Republican compares Arizona law to Gestapo

their not hiding the fact

giveusfree.jpg

It is amazing the feelings this photograph brings to this independent voter who has been a strong human rights advocate. Perhaps there is another side to this story. This is not a racial question, it is a question of over-population. Got that India, China, and Pope Benny XVI!!!!
 
Last edited:
Multicultural Fraud is our Destruction:

25 November 2009
KHOW
8:50 pm

TANCREDO: But going back before that we have this fact that the pilgrims came here to the colonies. Well there was no colonies. They came here to Plymouth Rock, established a new existence for themselves, their families, et cetera. We have a tendency of thinking of them as coming here trying to find religious freedom. In fact it was a little bit different than that.

They had come from Holland, where there was a great deal of religious freedom and far too much for them as a matter of fact. They didn’t like it. They didn’t like living around other people who had a different attitude about God. And so they thought “Let’s get out of here and go where we can be what we want to be and don’t have to live by people who don’t think the way we do.” So it wasn’t really to find religious freedom. It was to establish a place where they could do what they wanted to do unencumbered and uninhibited.

Now the way the history books treat them today — of course they are ravaged by most history books and revisionists and people who want to create the worst possible image of the people who came here and started the country. So the question was Were they brave Christians who risked everything to gain religious freedom in the new world or were they fanatical European interlopers guilty of genocide?– which is the way they are portrayed in most history books today and the way that most children think of them. The schools have done this. The cult of multiculturalism has done this. So the question I guess is whether or not– I mean what is accurate?

They came in 1620, I think it was, about 100 of them. Only half that many survived the first winter in new England, so you had about and 50 of them left. They did make friends with Indians there. The tribe was the Wampanoag. They were befriended by them. They had a treaty for about 40 years as a matter of fact. Why? A little lesson here.

The Wampanoag saw them as an ally. They could gain their support against their historical enemy, the Narragansett . They were fighting with them a long time, they thought “Geez, these guys might help us out.” So they became friends with the colonists. Then a lot of things happened and they got in a fight. So after 40 years a lot of other stuff occurred. But that is what happened. And yes at a certain point they did get together and share some of the bounty of the land but that wasn’t the first year that they were there.

But at any rate, the point that is really interesting is– and a different take that I have on this than perhaps a lot of people on my side of the political isle, on the conservative side, who look at this whole thing and say “Why is it that everything in American– everything in our history is portrayed in the worst possible light?”

Well, see, about I don’t know 6 months ago I was speaking at American University and I was talking about the problems with the whole issue and the phenomena of multiculturalism. And I was talking about the fact that we are dividing ourselves up in this country. We were dividing our selves– this multiculturalist push that we have is dividing us up into camps– linguistic and ethnic and religious and familial. All of these things. The cult of multiculturalism is not something which unifies us. It is something that divides us, I was saying. And it is a bad thing and we should fight it.

But by the end of this speech– and by the way this crowed was not friendly: American University, probably 400 students. I would say 50 were on my side; 350 certainly were not– came in with these signs all in Spanish. I couldn’t read them. But they would just sit there holding these signs up. Then at the end they started screaming and yelling and getting obnoxious. But during the speech they were fairly pleasant, I mean they just sat there with these signs.

And then one guy screamed out at one point in time: “Well you know what we should have treated– the Indians should have treated us the same way that you are talking about treating other immigrants to the country.”

And I guess he was surprised by what he said. Because what I said was “You’re right. You are absolutely right. The Indians, the biggest mistake they made was accommodating us, if you want. The puritans. The pilgrims that followed them. Columbus later. And it led to their destruction. Undeniably true. Their society, their way of life ended. And the beginning of the end started the day the pilgrims set foot on Plymouth Rock. And I think it was Malcolm X that coined that phrase “We didn’t land on Plymouth Rock; Plymouth Rock landed on us.”

In fact, in Plymouth– in Massachusetts where Plymouth Rock supposedly exists, the town there has for the last 6 or 7 years– 5 or 7 years ago, I should say, put up a big sign that said “The Native Americans in this area don’t believe that we should be celebrating this day. They say it is the beginning of the end.” You would think that you would see something that said “Here is where the pilgrims landed.” No. It is this other thing to stress the fact that it was a bad deal for the Indians. Excuse me, Native Americans.

And you know what? It was. A lot of bad things happened to them. And they probably should have done something different. If they wanted to preserve their culture. They should have resisted the onslaught of these Westerners. They didn’t however except in scattered and uncoordinated opposition. They really didn’t do anything that was going to be significant enough to stop it. Here are 51 people. Okay. 51 people survived the first winter in Plymouth colony. And those 51 people, how could they have possibly overcome the advantages that the Native Americans there have just in numbers? The [pilgrims] could have been gone in the blink of an eye. Just like that. Why were they not? Why were they not. How come they were able to do what they did?

How were they able to prosper and expand, and more people came. And how come when Cortez came to the quote New World and landed and eventually ended up in what is now Mexico, of course, and was able to defeat a civilization that was centuries old–hundreds of thousands of–in fact millions of people made that civilization which he with 400 and some people conquered. How could this be?

Because of course the Indians who were here, the native Americans, the Aztecs and all the rest were not unified. They were enemies. They had been killing each other off because they were tribal and they were unable to get together and respond. Hence, they fell.

Now there were other reason of course. The cultural advantages–I mean the technological advantages of the people who came here. Let’s face it the people–the Native Americans had not even created the wheel. That is a problem when you face a civilization that comes with ships and guns.

[...]

They were, by the way this was not a society that was friendly to the land as we were led to believe. Remember that commercial of the Indian on a horse looking out over a, I don’t know, it was a highway in California or something. Trash was all over the place and this tear came to his eye. Let me tell you, my friends, the only reason that the trash wasn’t here when we got here was because nobody could make paper. It wasn’t because of this love for this pristine environment.

If you think that there is that within the Native American culture, please just go up and take a look at the roads at the Sioux Indian Reservation, the Crow reservation, almost any reservation in the United States. This is not– not necessarily, I mean some are better than others– but for the most part they are not models of a clean society. Lots of things happening here. And I don’t mean to put them down. I happen to really enjoy the Native American culture and appreciate what they were all about. But we have to be realistic about things and recognize that

when one culture, as I say, gets here with the technology that the West had at the time and faced a culture without that technology and there was a clash– probably no one is going to be too surprised which side
wins.

Now, the– but all that said– I am not telling you it is a good thing. It is just the way it was. And I think to tell you truth that perhaps people who live here today that were not, that did not come here voluntarily, I think that many of those people are lucky that they do live here even though their ancestors didn’t get here on the Mayflower. Mine certainly didn’t. But made the decision to come. But a lot of people didn’t. African Americans certainly. They for the most part, their relatives, their ancestors did not choose to come here.

Now the question that we have to ask ourselves and certainly African Americans have to ask themselves is: Are they better off as a result of the fact that they came under any conditions? And it does not mean for a second–let me reiterate– it does not for a second mean that slavery was a good thing, that we should be happy about it. It is a black mark on our society and all societies that have had it since the beginning of time. Or recorded time… It doesn’t mean it is good. Is someone better off today in the United States of America as a result that they came under–or are Native Americans better off as a result that people came here from the West and created the society that we have here? Or would they have been better off if that had not happened?

Everything is relative and depends on what you consider to be better, of course. But in terms of being thankful on Thanksgiving, I think probably everybody here could be thankful. No matter how they got here.

This guy sounds like a good candidate eventhough he is a Republican:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOmvUK6b0Yc[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSTdGC4z6io&NR=1&feature=fvwp[/ame]

Tom Tancredo

The Menace of Multiculturalism (A Summary)

The Ayn Rand Institute: Diversity and Multiculturalism: The New Racism

Pajamas Media Out-of-Control Multiculturalism at Berkeley High School

Collapse Of Society/Civilisation-Civil War-Chaos-Anarchy-Multiculturalism - Political Correctness - United Nations Treaties | Love for Life

Immigration and multiculturalism: Why are the conservatives silent?
 
Last edited:
If this isn't enough to make them enforce the laws already on the books, I don't know what it will take. We can not afford the illegals in anyway shape or form.

The monetary cost and the safety cost is ruining our once Great Country.
We who see and understand what is happening must do eveything we can to get this information out to everyone and anyone that we know or meet.

Arizona
Three cheers for the state of Arizona! Those who are demonstrating in Phoenix most likely are either illegal themselves or have family/close friends who are illegal. I say round them all up and check their IDs. Demonstrating against a new law that says it is illegal to be illegal is probable cause for arrest... in my opinion.

