Anyone that talks about forced abortions is sick. Whether it's carried out now, or if population "gets out of control" as many eugenicists say. The world has plenty of room for more people. John P. Holdren is disgusting. No wonder he is Obama's science czar. They are carrying out their eugenics operation.
White House science czar John P. Holdren, who infamously co-wrote a 1977 textbook in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children. THIS GUY IS THE REAL LIVING SATAN....i hope he suffers a long painful death
John Holdren is Obama's appointed Science Czar. Like all Czars, they were not approved by the Senate, which is unconstitutional. He advocated in his book "Ecoscience", sterilization of the human population by adding a sterilization drug to the food and water supply and the government taking babies away from single mom's. GOOGLE “zombietime john holdren” and click on link.
They won't need to put sterilants in the water. Sterilants are being inserted into the staple food, which is corn, that has genetically modified by Monsanto.
the banks are going to force the population down anyway... population control will be a covert approach. Starting with banks impovershing the population, and controlling the issuance of credit. (which they already do)
It does not justify that he supports it in some instances. He either supports it or not. Anyone who supports the New World Order and dehumanization will go to prison indefinitely.
I agree with all with what you've said, however what really is so wrong with an abortions policy? It has done a great deal of good for china, most of the Chinese accept it and it gets done peacefully and privatly too.
@simplybornhuman yea, they eat the fetus too. Great. good for health... When ever you force someone to pay for something they dont believe in, it is a tyrannical measure.
social security is a good example. I didn't sign up for it. How can anyone force you to do anything that you didn't sign up for?
The only people who should be steralized are the people who have these severely disturbing views, I dont care what happens in the world these things should never even be considered! this is no longer america and the constitution has and still continues to be twisted or completely ignored i have no doubt that these things will be forced upon people not just here but world wide! what can we do about it? I don't know that anything can be done, to me we are to far gone!
just like with the Obiter Dictum blog's mistake of citing Leed's or Lead's incorrect citation of a satire piece about Obama's supposed college thesis, the right is always willing to make a formal correction, whereas the major media generally does not. It takes courage to admit you're mistaken, and it takes effort to cite your statements correctly.
People like this do not realize all of the factors that go into population growth.
As education level goes up then birth rates go down and the education level of the world is going up, allthough its not going to shrink anytime soon.
I think those that worry about the world population should focus their energies on advocating the development of technology to increase the quality of life in a world full of people (archologies, self sustainable communities etc) and of course increasing education.
The very fact that the man thinks like that is a sign of a disturbing character trait! Jeezzzz........ Why is someone like that anywhere near the Whitehouse.. and his later comments are just CYA.
And, Sen Vitter DID question Holdren extensively on the book Holdren coauthored when he was 26. See tinyurl(.)com/HoldrenHrg
So, AGAIN, you not only fail to back up your original claim that Holdren is "for forced abortions," but you also fail to back up your revised claim that he "supports ... forced abortions ... in certain instances."
Or, can you provide a QUOTE in which Holdren says that?"
I hope that helps clear up your misunderstanding and
Finally, the main other argument in your video, is a false dilemna you create at 4:43 in which you say Holdren's Senate confirmation testimony is either "contradicting the entire premise of his book" or "not being truthful," but, even if you just look at the Politifact article, Holdren says he "NO LONGER thinks it's productive to focus on optimum population" so Holdren specifically says he changed his mind on that point (which was NOT the "entire premise of his book.")
"The authors argue that compulsory abortions could potentially be allowed under U.S. law 'if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.' Again, that's a far cry from advocating or proposing such a position"
Also, as a minor correction, the statement you read at 1:38 is provided by Holdren's office, but actually comes from the coauthors. Holdren's own statement is in the paragraph above.
Similarly, your argument is not supported by your citation to the legal analysis of Johnson Montgomery cited in the book because AGAIN that legal analysis only says compulsory abortions COULD BE Constitutional which is NOT the same as saying he SUPPORTS them, so youre still wrong to say he "supports ... forced abortions ... in certain instances." Moreover, at 11:38 you complain about a lack of footnotes while ignoring footnotes 74-76. Even the Politifact article says:
limiting child tax deductions to the first kids or giving tax incentives for late marriages and small families. So, saying "population control" is the same as "involuntary fertility control" misses several pages of the book which explains why you were wrong to say Holdren "supports ... forced abortions ... in certain instances."
You try to support your latest claim at 5:26 by giving false definitions to the terms "family planning" and "population control" where you make "population control" mean "coercive" measures like forced abortion. If you read the section on "Population control" staring on page 783, however, you will see they discuss not just the possibility of "involuntary fertility control," but also policies like educating people about the need for smaller families,
I appreciate your retraction of your claim that Holdren is "for forced abortions," but I don't think you can even support your claim at 0:45 that the argument you were REALLY making was that Holdren "supports ... forced abortions ... in certain instances" (though the argument you were REALLY making was, and I quote, that Holdren is "for forced abortions.").
it doesn't matter if the technology exists for population control nor does it matter if he would support forced abortions under current conditions. The fact is, he NEVER denounced his statements. All he did was throw out excuses.
