mean the land is suitable for habitation. Australia has tons of open space in its interior. The problem is it's 120F and there's very little water. So do you think people should settle there? Would you like to live there? You really need to study up and stop reading neo-conservatives like Ben Wattenberg. The man is insane.

[melsec]

I can see you are very passionate about this. I am aware of California’s problems and it they have lttle to do with lack. Poor planning, limited infrastructure improvements and additions in the past decades, and envinromental restrictions may have more to do with your problems than too many people. Australia gets so much rain in the more tropical areas that if harnessed properly with due care for the environment we could easily support many multiples (up to 10X) of our current population and there is so much space even in the more temperate areas you would not believe it-there may very well be a limit to population but I will not see it. Most western counties are only still growing in population by very small amounts anyway so I don’t see the concern at all.

[CottShop]

[[You get replies that if you go out into the middle of the Arizona desert, it’s almost completely unpopulated. Yes and there’s a good reason that’s it’s unpopulated. There isn’t any or enough water there to sustain a civilization. It’s a great environment for lizards or snakes but that’s about it.]]

Could you pick any more inhospitable place? The Adirondack parks, which hte government has taken over- is larger than all three major national parks together-

[[You also hear the inane argument that every person on the planet could fit inside the state of Texas with an acre of land or something like this. This is an even dumber argument. People don’t and cannot live this way]]

You are missing hte point apparently- while it could be done, this isn’t hte issue- the issue is that since the population COULD infact live in Texas (even htough noone would want to), it just shows how much space there really is in the US

[[I’ve traveled the globe and noticed that the quality of life in extremely crowed countries is low and often VERY low.]]

Have you also noted that in areas where there isn’t a huge population, in these very same countries, is JUST as decrepid? It has nothign to do with overpopulation and everythiogn to do with how hte coutnries are doign financially

The US is not overpopulated- the US has plenty of space available, and will have for a very long time if the Lord Tarries, and we’re in no danger of overburdening our ecosystem- Whiel some cites are infact overcrowded, you can’t point to these few hot-spots that attract peopel for various reasons, and claim the US as a whole is overpopulated because this simply is not true- The Government has millions upon millions of land that htey have not allowed peopel to expand into, and htere are millions upon millions of acres that are privately held that could, if need be, be opened up to habitation. The US is a VAST nation, with hte population barely making a dent

[[It’s interesting to read the comments on the original thread that I posted. By the end it looks like I’ve been advocating genocide and infanticide.]]

I never suggested anythign of hte sort- just pointing out that the myth that we’re overcrowded isn’t true

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Since both Islam and the left are driven by Satan, their goals mesh quite well. Until the Christians are gone... then the leftists and Islamists will fight it out.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

I sent it out to my email contacts. Bump this thread on FR.

[truthguy]

Apparently many are not getting the main points of my argument. The issue is quality of life. It's not how many people can you shoe horn into any area and sustain life. This is what seems to be the main focus of posts like yours. I have a living memory of what America was like with 1/3 (yes that's only 40 years) less population and believe me it was a MUCH better country. Overpopulation and the problems that come with it are crushing the America I once knew and loved.

Immigration (and the offspring of post 1965 immigrants) is the major reason for this problem. We are not improving the quality of life for the next generation by allowing the population to swell out of control. In fact the quality of life in the US has DECLINED for the middle class over the past 40 years. This has happened in spite of the technical advances made.

I get a real kick out of the posts where people look around and see a beautiful meadow or valley and imagine that they could improve it by adding a strip mall or high density housing and filling it with immigrants. Great progress guys (or gals). Really Great. I'm looking forward to this.

I mentioned before that it's a greater issue than people/sq mi density. There is the issue of water, land for agriculture, energy, sanitation, and so many others I don't have time to mention. Some posters just skip over these issues as if they are nothing. I get comments like; "well we aren't as crowed as Japan so let's increase the population" As if it was a goal to get to a place where we (or most would agree) don't want to get to.

I'm amazed the people who don't care about the open spaces, wildlife, and the personal freedom that come with reasonable density population.

Now there is one issue that I think even some of you neo-cons would agree with. As the population gets larger it's much more difficult to contain the absolute amount of growth. For example when I was born we had only 160 million people. We went past 200 million in 1967 and it's been off to the races ever since. We added 100 million between 1968 and 2008. That's a 50% increase in just 40 years. To go from 100 million to 200 million it took well over 100 years. And let me remind you that the increase from 200 million to 300 million was POST BABY BOOM. That's the most horrifying statistic of all.

So call me an alarmist if you like. If you like crowded, dirty filthy cities like New York or LA (where only multi millionaires have a decent life) they go ahead and encourage this outrageous population growth. Go ahead and destroy our history ad heritage. You will wake up one day and discover your have killed the golden goose.

[truthguy]

A few points that I forgot about in my post.

1. Are you advocating that we develop the land of the Adirondacks into cities with high density housing and such?

2. If you developed the Adirondacks, would you call that progress?

3. What's the ideal population of the US in your opinion? How about 400million? 500 million? 1 billion? 2 billion?

4. Why are such large populations preferable to smaller ones. Europe isn't growing because there is a sense that more people don't add anything to the quality of life. The problem Europe has is two fold. They have created a welfare state that they need increasing numbers of people to support and they have inported Muslims who cannot be assimilated into their population. Without the Muslims, Europe could stand for a slightly smaller population. It would greatly improve the quality of life. But with the increase of Muslims, the low birthrate of Europe is a disaster.