The following information IS compiled from Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security reports:

* 83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.

* 86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.

* 75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.

* 24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals

* 40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals

* 48.2% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals

* 29% (630,000) convicted illegal alien felons fill our state and federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually

* 53% plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.

* 50% plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens

* 71% plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by Illegal aliens or “transport coyotes".

* 47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens.

* 63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens

* 66% of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66% 98% are illegal aliens.

* 380,000 plus “anchor babies” were born in the US to illegal alien parents in just one year, making 380,000 babies automatically US citizens.

* 97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayers

Here are links on crime and Immigration that I have found:

New FBI Statistics on Crimes Committed by Illegal Aliens

Stats on Illegal Immigration - CNN iReport

$6 Billion a Year for Mexican “Anchor Babies?”

Impacts of Illegal Immigration: Crime Summary

Illegal aliens linked to rise in crime statistics

Impacts Of Illegal Immigration: Crime

Immigration Counters.com - Live Counters, News, Resources

CIP Americas Program | Truth about Illegal Immigration and Crime

Badnarik Constitution Class Part 3
 
It looks shopped.

they all do. including the one above
The size and the organization of these demonstrations cannot be denied, buy you see more than La Raza, and Hispanics, you see Union Made and printed signs, Union banners, and Union members, whites and blacks mixed in with the Hispanics. No denying this was on May 1st, or Revolutionary May Day a Communist Holiday. In America have we come to this point where apparantly a large group of hundreds of thousands are marching in league with communists and desire communism? I know many who identify with the tea party do so from the comfort of their arm chairs at home or on the internet and these people will show up at the polls and will vote. My father always advised me not to draw attention to yourself because you are exposing yourself to trouble, I agree with his wisdom but I disagree because at some point you have to stand up and fight, join with others of like mind and campaign. Our country is in danger of collapse, of being overthrown by communists who will bring oppression, and totalitarian control, gulags, re education camps, and firing squads to eliminate all opposition. Are we seeing the end times?

Look at europe, many older countries are tetering on collapse and overthrow by Islam, or communists - Greece, Spain and Portugal are in trouble, France with its socialists and islamic population, England has socialists and a large Islamic population as well, Germany seems solid, Italy has always had poor governments. These are dark days for Freedom, and for our country. Storm clouds are gathering it is like the years before World War II only this time we have no large industrial base, our faith in God has slipped, and we are in danger of losing control of our Republic. We are in trouble folks and it does not look good. There are natural and man made disasters. Beck has exposed an evil insidious communist scheme funded by trillions of dollars and our taxes. It is as if we are being closely stalked by a wild, poserful and hungry lion ready to pounce and eat us alive the minute we turn and notice. The question I ask is is it too late? Are we too late? Communists do not just leave you alone - even in the back woods they will track you down dig a hole, line you up and shoot you in the head then bury you! There will be no place to hide. Like that movie Red Dawn, only the communists will be our own people. We may like to believe we can go into the woods and become self sufficient - that is a fantasy - there is no place to run, and no place to hide. The cry is literally Liberty or Death!

LOL.... :D

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x0BSgLKnSk&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - "Twilight Zone" promo for "To Serve Man"[/ame]
 
Here is what I have been able to find so far. It does not say anything about the modern Puerto Rican invasion and impact on our smaller urban and rural communites. It is silent! And, yet it has happened/happening for the most part in many of our communities with the aid of local gov't agencies and our tax/deficit dollars....
Further proof of the subversion of America by Purto Rico, the global Elite and crooked progressive Republicrat politicians:

Using Bilingualism to Subvert America

Puerto Rico Democracy Act ? Legislation Biased in Favor of Statehood | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Sotomayor's Senate Questionnaire Released | 44 | washingtonpost.com

The Truth Seeker - How Communists Subverted America

http://web.gc.cuny.edu/iradac/conference/documents/Af-lat Dhouti.pdf

The Social Contract - Funding 'Demographic Warfare'

http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/2010/04/

Ethnic politics pushes and passes Puerto Rican Statehood Locust blog

http://politifi.com/news/A-shooting-in-Congress-wounds-state-lawmaker-242612.html

