• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Obama "Science Czar" is a total lunatic

cottonzway

I was saying boo-urns
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103707

The man President Obama has chosen to be his science czar once advocated a shocking approach to the "population crisis" feared by scientists at the time: namely, compulsory abortions in the U.S. and a "Planetary Regime" with the power to enforce human reproduction restrictions.

"There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated," wrote Obama appointee John Holdren, as reported by FrontPage Magazine. "It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

Holdren's comments, made in 1977, mirror the astonishing admission this week of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

In 1977, when many scientists were alarmed by predictions of harmful environmental effects of human population growth, Holdren teamed with Paul R. Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb," and his wife, Anne, to pen "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment."

Holdren's book proposed multiple strategies to curb population growth, and, according to the quotes excerpted by FrontPage Magazine, advocated an international police force to ensure the strategies were carried out.

"Such a comprehensive Plenetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable," Holdren and the Ehrlichs reportedly wrote. "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."

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
 
Quotes from these human-hating lunatic:

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.
 
This is bi-partisan as the co-author of that book was in the Bush Administration. The important point though is John Holdren is the POTUS top science advisor. That's crazy/creepy that someone who writes such insane shit is in our current administration.

What....the....fuck? :confused:
 
Who gives a shit what he thought in 1977? You think people can't change their minds about something in a decade or three? Find out what he thinks NOW and then and ONLY then will there be a case to make. Otherwise it's more accusatory, conspiratorial BS.
 
Who gives a shit what he thought in 1977? You think people can't change their minds about something in a decade or three? Find out what he thinks NOW and then and ONLY then will there be a case to make. Otherwise it's more accusatory, conspiratorial BS.

... oath breaker
 
Nonsense, Cap.

The guy helped write a PHD level book on who/why we should kill people that reads more like a script from "A Brave New World" then a brilliant scientest.

Saying "who cares?" is a losers mentality and a simple way to shrug off something that has validity. If he wrote a book 30-years ago on how to rape children I bet people would "care" then. How is how to kill children any different? It matters, this is the top science advisor to the POTUS.

He writes about and gives advice on now how to spray the skies to "save us" from global warming now. He is a fucking ghoul. Did you even read the stuff I quoted? It's disgusting, not "conspiratorial BS", the guy is a fucking lunatic creep and he is the "Science Czar" for our current admin.
 
... oath breaker

Not at all! This fits into my conspiratorial quasi-politics loophole... barely.

If he wrote a book 30-years ago on how to rape children I bet people would "care" then. How is how to kill children any different? It matters, this is the top science advisor to the POTUS.

You're reaching. If he had written such a book he'd be in prison... except he didn't, so he's not. Writing a book on how to actually rape and murder children would be deplorable. Writing a book on why it may theoretically be necessary to one day maintain a certain population level and how to go about it is specualtive fiction. THAT's the difference.

Did you even read the stuff I quoted? It's disgusting, not "conspiratorial BS", the guy is a fucking lunatic creep and he is the "Science Czar" for our current admin.

I read it but as I said, if it's from 32 years ago then I don't care. Tell me if that's how he still thinks and THEN I'll be concerned but if he's changed his mind in the interim then who cares? Everybody's allowed one collasal fuck up in his life; maybe that book was his?

Otherwise I'm not ready to break out the pitchforks until I have more recent data.
 
Nonsense, Cap.

The guy helped write a PHD level book on who/why we should kill people that reads more like a script from "A Brave New World" then a brilliant scientest.

Saying "who cares?" is a losers mentality and a simple way to shrug off something that has validity. If he wrote a book 30-years ago on how to rape children I bet people would "care" then. How is how to kill children any different? It matters, this is the top science advisor to the POTUS.

He writes about and gives advice on now how to spray the skies to "save us" from global warming now. He is a fucking ghoul. Did you even read the stuff I quoted? It's disgusting, not "conspiratorial BS", the guy is a fucking lunatic creep and he is the "Science Czar" for our current admin.
Many people look into population controll. Some day that book might be reality. but then again catfish might grow legs and mary goats.
who the hell knows and I get so sick and tired of people coming up with stupid shit like this.
FYI,
I don't think population control is such a bad thing. I think we should all practice it so the government doesn't have to step in someday.
Why the hell is ok for people to keep poping out kids they can't afford and everyone else has pay for anyway.
Not to say rich people should have a bunch either.
Our resources are not endless. They will and are becoming limited.
We shouldn't just dismiss someone for thinking ahead.8)
This is the kind of crap that keeps me from coming here very often anymore.
 
why do some people read a thread they do not like, then comment on the thread they do not like, then say they do not come here very often because they do not like to read threads they do not like? :confused:

bsvalley, eugenics is alive and well. it is practiced in many forms.

dB, there is nothing wacky about eugenics, nuff said there i think.

cottonzway, thanks for reporting on this monster. obama's handlers are all cut from the same cloth. obama is very quickly showing his true color.
 
I agree. This topic is all over bunk conspiracy forums like some untamed rash. People who frequent those sites should take this sort of reporting with a grain of salt.

Maybe it's better to leave this sort of crap on those forums, where it belongs.
 
I agree. This topic is all over bunk conspiracy forums like some untamed rash. People who frequent those sites should take this sort of reporting with a grain of salt.

Maybe it's better to leave this sort of crap on those forums, where it belongs.

the topic is not crap. it is proven fact.
 
A fact with relevance to what exactly? An old book?

We have a saying in the design industry. You're only as good as your last job. Which is why my folio isn't more than 6 months old. You are welcome to judge me on work I did 14 years ago but unfortunately, it doesn't reflect who I am now.
 
I find this messianic adulation of the Obama administration wildly fascinating. Any criticism online is either labeled right wing propaganda or conspiracy theory when in fact, it's often simply fairly accurate journalism.
 
We have a saying in the design industry. You're only as good as your last job. Which is why my folio isn't more than 6 months old. You are welcome to judge me on work I did 14 years ago but unfortunately, it doesn't reflect who I am now.

No, but it made you who you are now.
 
Really? Show me where he's recently stated anything of the sort. You know what else was really popular in the 70's? The Leyland P76. Don't see much on those anymore either.
 
jose you cannot be serious. you compare a car to a eugenicist ideology?!? wtf?

compare this guy to hitler and/or the early american eugenics movement and we have something to talk about.
 
I understand where you're coming from, but can you imagine if people's current perception of you was based on the fact you once believed in Santa Claus at the age of 3?

...and with that I'm leaving this topic well alone because it doesn't deserve the energy.
 
Back
Top