@therealoneGOP It's amazing that you would think people believe that you are really anything other than a lefty propagandist smearing right wingers with your deceptive posts. The only one's using racist terms are lefties like you.
The current population problems in the globe at present are centered in India and China. I have little doubt that China will institute further draconian population control measures of it's own design. India may never do so. YOUR disbelief in population control under any conditions merely illustrates your stupidity. What happens when the bacteria in the petri dish eat all the agar? They DROWN in their own SHIT. If you have children, teach them how to kill...they'll need the skills...
I've seen the vast lands which are unpopulated... I live amung several, and I don't think we as Americans have a population problem, we have a dispersion problem. People tend to collect in major cities rather than expand into other areas, so the cities are crowded and there is tons of empty unfarmed space.
In some countries there are population problems, but just the same, globally there are plenty of places, we merely must expand to areas unpopulated.
that wouldn't be such a problem if we didn't give power to con-artists and self righteous charlatans who use that power to tell us that we cannot inhabit that land, for we are not financially powerful, thus politically influential and thus even more financially powerful corporate interests. so we find ourselves with little choice but to be confined to apartments, condos and townhouse developments.
no... actually, there is a ton of land for dirt cheap in Wyoming, and likely in the western desert (not the Dugway area) of Utah, probably cheap land too... if you look in Google Earth, you'll see small crops in sparatic places, showing it can be useful land... however most of the idiots huddle like groupies to the big cities and believe they can't live anywhere else without being rich.
land owned by the state of wyoming for dirt cheap or land owned by individuals. in montgomery county, maryland there was lots of vacant "public" land that is now being sold out to developers left and right.
Don't let the Left hide in the minutia. In the end, all the qualifiers you ceded to are irrelevant in the context of your original analysis.
When in offense mode, the Left commandeer as much corrupted government force as they can get away with to proselytize their lies and slander anyone who publicly notices.
Then, in defense mode, they ape civilized man just long enough to have you retract and apologize, and they do so using the disintegration techniques of an ambulance chaser.
Our freedoms are under assualt from this administration everyday.
Obama took an oath (twice) to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies both foriegn and domestic. He violates that oath with every new spending bill, new gov't take over and new law he and his cohorts in Congress devise.
He is in the process of fundamentally transforming this nation into something that will look more like Mao's China.
If Holdren feels that overpopulation is a problem, and if he really wants to alleviate that problem, he can start by castrating himself and do us all a favor.
Most liberals have people's best interest at heart, but they usually have little respect for(economic) freedom.
I think we are already well beyond the carrying capacity of the earth without the use of fossil fuels or a suitable replacement. It's likely that oil production peaked in 2005 and it will be interesting to see if a suitable replacement comes along to make up the shortfall when the plateau turns into decline and what the price point will be. Energy is going to become more expensive.
The upside to peak oil is that globalization as we know it (shipping stuff all over looking for cheap labor) will become more expensive and good jobs will come back home. I am for free markets and trade, but it should be wealth of nations style trading, not what we have been doing. I look forward to a future of growth in local manufacturing, food production and the return of rail and water shipping. Can you imagine driving on roads not clogged with 18 wheelers!
Christo, those would be some of the most poorly maintained roads in the last 100 years. The only reason they are maintained so highly is because they are necessary for commerce. Of course, we'd see a shift to rail travel for passengers as well and I'm all for that, so it's not like it's a bad idea (especially since it would kill short flights and the airlines could go back to being profitable instead of sucking off the government teat).
Air travel is going to need a new source of energy if they are going to survive.
Shipping by barge uses 1/35 of the energy that trucks use. Trucks are so inefficient that it's 35x more efficient to ship stuff down to panama on the pac and up the atlantic seaboard than straight across the continent. Long trains going long distance are also more efficient, but not by as much.
The local highways will still be important for local shipping. The idea that it was more efficient to build something thousands of miles from where it was going to be consumed was just a short sighted stupid thing to do and the result of poor management of our oil supplies. The north sea is a perfect case study for mismanagement of a rare precious resource. The British people were robbed of a huge resource that could have sustained them for generations.
If Erhlich is one of his co-authors...I'd be tempted to believe those views were those of Erhlich. Paul Erhlich is one of the looniest futurists ever. Look up his famous bet with Julian Simon! All of this over-population bullshit has been debunked over and over. Julian Simon's The Ultimate Resource 2 is the best work ever written on the subject!
Attempting to coerce populations into certain action is a dangerous thing to do. I don't even know if water filtration plants even get all the hormone changing shit and prescription drugs out of the urine they collect, and then to think on top of that I could get stuff to screw with my reproductive qualities. Awesome. Great. Goddammit.
If education was in the hands of the flexible, traditional family structure, perhaps generations of people could be taught not to f*ck so much. The problem behind population growth is simple, we're f*cking too much, too young, without enough protection (that can damage you, like some birth control), without whatever. The only answer to these issues is the traditional style couple understanding in their own minds not to engage in 'risky' behavior that causes childbearing.
Hey I'm no genius, but in general I think it's a bad human option to allow somebody who could feasibly give birth to a "normal" child to choose whether or not to have the baby killed. Geeze we're in a weird world. Things such as leftist, statist social engineering scares me more than being operated on by a drunk surgeon.
I will be honest, a certain amount of population control is needed especially with the amount of insanity that pregancy support gives in drugs etc, you have people with 6, 7, 8, some even 10 children, i mean, seriously how can this be fair on those kids?
Look at WWII 50 million people died in 6 years. That is 10 million a year there is no way people who believe the world is being overpopulated with that statistic :)
When Obama eliminates the opposition party and takes over the country like his role model Karl Marx then Holdren will be promoted to Doctor Mengele Jr. and he will create the ideal US citizen in his lab.
Testicles and Vaginas will be optional and only granted if the State needs more drones.
Eric Keroack went around giving free drugs to people that weren't his patients. Mark R. Dybul took funds out of AIDS prevention and put them into abstinence programs. Elliott Abrams was highly involved in the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempts. There are many more, and they where all Bush's "czars". Why didn't the press or Glenn Beck go after these guys?
Glenn Beck at the very most gave Bush a slap on the wrist, whereas with Obama, he's been firing Nuke after Nuke. I'm not saying Obama is an awesome president, but it seems that there is a skewed perspective when Beck talks.
Worst President ever is Andrew Jackson. You want to talk about someone who tried to take over the government, it was him. He was also a mass murder.
Jobs can't be made out of thin air, Reagon taught us that. A President can be doing more than spending every making minute trying to get companies to hire.
I will never trust the private market to put lives ahead of profit, it doesn't happen. The free market is great for selling stuff like computers and clothes, but not human welfare.
I am against most regulations, but there are regulations that need to put in place, i.e. keeping lenders from lying to consumers in order to sell sub-prime mortgages.
There is another crucial part you missed, and that is lending. No matter how low taxes are or how lax regulations are, if people can't borrow money then they have an extremely hard time expanding. The biggest source of job loss has been directly linked to banks not lending and the government cannot force them too.
failt, do you also support jailing customers who lied to lenders and made up imaginary "2nd incomes" that didn't exist so they could meet the requirements for the home/car they wanted to buy?
Well first I think the lenders should be able to verify income sources of customers. As they say, if it's taxed, it's public. Secondly if the customer is guilty of fraud, then yes I believe they should be punished in any manner the courts decide.
The problem was unscrupulous lending and enormous risk taking on the part of lenders. I'm not saying the consumer wasn't without fault, but the banks went out of their way to encourage that behavior. I agree that congress should have foreseen this crisis and done something to stop it, but to suggest that the government was solely responsible for the burst is ignorant. I believe an educated consumer will make the right decision but if lenders are aloud to misconstrue their contracts then its sham
excellent points, so would you consider it unjust if the neighbors of individuals who would have their homes foreclosed as a result of poor banking decisions decided not to let anyone remove their neighbor from their home? after all the banks got bailouts, had they not, they would have found themselves indebted to their depositors. i say we rise up, it's time for a revolution my friend!
these are all things work best when people do them for themselves, individually or locally where people can put themselves in charge of it rather than being at the mercy of a "higher power" that may or may not care to do it properly and can only do it at their own expense anyway.
OK, Eric Keroack was some sort of christian right nutso. I don't like him either.
Mark R. Dybul was openly gay and tasked with AIDS programs. That he diverted funds to support abstinence doesn't seem unreasonable. Abstinence DOES prevent and control AIDS. He seems like a guy BO would like.
Elliott Abrams was accused of involvement in the Venezuelan coup attempt but was cleared. Frankly, I wish they had removed Chavez.
None of these guys were Marxist, Maoist or anti American.
So it's not Maoist to overthrow a government on the grounds of "we don't like them"? I don't like Chavez either, but you can't oust him without cause.
Keroack was an extremist anyway you slice it.
Abstinence is a way of preventing AIDS, but it's affects are minimal. For some reason telling people they can't have sex doesn't excite them. Taking funding away from programs that actually help to prevent AIDS to support an effort that is minimal at best, undermines the effort.
As far as I can tell, Chavez took all the legal steps in his country to take power the way he did. I don't like it, but the cold hard truth is, he is still very popular there and it's up the Venezuelan people to decide that they want him out, not the American public.
Again with Honduras, I didn't like the guy, but you can't have your military going rogue and deciding on who runs the country. That's how Pakistan got to where it is, and how Gaddafi got into power.
Overpopulation is a problem that always fixes itself anyway. Sooner or later you run out of resources, and then the population will go down on its own.
So what is the conservative argument then? The finite Earth can support infinite people living infinitely wealthy lifestyles?
At some point, maybe now, maybe not for a long time, some critical resources could start to go rare. This could lead to less for everyone (lower quality of life) if we decided to share. If not, it could lead to conflict or even world war.
But if people are educated as they are in U.S., birthrates naturally decline, no government necessary.
Yes cause socially the limit on children China put on people has been very acceptable the world over. It isn't about education either
The US has MORE then enough room for people to live, but no one wants to move out to where there is room (Montana one of the largest states has the lowest population to size of any state)
You already have population control in one form. Three words World of Warcraft
If there is any kind of threat as population continues to grow, then I don't see why it should disturb you that some form of limits be put into place. It's like the famous "commons problem" here, where each individual wants to maximize his own right to have as many kids as he or she wants, but in so doing global resources are over-consumed and all eventually suffer from the compounding of acting their own rational self interests. This argument is often used against communism, is it invalid here?
They are already testing out this population control measures in third world countries through the use of vaccines, which causes sterilization, or death of an unborn baby.
They are already soft killing us here in the US, with fluoride, and fluoridated water, which was used as a rat poison and is more toxic than lead. Also Mercury has been found in like 5 out of 10 products that contain high fructose corn syrup.
I think the swine flu vaccines will be the real population control method though
Brushing ur teeth with it & Drinkin it r not the same there buddy. especially sence you toothpaste says if you swallow it to contact poison control. but the same active ingredient is in our water supply & comes from the toxic waste created by the aluminum smelting plants.
if you think Flouride is good to drink you go right ahead & drink up. but Nazis put the same thing into the water of the concentration camps to pacify the jew ...maybe thats y we havn't seen a 2nd american revolution yet lol
You're saying that the government is actively funding the pacification of the population and they've not only been able to keep anyone from blowing the whistle, but also keep missing money from being seen on the books. Doubt it.
NO the govt is not actively funding the pacification of the population. they are actively funding the "improvment of dental heath" through the use of NaFl in the water. all they had to do was use some lobbists to pay off the dentists in the same way Pharma pay off Drs. to prescribe certain drugs to patients, or even to promote a brand of cigarettes. Dumping NaFl into the water is also an easy way to get ride of the toxic waste that would otherwise be very costly to dispose of.
Great point near the end where they try to say "because the constitution didnt say anything about it, it means we can say what you need to do on it". Its a ludacris way of thinking. The constitution also didnt talk about when I can go to the bathroom. Can the government come and regulate that because the constitution didnt talk about it? Ludacris. Good job Lee.
This reminds me of the interview that then Illinois State Senator Obama had on Chicago Radio where he said the constitution was a document of "negative rights." The leftists want a document that we are beholden to that outlines what the government MUST or CAN do. But that's not the Constitution...yet. I'm sure they have a plan. The leftists have been playing their hand well. They have been lining up their pieces and are waiting for everything to be in place before they go for the checkmate.
I know the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the right of a woman to have an abortion. Can anyone provide a citation where the court affirmatively states a woman has a right to have a child?
The Constitution does not give rights. It mandates what the government SHALL do (the Articles of Constitution) and what it MAY NOT do (The Bill of Rights).
The Articles are pretty lean on the Shall part, and pretty broad on the May part-- the government is obligated to do very little in the Constitution, and permitted to do only a tiny bit more.
The handy-dandy Bill of Rights also gives the Ninth Amendment: I have every right not expressly forbidden by the rest of the Constitution. I think that would include, and has been held to include, the right to run my family and home the way I would like.
So, John Holdren does support forced abortions? If population gets too high, who would decide this? And who would be the ones to decide who is forced to get an abortion?
The US population would have to exceed 2 billion for us to consider population control. Even if we sucked up all the fuel in the world we would still have the most important resource, food and water. The very fact that we supply 1.7 billion people outside the US with food should give us enough leeway to not have to worry about population problems for some time.
At 2 billion people, the US will be a critical mass as far as what we can sustain. Sure we could just let people starve and die, but some how I think people might get upset at that.
But like I said, the idea that we would need population control is a long way off.
Does anyone else find the irony in Mao's state of "Of all things, people are most precious"? This quote coming from a man that committed mass murder, and he is who the Left looks to for inspiration. Lovely!!!
The left doesn't turn to Mao. I, myself, look to the works of Clausewitz and Thomas Paine as my political inspirations. The comments of Dunn are disconcerting to be sure, but I haven't seen her act in anyway that would support his authoritarian views.
It's still insane that Holdren would support these measures under ANY circumstances. Especially since the goal of a socialist is to CREATE such circumstances.
One of your best videos.!!!! I hate that psycho Eugenic fuck Holdren. There are so many psychos in this administration. With Obama charing the UN before makes u think.... can we stop the NWO. Wake up, things are not rite.
Holdren is a eugenisist. Eugenics is a cornerstone of the Progressive movement. It should come to no surprise that there's a rise in the Eugenics movement (again). Where it was stopped in Germany, it continued to thrive in the US for many years. These ideas just don't go away, they mutate, change their face, and continue.
Read Madison Grant. The father of the Progressive movement, read about his legacy.
I know I am a simpleton when it comes to poliitics but, what if the reverse was the case - the government made you have more children. Victory is sometimes a numbers game.
Why does the government care how many spouses a person has? Do they regulate how many sex partners someone has? Why is multiple fornications OK and multiple spouses not?
The world is not over populated. You could fit every man, women and child on earth in Australia, giving each person 1/4 acre, and still have half of Queensland and the rest of the world empty.
United States can fit 9 billion people giving each a 1/4 acre.
Do the math, it's true. Plenty of room for all of us. John Holdren has two kids and five grand kids. Wonder which one he's keeping?
No, that's simply naive. You forgot about all the farmlands that would be necessary to produce a food supply capable of sustaining that level of population. What about factories? Offices? Parks? Hunting grounds? Wildlife reserves? And what about finite natural resources? Quality of life would drop dramatically if 300 million in the U.S. went to 9 billion, I don't think natural resources and productive capacity could increase by anywhere near the same amount.
I don't know about you but the only obese poor people I've seen have been poor for 6-9 months.
Though if you count people on welfare that is simple to explain, most of the money they get must be spent on food so they buy a LOT of food (mostly fast fatty foods such as Mc Donald's, and KFC)
I truly wish that these views seemed crazy to me, but having talked to people that very much believe that 5/6ths of the population should be eliminated for sustainability for the planet, his views don't seem that crazy anymore. I believe he's nuts, but I've talked to so many other people that are worse in these regards, it's hard to get all worked up about it. The fact that he was confirmed to work in the government really says a lot about the standards in place.
He's just another elitist eugenicist that has to lie and back peddle when someone catches him saying publicly what is commonly advocated only in dystopic science fiction novels. He probably didn't think anyone would get off of their lazy butt and dig into his history, or he assumed that the eugenics movement would have brainwashed more people by now to support his assertions, but he was wrong. These elites aren't gods, they make mistakes. He has no qualms about lying to save face I'm sure.
Lee, thanks for this video. I had a discussion with a friend from church who is a raging liberal, though very much pro-life, about this subject and he had actually read Ecoscience. His take was that Holdren's positions were a "worst-case scenario," but you clearly show that Holdren believed in some of these positions when the book was written. The positions in this book are immoral and non-defensible. I believe more fervently than ever that Holdren needs to go. Thanks again.
This whole whitehouse admin disturbs me. I do not think there is a real red, white and blue American in the whole bunch, just a bunch of commy hacks that lie.
I think the right to reproduce should never be taken away. However, people must exercise some reproductuve restraint. If a couple can not afford to raise a child they should not have one anyway. Forcing others to subsidize their decision through the welfare system.
Whats this "We" crap? The real question is can YOU tolerate this? You have no right to force people to be moral (i.e. take their money to feed starving children) you have every right under the sun to use YOUR money to do with what you wish (i.e. feed starving children) only if you believe that people don't care about starving children (i.e most people are evil disgusting humans) would you believe that using force (government) to MAKE people do these things (i.e. taxes) is necessary.
(Twiggy269) "Whats this "We" crap? The real question is can YOU tolerate this?"
The words I used were carefully chosen. The word YOU can be interpreted as being positional or accusative. I'm not really sure where I stand on this issue. No, I don't think people should be forced to pay money to feed starving children. However, the reality is some families don't have very much money. Without welfare, it is likely people will starve. If costs continue to rise people will not have money for charity.
Its a sad situation but remember we are all responsible for ourselves, it really is a choice to help others and this choice should never be forced. Its the parents responsibility to take care of their kids not society. It matters not whether a child is starving or not. How is it that a child deserves more consideration over a starving adult? Ideas like that lead to rationing.
"If costs continue to rise people will not have money for charity" I would refer you back to a basic economics class to understand the relationship between costs for goods and services in a market and how it is related to government fiscal and monetary policy. From 1833 to 1930 the price of gold went from 20.65 to 21.32 (for an ounce) imagine if you could still walk into a shoppe and buy the finest suit in the place for $20. If you want to help the poor, fight against the federal reserve
(Twiggy269) " I would refer you back to a basic economics class to understand the relationship between costs for goods and services in a market and how it is related to government fiscal and monetary policy."
Yes, I would be the first one to admit that my knowledge of economics is lacking. If you have a reference to a chapter in an Economics textbook that explains what you are referring to I'd greatly appreciate that. Because I don't understand what you are talking about here.
well, do you want to hear someone quickly explain how the fed (central planners) destroy the value of currency and cause prices to rise, and also cause the misallocation of capitol, or would you rather read a real economics book that is pretty straight forward and easy to understand that will give you tons of knowledge?
for the 2nd part I refer you to "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.
If you just want to watch a vid or something short and quick, you can find it all over.
(Lazzzyeye) "Reckon you could point me towards the debunking of the 'most important' video/document?"
Yes, a link to this debunking video would have been nice to see. I've seen the "most important video you'll ever see" before. It makes some very important points about exponential growth and population sustainability. Lee, are you trying to tell us that the exponential growth function plays no part? Arithmetic, as you once told me.
1977 was a long time ago. Maybe Holdren has changed his mind on some of those things - or he forgot what was in the book he wrote. However, I agree, if he did have a change of heart he should make it explicit. Of course I loved cake as far back as I can remember - and I still do. Maybe Holdren still likes cake - and by cake I mean Maoist totalitarnism.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i think the scariest thing about it is the fact that people give a fuck what the constitution says to begin with. and the fact that people seriously believe that writing something down and calling it "law" is reasonable grounds for violent and oppressive behavior. assuming that humanity even has a future, this time period will be looked at as more barbaric, primitive and self destructive than that of early man. america is fucked, it's time to look for more sane people to live with.
Anyone that talks about forced abortions is sick. Whether it's carried out now, or if population "gets out of control" as many eugenicists say. The world has plenty of room for more people. John P. Holdren is disgusting. No wonder he is Obama's science czar. They are carrying out their eugenics operation.
StevenSaliba 8 months ago
White House science czar John P. Holdren, who infamously co-wrote a 1977 textbook in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children. THIS GUY IS THE REAL LIVING SATAN....i hope he suffers a long painful death
capleton48 8 months ago
This video is AWESOME!
bbossin 1 year ago
John Holdren is Obama's appointed Science Czar. Like all Czars, they were not approved by the Senate, which is unconstitutional. He advocated in his book "Ecoscience", sterilization of the human population by adding a sterilization drug to the food and water supply and the government taking babies away from single mom's. GOOGLE “zombietime john holdren” and click on link.
Gracelandification 1 year ago
@Gracelandification
They won't need to put sterilants in the water. Sterilants are being inserted into the staple food, which is corn, that has genetically modified by Monsanto.
bbossin 1 year ago
@bbossin
.
I'm against genetically altered food too. =D
Gracelandification 1 year ago
great logical backup... but, to deliver the message to the greatest amount of people there needs to be sensationalism.
I feel the most effective population control will be the destruction of the economy, and control of the means of production. sounds like communism.
ParapaDrifter 1 year ago
the banks are going to force the population down anyway... population control will be a covert approach. Starting with banks impovershing the population, and controlling the issuance of credit. (which they already do)
The Club of Rome are advocating it thou.
ParapaDrifter 1 year ago
also, this pseudo-scientist ... and many others like him like Paul Erlich are playing politics. Speaking out both sides of their mouth.
ParapaDrifter 1 year ago
He will.
@ 1:00 - does he enumerate when the population issue becomes a big problem?
ParapaDrifter 1 year ago
In the world of large comments, a small comment means nothing.
rangergxi 1 year ago
It does not justify that he supports it in some instances. He either supports it or not. Anyone who supports the New World Order and dehumanization will go to prison indefinitely.
ElConquistador24 1 year ago
I agree with all with what you've said, however what really is so wrong with an abortions policy? It has done a great deal of good for china, most of the Chinese accept it and it gets done peacefully and privatly too.
simplybornhuman 1 year ago
@simplybornhuman yea, they eat the fetus too. Great. good for health... When ever you force someone to pay for something they dont believe in, it is a tyrannical measure.
social security is a good example. I didn't sign up for it. How can anyone force you to do anything that you didn't sign up for?
ParapaDrifter 1 year ago
The only people who should be steralized are the people who have these severely disturbing views, I dont care what happens in the world these things should never even be considered! this is no longer america and the constitution has and still continues to be twisted or completely ignored i have no doubt that these things will be forced upon people not just here but world wide! what can we do about it? I don't know that anything can be done, to me we are to far gone!
mark727111 1 year ago
I always wonder why people like Holdren don't start with themselves...?
wistals2deniks 2 years ago
though it has bad effects for your enemy's stock against you
Tripo1iSamson 2 years ago
just like with the Obiter Dictum blog's mistake of citing Leed's or Lead's incorrect citation of a satire piece about Obama's supposed college thesis, the right is always willing to make a formal correction, whereas the major media generally does not. It takes courage to admit you're mistaken, and it takes effort to cite your statements correctly.
Tripo1iSamson 2 years ago
This was very informative! I think he's a liar like most politicians are. He definitely contradicted his book, and I think it was on purpose.
WolfSyndrome 2 years ago
People like this do not realize all of the factors that go into population growth.
As education level goes up then birth rates go down and the education level of the world is going up, allthough its not going to shrink anytime soon.
I think those that worry about the world population should focus their energies on advocating the development of technology to increase the quality of life in a world full of people (archologies, self sustainable communities etc) and of course increasing education.
fartwimp 2 years ago
The very fact that the man thinks like that is a sign of a disturbing character trait! Jeezzzz........ Why is someone like that anywhere near the Whitehouse.. and his later comments are just CYA.
meandale 2 years ago
Most Americans seem to have small families anyway.
Families have been making that conscious choice.
One of the reasons that we do have population growth is our illegal immigrant problem, and they don't believe the same about small families.
StuffedAnimalAdvisor 2 years ago
Good work Lee!
Not a "cheep shot"... it's the TRUTH!
cheesestr4wz 2 years ago
If he has the heart to do this at ANY time, he is evil . MOW was a murderer who also thought he was God!!!! Contridicts himself??? I call it LIEING!
cheesestr4wz 2 years ago
MORE
And, Sen Vitter DID question Holdren extensively on the book Holdren coauthored when he was 26. See tinyurl(.)com/HoldrenHrg
So, AGAIN, you not only fail to back up your original claim that Holdren is "for forced abortions," but you also fail to back up your revised claim that he "supports ... forced abortions ... in certain instances."