UNC Press - The Puerto Rican Nation on the Move: Identities on the Island and in the United States, by Jorge Duany. Introduction.

http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/pdf/377/37715102.pdf

09.02.12: Puerto Rico: Americanization, Assimilation and Diaspora through Literature and Film

Puerto Rico's Decolonization - Rubén Berríos Martínez

http://www.drclas.harvard.edu/revista/articles/view/1065

SEIU - Service Employees International Union - Search Results

Red Alert Raised in D.C. For Puerto Rican 'Dignity' March - PuertoRico.com Discussion Forum

Police State Bills:

The McCain-Lieberman Police State Act | Fog City Journal

Police State legislation, S.3081 introduced by McCain and Scott Brown Conservative Libertarian Outpost
 
Here is what I have been able to find so far. It does not say anything about the modern Puerto Rican invasion and impact on our smaller urban and rural communites. It is silent! And, yet it has happened/happening for the most part in many of our communities with the aid of local gov't agencies and our tax/deficit dollars....
Further proof of the subversion of America by Purto Rico, the global Elite and crooked progressive Republicrat politicians:

Using Bilingualism to Subvert America

Puerto Rico Democracy Act ? Legislation Biased in Favor of Statehood | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Sotomayor's Senate Questionnaire Released | 44 | washingtonpost.com

The Truth Seeker - How Communists Subverted America

http://web.gc.cuny.edu/iradac/conference/documents/Af-lat Dhouti.pdf

The Social Contract - Funding 'Demographic Warfare'

The Two Malcontents 2010 April

Ethnic politics pushes and passes Puerto Rican Statehood Locust blog

http://politifi.com/news/A-shooting-in-Congress-wounds-state-lawmaker-242612.html

UNC Press - The Puerto Rican Nation on the Move: Identities on the Island and in the United States, by Jorge Duany. Introduction.

http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/pdf/377/37715102.pdf

09.02.12: Puerto Rico: Americanization, Assimilation and Diaspora through Literature and Film

Puerto Rico's Decolonization - Rubén Berríos Martínez

http://www.drclas.harvard.edu/revista/articles/view/1065

SEIU - Service Employees International Union - Search Results

Red Alert Raised in D.C. For Puerto Rican 'Dignity' March - PuertoRico.com Discussion Forum

Police State Bills:

The McCain-Lieberman Police State Act | Fog City Journal

Police State legislation, S.3081 introduced by McCain and Scott Brown Conservative Libertarian Outpost
 
I don't trust CNN at all they seem to be more hellbent on sensational news than well news.

Also
Video: CNN Leaves It There | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

But anyway

"American wages are undercut by these workers"

This leads to cheaper goods for the rest of the US.

Overcrowded classrooms has no source.

Oh and 30% of all prisoners is not 1/3 but hey last year blacks were 41% of the death row population so I guess we need to keep them out as well.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Key Facts at a Glance Death row by race

Compared to the rest of the spending $12 billion, $17 billion seems like chump change.

Your clip of Comedy Central is a spoof. Comedy Central's parent company competes with CNN's parent. Your defense against the facts sounds desparate, like you are trying to cover yourself. It is posts like yours that turn me away from human rights issues to get the freeloaders out of here. I'm tired of paying for their ride. Nations that over-populate are pigs. Now, you have me rethinking this Arizona law. It will be interesting to see where the chips are going to fall.


overpopulation2.jpg

So you're going to change your opinion out of spite, instead of any real reason? You're pathetic.

Speaking of over-populating how do you determine when a place is over-populated exactly? Methinks you just have some arbitrary number.

All he has to do is consult John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar.
 
Your clip of Comedy Central is a spoof. Comedy Central's parent company competes with CNN's parent. Your defense against the facts sounds desparate, like you are trying to cover yourself. It is posts like yours that turn me away from human rights issues to get the freeloaders out of here. I'm tired of paying for their ride. Nations that over-populate are pigs. Now, you have me rethinking this Arizona law. It will be interesting to see where the chips are going to fall.


overpopulation2.jpg

So you're going to change your opinion out of spite, instead of any real reason? You're pathetic.

Speaking of over-populating how do you determine when a place is over-populated exactly? Methinks you just have some arbitrary number.

All he has to do is consult John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar.
I would not say that to my new neighbors who our gov't is helping to pay for their house and new car with the three SSI checks each of their kids get for being learning disable because no one in the home can speak anything but Puerto Rican. They got off the bus and were moved in just prior to the last election along with many others of them being placed throughtout the community.... Many people in the community are not too happy about it all. Half my street has started to look like a third world country.
 
Your clip of Comedy Central is a spoof. Comedy Central's parent company competes with CNN's parent. Your defense against the facts sounds desparate, like you are trying to cover yourself. It is posts like yours that turn me away from human rights issues to get the freeloaders out of here. I'm tired of paying for their ride. Nations that over-populate are pigs. Now, you have me rethinking this Arizona law. It will be interesting to see where the chips are going to fall.


overpopulation2.jpg

So you're going to change your opinion out of spite, instead of any real reason? You're pathetic.

Speaking of over-populating how do you determine when a place is over-populated exactly? Methinks you just have some arbitrary number.

All he has to do is consult John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar.
A Communist in the White House:

John Holdren, President Obama's "science czar," served on the board of editors of a magazine whose personnel were accused of providing vital nuclear information that helped the Soviet Union build an atom bomb.

The magazine, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, has a long history of employing socialist and communist sympathizers, including during the time of Holdren's employment in 1984, reports the New Zeal blog.

Holdren is assistant to the president for science and technology, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and co-chairman of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists began publishing regularly in 1945, when it was founded by former physicists from the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bomb.

Two of the magazine's founding sponsors, Leo Szilard and Robert Oppenheimer, were accused of passing information from the Manhattan Project to the Soviets. Both were also key initiators of the Manhattan Project.

In 1994, Pavel Sudoplatov, a former major-general in Soviet intelligence, named Szilard and Oppenheimer as key sources of crucial atomic information to the Soviet Union.

"The most vital information for developing the first Soviet atomic bomb came from scientists engaged in the Manhattan Project to build the American atomic bomb – Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi and Leo Szilard," wrote Sudoplatov.

Sudoplatov wrote the Soviet Union "received reports on the progress of the Manhattan Project from Oppenheimer and his friends in oral form, through comments and asides, and from documents transferred through clandestine methods with their full knowledge that the information they were sharing would be passed on."

Indeed, Oppenheimer was accused in Senate hearings of bringing communists into the Manhattan Project. He brought his brother Frank and three former graduate students into the project, all of whom, according to Senate hearings, were well known to him to be "members of the Communist Party or closely associated with activities of the Communist Party."

Oppenheimer admitted he knew by August 1943 that two of the scientists working under him were Communist Party members. Three of five scientists under Oppenheimer's direct supervision were accused of leaking secret information about the atomic bomb to the Soviets.

On Oct. 25, 1945, Oppenheimer met with President Truman at the White House, urging him to surrender the U.S. nuclear monopoly to international control. Truman was outraged, reportedly telling Secretary of State Dean Acheson, "I don't want to see that son-of-a-b*tch in this office ever again."

Magazine used for 'Soviet propaganda'

Oppenheimer and Szilard were stripped of their work in the Manhattan Project, but they continued to use the Bulletin to petition for the U.S. to surrender its nuclear arsenal to international control. According to Sudoplatov, this kind of work was for the benefit of the Soviets.

"[Soviet politician and security chief Lavrentiy] Beria said we should think how to use Oppenheimer, Szilard and others around them in the peace campaign against nuclear armament. Disarmament and the inability to impose nuclear blackmail would deprive the United States of its advantage," wrote Sudoplatov.

Sudoplatov said his spymasters knew the lobby efforts of the Bulletin editors would be a "crucial factor in establishing the new world order after the war, and we took advantage of this."

Another Bulletin founding sponsor, Edward U. Condon, was mentioned by FBI director J. Edgar Hoover in a May 1947 letter as having contact with an alleged spy who had passed information to the Soviets from 1941 to 1944.

Holdren worked alongside communist sympathizers

At the time Holdren worked on the Bulletin in 1984, communist and socialist sympathizers still occupied the magazine's masthead.

The New Zeal blog notes the Bulletin's board of directors in 1984 included:

Board chairman Aaron Adler, who also served on the board of the Chicago Center for U.S./USSR Relations and Exchanges, alongside Larry McGurty of the Communist Party USA. Adler was also a member of what New Zeal labels a Communist Party front, the Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights. He was also involved in a committee to celebrate the 100th birthday of Communist Party member Paul Robeson.