[CottShop]

[[1. Are you advocating that we develop the land of the Adirondacks into cities with high density housing and such?]]

There is plenty of room in parks and private land to expand- no need for ‘tightly packed cities’ in these areas- Again, you are missing hte point- you are looking at relatively small city areas that are ‘packed’ and thinking hte whole US must be liek that- it isn’t

[[2. If you developed the Adirondacks, would you call that progress?]]

IF it became NEEDED to do so, I would call it common sense survival- there are already tiny towns spread all over the parks, and there is still plenty of room to expand while also reserving hte integrity of these parks- but in the end, IF it comes to our survival vs looking at pretty little landscapes that noone can touch- it would be assinine to value nature over our survival in my opinion- but like I mentioend earlier- there is absolutely no need to compromise the integrity of these parks as there are millions upon millions of acres that can be managed both for civilization and wilderness for a logn long time to come

[[4. Why are such large populations preferable to smaller ones. Europe isn’t growing because there is a sense that more people don’t add anything to the quality of life.]]

This is a secularist ideology and NOT a Christian one where God said go forth and multiply- and europe’s ideology again looks at the relatively small number of ‘packed areas’ and concludes ‘we must limit populations’- it’s a rediculous ideology and infact a form of ‘self-loathing’ that they are tryign to impose on others so that they’ll self-limit out of a warped sense of ‘duty to the earth’- it’s earth worship that attempts to lord it over others

[[3. What’s the ideal population of the US in your opinion? How about 400million? 500 million? 1 billion? 2 billion?]]

What does it matter? We’re at 300 million- big deal? What’s the problem? As mentioned there is still well more than enough room for many many more

[CottShop]

[[And let me remind you that the increase from 200 million to 300 million was POST BABY BOOM. That’s the most horrifying statistic of all.]]

And let me remind you that the baby boomers are selfish lovers of self who abort 40 million babies each year, and who are two worker couples who for hte most part have not bred like those families post baby boom did because they don’t want to be weighted down by the responsibilities of raising children

[[It’s not how many people can you shoe horn into any area and sustain life.]]

Therte’s no need to ‘shoehorn’ anyone anywhere- you’re assuming we’re goign to have to shoehorn’ everyone in any spots we expand to, and htis simpyl isn’t the case- the majority of people are country people who own vast tracts of land, and hwos closest neighbors live miles away- You say you’ve travelled? Then you’ll no doubt know that there are vast vast tracts of untouched lands, and rural areas that make up hte majority of most states

[[I have a living memory of what America was like with 1/3 (yes that’s only 40 years) less population and believe me it was a MUCH better country.]]

Ah- now we’re gettign to hte bottom of your objection to population growth- selfishness.

[[We are not improving the quality of life for the next generation by allowing the population to swell out of control.]]

It’s ‘swelling out of control’? Really? Hmmmm- not from my vantage point.

[[In fact the quality of life in the US has DECLINED for the middle class over the past 40 years.]]

Yeah- running water, electricity, the internet for convenience and enjoyment, fuel oil instead of cutting hte forrests each year for firewood, etc etc etc- Yep- the quality of life is just icky now

[[I get a real kick out of the posts where people look around and see a beautiful meadow or valley and imagine that they could improve it by adding a strip mall]]

I get a kick out of people wgho look at those same meadows and declare them off limits to others who may need a place to live- Great progress guys (or gals). Really Great.

[[I’m amazed the people who don’t care about the open spaces, wildlife, and the personal freedom that come with reasonable density population.]]

Some peopel actually value people more than they do scenic views- gosh- aint we the terrible ones?

[[You will wake up one day and discover your have killed the golden goose.]]

Better than killing babies because we’re more concerned about how a meadow looks than we are about future generations!

[usmom]

One of my pet peeves is people, including some Freepers, who think science is some always holy, never corrupt endeavor that lowly folks like me should not question. That is utter nonsense.

Awesome statement and I agree with you completely. I have been attacked and called a kook, idiot and right-wing religious backwards zealot who wants to take us all back to the dark ages on this very forum for even hinting that science and medicine (including vaccines)are fraught with error, corruption and every other human frailty that exists because- guess what- they are run by PEOPLE! Many times people appointed by corrupt administrations and corporations with ulterior motives of their own. I can’t stand the polly-anna attitude that all scientists and especially doctors are all Florence Nightingale angels out only to help and protect us and that we should just shut up and do whatever they say because they know best. Puh-lease!

[CottShop]

what you are saying is akin to goign to the amazon, runnign across a colony of ants- noting that they ‘crowd’ an area, and declaring ‘The whole Amazon must hterefore be crowded, and it’s time to act to limit ants before the Amazon ‘runs out of room’- and you’re also saying that ‘while htere may be vast tracts of untouched land in the US- it’s all off limits to expansion because ‘I’ don’t like seeing people in meadows’

Whatever!

[investigateworld]

bttt