Or, can you provide a QUOTE in which Holdren says that?"
I hope that helps clear up your misunderstanding and
thx 4 the video :-)
LiberalViewer 2 years ago
MORE
Finally, the main other argument in your video, is a false dilemna you create at 4:43 in which you say Holdren's Senate confirmation testimony is either "contradicting the entire premise of his book" or "not being truthful," but, even if you just look at the Politifact article, Holdren says he "NO LONGER thinks it's productive to focus on optimum population" so Holdren specifically says he changed his mind on that point (which was NOT the "entire premise of his book.")
MORE
LiberalViewer 2 years ago
MORE
"The authors argue that compulsory abortions could potentially be allowed under U.S. law 'if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.' Again, that's a far cry from advocating or proposing such a position"
Also, as a minor correction, the statement you read at 1:38 is provided by Holdren's office, but actually comes from the coauthors. Holdren's own statement is in the paragraph above.
MORE
LiberalViewer 2 years ago
MORE
Similarly, your argument is not supported by your citation to the legal analysis of Johnson Montgomery cited in the book because AGAIN that legal analysis only says compulsory abortions COULD BE Constitutional which is NOT the same as saying he SUPPORTS them, so youre still wrong to say he "supports ... forced abortions ... in certain instances." Moreover, at 11:38 you complain about a lack of footnotes while ignoring footnotes 74-76. Even the Politifact article says:
MORE
LiberalViewer 2 years ago
MORE
limiting child tax deductions to the first kids or giving tax incentives for late marriages and small families. So, saying "population control" is the same as "involuntary fertility control" misses several pages of the book which explains why you were wrong to say Holdren "supports ... forced abortions ... in certain instances."
MORE
LiberalViewer 2 years ago
MORE
You try to support your latest claim at 5:26 by giving false definitions to the terms "family planning" and "population control" where you make "population control" mean "coercive" measures like forced abortion. If you read the section on "Population control" staring on page 783, however, you will see they discuss not just the possibility of "involuntary fertility control," but also policies like educating people about the need for smaller families,
MORE
LiberalViewer 2 years ago
I appreciate your retraction of your claim that Holdren is "for forced abortions," but I don't think you can even support your claim at 0:45 that the argument you were REALLY making was that Holdren "supports ... forced abortions ... in certain instances" (though the argument you were REALLY making was, and I quote, that Holdren is "for forced abortions.").
MORE
LiberalViewer 2 years ago
it doesn't matter if the technology exists for population control nor does it matter if he would support forced abortions under current conditions. The fact is, he NEVER denounced his statements. All he did was throw out excuses.
napalm350z 2 years ago
@therealoneGOP It's amazing that you would think people believe that you are really anything other than a lefty propagandist smearing right wingers with your deceptive posts. The only one's using racist terms are lefties like you.
EffieReal 2 years ago
The current population problems in the globe at present are centered in India and China. I have little doubt that China will institute further draconian population control measures of it's own design. India may never do so. YOUR disbelief in population control under any conditions merely illustrates your stupidity. What happens when the bacteria in the petri dish eat all the agar? They DROWN in their own SHIT. If you have children, teach them how to kill...they'll need the skills...
TheMercilessEye 2 years ago
I've seen the vast lands which are unpopulated... I live amung several, and I don't think we as Americans have a population problem, we have a dispersion problem. People tend to collect in major cities rather than expand into other areas, so the cities are crowded and there is tons of empty unfarmed space.
In some countries there are population problems, but just the same, globally there are plenty of places, we merely must expand to areas unpopulated.
OutreAnima 2 years ago
that wouldn't be such a problem if we didn't give power to con-artists and self righteous charlatans who use that power to tell us that we cannot inhabit that land, for we are not financially powerful, thus politically influential and thus even more financially powerful corporate interests. so we find ourselves with little choice but to be confined to apartments, condos and townhouse developments.
chainzdown2dadik 2 years ago
no... actually, there is a ton of land for dirt cheap in Wyoming, and likely in the western desert (not the Dugway area) of Utah, probably cheap land too... if you look in Google Earth, you'll see small crops in sparatic places, showing it can be useful land... however most of the idiots huddle like groupies to the big cities and believe they can't live anywhere else without being rich.
OutreAnima 2 years ago
land owned by the state of wyoming for dirt cheap or land owned by individuals. in montgomery county, maryland there was lots of vacant "public" land that is now being sold out to developers left and right.
chainzdown2dadik 2 years ago
HTWW
Don't let the Left hide in the minutia. In the end, all the qualifiers you ceded to are irrelevant in the context of your original analysis.
When in offense mode, the Left commandeer as much corrupted government force as they can get away with to proselytize their lies and slander anyone who publicly notices.
Then, in defense mode, they ape civilized man just long enough to have you retract and apologize, and they do so using the disintegration techniques of an ambulance chaser.