Bernard Weissbourd, a former Manhattan Project scientist who later served on the transition oversight committee for incoming Chicago Mayor Harold Washington, who was active in Communist Party fronts. Weissbourds' son, Robert M. Weissbourd, later served as chairman of the Obama for America Campaign Urban and Metropolitan Policy Committee and on the Obama Transition Housing and Urban Development Agency Review Team in 2008.

Ruth Adams, Bulletin editor, who served in the 1960s on the Advisory Committee of the Hyde Park Community Peace Center. Other Center members included lifelong communist front activist Robert Havighurst, communist activist and radical Trotskyist Sydney Lens and Quentin Young, an avowed communist who has advised Obama on health care.

Surrender to planetary regime

Holdren, meanwhile, has been a longtime climate-change alarmist who has advocated ideas such as enforcing limits to world population growth.

Holdren's name was in the e-mails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K., which show that some climate researchers declined to share their data with fellow scientists, conspired to rig data and sought to keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals.

FrontPageMag.com noted Holdren has endorsed "surrender of sovereignty" to "a comprehensive Planetary Regime" that would control all the world's resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee the "de-development" of the West, control a world army and taxation regime, and enforce world population limits.

Holdren collaborated with conspiracy theorist Paul Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb" in which it was proclaimed: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines – hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death."

Holdren also predicted 1 billion people will die in "carbon-dioxide-induced famines" in a coming new ice age by 2020.

Holdren based his prediction on a theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide would produce a climate catastrophe causing global cooling, with a consequent reduction in agricultural production resulting in widespread disaster.

But Holdren also argued "global warming" might cancel global cooling. In their 1970s textbook "Ecoscience: Population, Resources and Environment," last revised in 1977, Holdren and co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich argued on page 687 that "a man-made warming trend might cancel out a natural cooling trend."

Holdren gave a clear indication of his philosophical views in the 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich. [1] In its pages, the authors noted, "The neo-Malthusiasn view proposes...population limitation and redistribution of wealth." They concluded, "On these points, we find ourselves firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp" (p. 954).

Economist Thomas Malthus is one of the most literally anti-human theorists in human history. He viewed overpopulation as the fount of all woe, but one which could be staunched with enough blood. In "An Essay on the Principle of Population" Malthus wrote, "All the children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons...if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use...and court the return of the plague." Like their intellectual forebear, Holdren and the Ehrlichs proposed their own acceptable sacrifice to the environment.

Compulsory Abortion for American Women

The trio prescribed a rigidly enforced, government-imposed limit of two children per family. Holdren and the Ehrlichs maintained "there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated." Hiding behind the passive voice, they note, "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." (Emphasis added.) To underscore they mean business, they conclude, "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" (PP. 837-838). Moreover, if the United States government refuses to take proper measures, they authorize the United Nations to take compelling force.

"A Comprehensive Planetary Regime"

Holdren believed a world government might play a moderate role in the future: setting and enforcing appopriate population levels, taxing and redistributing the world's wealth, controlling the world's resources, and operating a standing World Army.

Such a comprehensive Plenetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable...not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes...The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade...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. (p. 943.)

Part of the power wielded by this "Regime" would be in the form of a World Army. The trio wrote that the United States must destroy all its nuclear arsenal. But this would not render us defenseless against Communist aggression. "Security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force...The first step necessarily involves partial surrender
of sovereignty to an international organization" (p. 917, emphasis added).

Far from distancing himself from this wooly-headed notion as he matured, Holdren explicitly reaffirmed it in his 1995 Nobel Prize acceptance speech on behalf of Pugwash, declaiming, "The post-Cold-War world needs a more powerful United Nations, probably with a standing volunteer force -- owing loyalty directly to the UN rather than to contingents from individual nations." As recently as last January, he told the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) the world needs "a universal prohibition on nuclear weapons, coupled with means to ensure confidence in compliance." (Emphasis added.)

U.S. Blood and Treasure for the UN

The redistribution of blood and treasure were high priorities for Holdren, et. al. They advised the "de-development of overdeveloped countries...should be given top priority" (p. 926), and such nations -- e.g., the United States and the developed West -- should "divert their excess productivity into helping the poorer people of the world rather than exploiting them" (p. 931).

