Tuesday, 14 July 2009

John Holdren is Obama's new zombietime Director of life and death and the whole damn hell on earth thing.

Via the great zombietime com: In 1977 John Holdren, Obamas zombietime Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy dreamed and wrote about forced sterilisation and a global socialist totalitarian regime etc. He still has that beautiful totalitarian dream in the service of Gaia. No really.

Mark Steyn and Sean Hannity on the fabulous Obama tax cheat administration.

“Advocating for population control comes down to there’s too many of you and just enough of me!” P.J O’Rourke. [From memory.]

Another day and it’s always another collectivist socialist elitist dirt bag with Saul Alinsky student/teacher and Bill Ayers pal The Obamessiah. What a fucking waking nightmare this twisted Manchurian Candidate phony fuck Barry Hussein Sotoero Barack Obama clearly is. The Obama Timeline.

And new killer Candidates everyday. Are they podding these bastards? In Invasion Of The Body Snatchers they used gasoline and a lighter. [Link to Bill Whittle at PJTV.]

Townhall on The Obama Mind Trick.

Via Michelle Malkin, the great Zombietime has done an exhaustive expose of recent beyond belief Obambi appointee, the hideous and unfit for any job, John Holdren. It’s all about the charming fascist global mass control book he co-wrote in 1977 advocating and I kid you not,
“Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.”

This is what decades of Marxist product dealing left liberalism has wrought. [And sadly far too many semi to fake conservatives and Republicans:] smiley faced, [if you're lucky] fascist social elites dreaming of controlling by coercive stealth and overtly, evermore of our death filled existence from top to bottom. Holdren’s another of the endless Obamessiah rabble, of the forever living dead leftovers of the miserable 1960’s and 1970’s. Will they ever die off themselves? Not before they doom and kill us all.

Bert Pretlusky: “Speaking of liberal goofiness brings us inevitably to Barack Hussein Obama, as he now proudly identifies himself -- at least when he’s addressing Muslims, praising Muslims and, as usual, slandering America. By the way, isn’t it the least bit odd that he never condemns Muslims for clinging to their religion and their suicide bombs?”

Now being Zombie, it’s a meticulous and surgical crush as Zombie covers pretty much all the bases. Direct scans, photos and mucho proof that Holdren has not changed his views. On the contrary, like most of his ilk and The Obamessiah, he simply either airbrushes ‘em for now or merely CV's them in an easily acceptable form. And now Holdren has got himself the ultimate position to live out his fascist nihilist dreams and our nightmares. For a fab commentary and analysis go zombietime, young man. Meanwhile, read on terrified reader and may God help us all.

I Quote The Monster.

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:

“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.”

“Involuntary fertility control...A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men...

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

"If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.”

"In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”
“Toward a Planetary Regime....Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment.

Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

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. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

“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.”

“Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the "tragedy of the commons," wherein the "commons" is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.”

“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants' destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.”

Here's the always hip Mark Steyn at the ocregister on the natural bankruptcy of Globullshit Warming to help you clear the sour taste of vomit.

"...most of the developed world has already gone down the paved road of good intentions and is now frantically trying to pedal up out of it. New Zealand was one of the few Western nations to sign on to Kyoto and then attempt to abide by it – until New Zealanders realized they could only do so by destroying their economy.

They introduced a Dem-style cap-and-trade regime – and last year they suspended it.

In Australia, the Labor Government postponed implementation of its emissions-reduction program until 2011, and the Aussie Senate may scuttle it entirely. The Obama administration has gotten to the climate-change hop just as the glitter ball's stopped whirling, and the band's packing up its instruments.

Fossil fuel and cement emissions increased by 3.3 percent per year during 2000-06, compared to 1.3 percent per year in the 1990s. Similarly, atmospheric C02 concentrations increased by 1.93 parts per million per year during 2000-06, compared to 1.58 ppm in the 1990s. And yet, despite accelerating emission rates and concentrations, there's been no net warming in the 21st century and, more accurately, a decline."

Comment: “tominatl wrote: "The Atmosphere is 380 to 390 parts per million CO2. As a percentage that's 0.039%.

Man made CO2 runs, depending on whom you read, between 3 and 5% of annual world production of CO2. Mother Nature provides the other 95%.

Assuming the US produces 25% of man-made CO2 and assuming that all of that is eliminated, the decrease in annual world CO2 production will be 1.25% out of a maximum 5%. The reduction in parts per million of C02 in the atmosphere will not show until we get to, maybe, the fourth, fifth, or sixth decimal place. Anyone want to bet an economy on those numbers? On one ten-thousandth of one percent?

CO2 is believed by many to be a lagging indicator of global warming. In other words, nothing we do to control CO2 will affect temperature, because temperature rises first and CO2 increases as a result of the temperature. The lag time between elevating CO2 and climate change may be 800 years, in other words we don't have a clue and may not have a clue for several centuries.”

No comments: