http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
Direct quote from John Holdren's book "Ecoscience" pg 837:
To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. 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. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.
Note also that the "usual suspects" are utilized by leftists here. The general welfare and interstate commerce clauses are cited, as well as the 14th Amendment. They're often used as end-runs around the Constitution.
The general welfare clause is limited by the enumerated powers that follow - otherwise the Constitution would just say "govt. can do whatever means well".
The interstate commerce clause, was intended to allow the federal govt. to prevent individual states from interfering with commerce. For example, if a good was being sold and shipped from Georgia to North Carolina and South Carolina chose to tax it along the way, the federal govt. could step in to ensure that commerce was protected.
I fail to see how "equal protection" includes forced abortions and sterilization, but I'm not a liberal advocating what amounts to genocide to "save the planet".
From page 838:
Individual rights. Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the "right responsibly to choose" the number and spacing of children (our emphasis).
"Our emphasis" is Holdren & Ehrlich's.
Consider that first sentence: "Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction." Really?
The argument for abortion is that it's a woman's right to her own body. The argument against is that the fetus is a human life, and therefore deserving of equal protection under the law.
The argument here is that the woman has no right to her own body against the govt's power to murder its citizens, and the fetus has no right to exist against the power of the govt.
For once, pro-choicers and pro-lifers should have something to fundamentally agree on.
More from 838:
It is often argued that the right to have children is so personal that the government should not regulate it. In an ideal society, no doubt the state should leave family size and composition solely to the desires of the parents. 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?
There's quite a bit more at Zombie's blog. I direct you readers to read it there - as s/he went to the trouble of scanning pages of the book to show you exactly what was written. You can look at it in context, and read full quotes.
The man spent a lot of time seriously deliberating how to get around the Constitution to start sterilizing you and me. We're an overpopulated animal on the planet to him.
Is this the kind of man you want as the advisor and regulator on science policy? Because he's the Science Czar you have.
Much like Levar Burton on Reading Rainbow would say: "Don't take my word for it."
Another collection of info on John Holdren can be found here, including a video of Holdren at an event advocating zero-growth:
http://www.lonelyconservative.com/2009/09/08/dont-forget-about-radical-science-czar-john-holdren/
--
Now, why is all of this terrifying? Well, according to the leftist propaganda site Media Matters, which is funded and supported by major leftist groups, this is all smear and taken out of context.
Except you can go and read it in context. All of it.
The man's written a blueprint of how he thinks - everything from advocating forced sterilization of women to releasing sterilizing chemicals in the water supply to a global regime to mandate the population.
May as well just get these ready:
If any one of us - you, me, JBH, any member of your family, your friends, your boss or your teacher - were to write a 900-page scholarly treatise on how a certain race needed to be exterminated, we'd probably have difficulty getting a government job. If your name were attached to "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment and Eskimos", we'd be done for. You couldn't advocate extermination of a race. Sure, Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright, who married he and his wife, can say vile things about "the JOOOOOS", and that's okay. But were he to actually write a 900 page book on how the Danes must be sterilized by poisoning their drinking water, he probably would've encountered some difficulty.
John Holdren escapes this by being in academia. Academia is notable for being insulated from the real world, as academics are funded by grants and free money, where all they have to do is talk to earn a living. Their ideas are tossed around, and are mostly meaningless, and they're insulated from the effects of their nonsensical ideas due to being subsidized by alumni and those seeking tax breaks on their grants; and of course by govt. grants that never have any strings attached. Also of note, when discussing something in great detail that doesn't matter one whit, folks will use the phrase "It's all academic anyway" - saying that it's a meaningless discussion with zero effect on reality or decisionmaking.
But when these eerily progressive ideas get out, they rapidly metastasize into something far worse. The "academic" ideas of phrenology and eugenics back in the 1800s and 1900s led to the conclusion that there were "superior races" and led to continued injustice against blacks in the US, who were considered subhuman by "scientists" like John Holdren. These crackpot theories dreamed up by men of letters led to entire schools of racial purity in Europe, and beyond the murder of 6-12 million and a war that killed millions more, there were also the forced abortions and sterilizations of "undesirables."
John Holdren, like many leftist tyrants, believes in equality. All races are equally worthless to him - and he believes in egalitarian misery.
His statements of a shrinking world and Malthusian overpopulation are from the world of a zero-sum mindset. There are only so many resources and they must be divided equally, so says he - to the point that growth cannot be sustained and populations must be culled to manage resources.
Mankind are not deer on a hunting ranch or cows on a feed lot. This ignores the free market, where the individual has limitless capacity to produce and benefit everyone else in the system as well. The only limits on resources available for production (or consumption) are those placed by government.
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?
Go and read it all.
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
---
A while back I got into a discussion with someone over government health care. I was in the midst of reading a lot about government control of people's lives, and rather than bring up how rationing of resources results in poorer care, I mentioned the power aspect of it. You can have "know what's best for you" monsters in charge with government-run health care, and that of itself is terrifying.
We now have one such monster as science czar.
The main problem is one that is endemic on the left - it's a worldview that sees life as a zero-sum game. It sees overpopulation as a problem and children as a punishment -
- and the world as "lifeboat" with fixed resources.
This cynical, cold worldview is one that allows leftist/statist/collectivists to believe that they are best to be in charge because they should distribute the resources. The cynic among them is watching out for himself and putting himself in a position of power, and the do-gooder believes himself above the masses and in need of the indulgences he takes by being in power as necessary for the "greater good". Both of them concur that they are more important than "the masses" and thus they should dictate how the world will run.
But murdering millions is of course, for the greater good - according to such masters of men.
---
Reality check, folks: this shit is real. We have a man who's entirely similar to the mass-murdering supervillains in both Tom Clancy's novel "Rainbow Six", who seek to obliterate humanity (except for themselves) for the good of the planet, and the water-poisoning semi-spoof supervillains of "The Tuxedo".
The difference is that John Holdren is a real person in a real position of power to really impact your life (or the termination thereof) through his mandates. He's already looked for end runs around the rule of law to get away with it so that he can't be punished.
Everyone everywhere who's ever been the victim of this kind of madman has said "it can't happen here". Then when it happens, "there's nothing we can do about it."
Spread the word. Raise your voice. Get this man and all his enablers, supporters, and his appointers removed from any office of power.
I don't want to be saying "I told you so" and wandering the wasteland looking for gasoline for my Pursuit Special.
No comments:
Post a Comment