How much wealth redistribution would be sufficient? The authors favorably cited a proposal that "the rich nations devote 20 percent of their GNPs for ten or fifteen years to the task of population control and development of the poor countries." They comment, "We believe an effort of this magnitude is not only justified but essential." (p. 925). Reaffirming the goal in his 1995 Nobel speech, he stretched this to a program "sustained over several decades." (Emphasis added.)

He detailed the mechanism for global socialism just two years ago. In a February 2007 report of which he was a coordinating lead author, urges the United Nations to undertake "a global framework" that is "more comprehensive and ambitious" than the Kyoto Protocol. Holdren states the UN must mandate "A requirement for the early establishment of a substantial price on carbon emissions in all countries, whether by a carbon tax or a tradable permit approach." Although he prefers a global carbon tax presided over by a United Nations-strength IRS, he is open to a stringent global cap-and-trade program. However, that program must contain: "A means for transferring some of the revenue produced by carbon taxes upon, or permits purchased by, countries and consumers with high incomes and high per capita emissions to countries and consumers with low incomes and low per capita emissions" (PP. 70-72). (Emphases in original.)

Every Man a Duke

His thirst for economic redistribution (read: socialism) is not limited to foreign affairs. In a chapter of Ecoscience entitled "Changing American Institutions," Holdren and the Ehrlichs call for a "considerably more equitable distribution of wealth and income" in the United States, offering in passing, "Possibly this would be achieved by some formal mechanism" (p. 875). Might that mechanism perchance be government force? The text praises an economist's plan to limit American achievement at a $100,000 maximum annual salary, or just under $350,000 in 2009 dollars, adjusted for inflation (p. 850). Such would be the most socialistic proposal made in modern times. Even Huey Long allowed men a million dollars a year, in 1934.

"The Meanest of Wealthy Countries"

But the intervening years have not been pleasant ones for such as Holdren. In a 1995 article co-written with Paul Ehrlich, he lists among the factors preventing a "sustainable" world such "Underlying human frailties" as "Greed, selfishness, intolerance, and shortsightedness." These, he expounds, "collectively have been elevated by conservative political doctrine and practice (above all in the United States in 1980 92) to the status of a credo."

Holdren blasted his country last January before the AAAS as "the stingiest among all" wealthy nations in its development of the Third World, making us "the meanest of wealthy countries." He summed up his view of the U.S. budget by favorably quoting Robert Kates: "Too much for warfare, too little for welfare."

Making You Poorer For Your Own Good

The function of such welfare is twofold: to enrich citizens of the Global South and to impoverish Americans for their own good. In a 2006 paper, Holdren noted that reducing "GDP per person" -- that is, cutting your personal wealth -- also reduces Greenhouse Gas emissions. True, it is "not a lever that most people would want to use to reduce emissions"; "People are not getting rich as fast as they think, however, if GDP growth is being achieved at the expense of the environmental underpinnings of well-being" (PP. 15-16).

Holdren addressed the economic costs of his massive restructuring of the economy some 32 years ago, acknowledging it "will entail considerable retraining and temporary unemployment in the workforce" (p. 853). Yet he continues to support economy-crushing energy taxation. In a 1997 press conference, he surmised that if alternative energy sources were to get a foothold, either they "would have to get a great deal cheaper, which seems unlikely, or natural gas would have to get considerably more expensive. The latter is actually a good idea." One is hardly encouraged to learn that last December, environmentalist Dr. James Hansen sent a four-page letter via Holdren to "Michelle and Barack." (Hansen wrote it as surgeons in Vienna placed a stent in his wife's chest following an unexpected heart attack.) His personal note to "John" states, "When gasoline hits $4-5/gallons again, most of that should be tax." Five months earlier, Holdren rated Hansen "one of the most distinguished climate scientists in the world."

Anti-Military, Anti-Christian Statements

Dr. James Hansen may be in Holdren's good graces, but neither the military nor the Apostle Paul are. Holdren and company warn, "Civilians should realize that peace and freedom from tension are not viewed as an ideal situation by many members of the military-industrial-government complex. By and large, professional military officers, especially field grade and higher, hope for an end to international tensions about as fervently as farmers hope for drought" (p. 918).

And in their eyes, what soldiers are to war, Jesus is to the climate. "The Christian concept of life in this world, as voiced by Saint Paul, that 'here we have no abiding city,' for example, conceivably could help explain why some people show rather little concern for the long-term future of the global environment or for the well-being of future generations" (p. 807).

P.S.: He's Frequently Wrong

With a values system like this, it should come as little surprise that Holdren is frequently mistaken about his alleged field of specialization, environmental science -- often tremendously so. As with Ehrlich, he has been predicting global catastrophes since the 1970s, beginning with the global cooling scare. Modern critics have noted his role in Paul Ehrlich's famous wager with Julian Simon: Holdren chose five metals that he believed would be more expensive in ten years' time due to scarcity, while Simon predicted each would be less expensive. A decade hence, Ehrlich's group was $1,000 poorer (a chance to reduce their carbon footprint, perhaps). Holdren advised Al Gore on An Inconvenient Truth, a film that by one scholar's count contained 10 pages of falsehoods, exaggerations, distortions, and ignored evidence.

And there is the little matter of his prediction a billion people will die within the next 11 years.

Paul Ehrlich recorded that in 1986 Holdren predicted "carbon dioxide-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020." Holdren reiterated this view in Newsweek just two years ago. When he faced Senate questioning this February 12, only one man, Sen. David Vitter, R-LA, dared to ask him about his failed predictions. The Washington Post reported Holdren's response as a brilliant riposte, artfully parrying the query. On the contrary, the transcript shows Holdren actually reaffirmed that he still believes one billion people may die within the next 11 years from a climate-related drought:


Vitter: So you would stick to that statement?
Holdren: I don't think it's likely. I think we should invest effort - considerable effort - to reduce the likelihood further.

Vitter: So you would stick to the statement that it could happen?
Holdren: It could happen, and ...

Vitter: One billion by 2020?
Holdren: It could.


Vitter managed to show Holdren was wrong on yet another front: just two years ago, he wrote that current emissions levels could cause the a 13-foot rise in sea levels. Under cross-examination, Holdren admitted science's most dire estimates are now half as much as Holdren pronounced just two years ago. Yet this "expert" will have the ear of the president in setting scientific policy.

Criticizing Holdren = "Crimes Against Humanity"?

Holdren reacts to correction the way a rattlesnake reacts to sudden movement: with velocity and venom. As long ago as the early 1970s, he and Paul Ehrlich engaged in a campaign to silence fellow radical Barry Commoner, a onetime fringe presidential candidate, because the latter viewed technology as more damaging than overpopulation. More recently, he co-authored a scathing, 11-page attack against Bjorn Lomborg for having the temerity to question Green-Left orthodoxy. Yet that pales in comparison to his view of some global warming "deniers."

Last July 3, as an advisor to the Obama campaign, Holdren appeared on the radical program "Democracy Now!" hosted by Amy Goodman. Goodman asked him about comments made by his friend Dr. James Hansen (see above). Specifically, Hansen said, "large energy companies are guilty of crimes against humanity, if they continue to dispute what is understood scientifically and to fund contrarians, and if they push us past tipping points that end up destroying many species on the planet and having a huge impact on humanity itself." Goodman asked Holdren if he agreed "the CEOs of large energy companies are guilty of, should be tried for crimes against humanity?"

Holdren replied: "I couldn't really say. I'm not qualified to assess what the heads of oil companies, past or present, have done in this domain. My understanding is that Exxon, in particular, did fund a variety of small think tanks to generate what amounts to propaganda against understanding of what climate change was doing, the human role in causing it. Whether that sort of activity really constitutes crimes against humanity is something for people more embedded in the legal system than I to judge." He went on to say heads of oil companies now were more "enlightened" on carbon emissions, so "I guess I would find the statement that all oil company CEOs, past and present, are guilty of crimes against humanity is maybe a little bit over the top." (Emphasis added.)

In other words, he hedged his bets, pleaded that he was not a legal scholar, but still held out that at least some of the CEOs may well be guilty of crimes against humanity. His reply to whether American citizens should be tried for a capital offense because they exercised their First Amendment rights to disagree with him was a firm maybe.

Google John Holdren and communist associates to find many other disturbing facts about this Obama Czar. He is pure EVIL.

What are your thoughts?
 

Forum List

Back
Top