TylerNull 2 years ago
I didn't think this was boring. I thought it was important to know what Holdren is trying to say vs what he actually said.
Holdren does not belong anywhere near our gov't, let alone in it.
AlbaGoBragh 2 years ago
Yeah, but neither does Obama.
And the fact that they both are indicates this is no longer the nation you think it is.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Our freedoms are under assualt from this administration everyday.
Obama took an oath (twice) to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies both foriegn and domestic. He violates that oath with every new spending bill, new gov't take over and new law he and his cohorts in Congress devise.
He is in the process of fundamentally transforming this nation into something that will look more like Mao's China.
AlbaGoBragh 2 years ago
Yep.
TylerNull 2 years ago
If Holdren feels that overpopulation is a problem, and if he really wants to alleviate that problem, he can start by castrating himself and do us all a favor.
kevind360 2 years ago
Most liberals have people's best interest at heart, but they usually have little respect for(economic) freedom.
I think we are already well beyond the carrying capacity of the earth without the use of fossil fuels or a suitable replacement. It's likely that oil production peaked in 2005 and it will be interesting to see if a suitable replacement comes along to make up the shortfall when the plateau turns into decline and what the price point will be. Energy is going to become more expensive.
christo930 2 years ago
The upside to peak oil is that globalization as we know it (shipping stuff all over looking for cheap labor) will become more expensive and good jobs will come back home. I am for free markets and trade, but it should be wealth of nations style trading, not what we have been doing. I look forward to a future of growth in local manufacturing, food production and the return of rail and water shipping. Can you imagine driving on roads not clogged with 18 wheelers!
christo930 2 years ago
Christo, those would be some of the most poorly maintained roads in the last 100 years. The only reason they are maintained so highly is because they are necessary for commerce. Of course, we'd see a shift to rail travel for passengers as well and I'm all for that, so it's not like it's a bad idea (especially since it would kill short flights and the airlines could go back to being profitable instead of sucking off the government teat).
ChichiriMuyo 2 years ago
Air travel is going to need a new source of energy if they are going to survive.
Shipping by barge uses 1/35 of the energy that trucks use. Trucks are so inefficient that it's 35x more efficient to ship stuff down to panama on the pac and up the atlantic seaboard than straight across the continent. Long trains going long distance are also more efficient, but not by as much.
christo930 2 years ago
The local highways will still be important for local shipping. The idea that it was more efficient to build something thousands of miles from where it was going to be consumed was just a short sighted stupid thing to do and the result of poor management of our oil supplies. The north sea is a perfect case study for mismanagement of a rare precious resource. The British people were robbed of a huge resource that could have sustained them for generations.
christo930 2 years ago
overpopulationisamyth . com
littlebier8 2 years ago
If Erhlich is one of his co-authors...I'd be tempted to believe those views were those of Erhlich. Paul Erhlich is one of the looniest futurists ever. Look up his famous bet with Julian Simon! All of this over-population bullshit has been debunked over and over. Julian Simon's The Ultimate Resource 2 is the best work ever written on the subject!
Nelapidae 2 years ago
Attempting to coerce populations into certain action is a dangerous thing to do. I don't even know if water filtration plants even get all the hormone changing shit and prescription drugs out of the urine they collect, and then to think on top of that I could get stuff to screw with my reproductive qualities. Awesome. Great. Goddammit.
Tripo1iSamson 2 years ago 2
If education was in the hands of the flexible, traditional family structure, perhaps generations of people could be taught not to f*ck so much. The problem behind population growth is simple, we're f*cking too much, too young, without enough protection (that can damage you, like some birth control), without whatever. The only answer to these issues is the traditional style couple understanding in their own minds not to engage in 'risky' behavior that causes childbearing.
Tripo1iSamson 2 years ago
Hey I'm no genius, but in general I think it's a bad human option to allow somebody who could feasibly give birth to a "normal" child to choose whether or not to have the baby killed. Geeze we're in a weird world. Things such as leftist, statist social engineering scares me more than being operated on by a drunk surgeon.
Tripo1iSamson 2 years ago
I will be honest, a certain amount of population control is needed especially with the amount of insanity that pregancy support gives in drugs etc, you have people with 6, 7, 8, some even 10 children, i mean, seriously how can this be fair on those kids?
MitchofSmeg 2 years ago
All of this "population explosion" rhetoric is really about control. More power for the government to exert upon us the people.
standupgun 2 years ago 3
You know what also helps overpopulation? War
Look at WWII 50 million people died in 6 years. That is 10 million a year there is no way people who believe the world is being overpopulated with that statistic :)
TRMerc 2 years ago
And we all want that to happen again. @_@
fai1t0liv3 2 years ago
It was called sarcasm, learn to read it on the internet
TRMerc 2 years ago
When Obama eliminates the opposition party and takes over the country like his role model Karl Marx then Holdren will be promoted to Doctor Mengele Jr. and he will create the ideal US citizen in his lab.
Testicles and Vaginas will be optional and only granted if the State needs more drones.
It will be like the Garden of Eden again.
averagejoe040 2 years ago
You sound like a left wing nut when Bush was in charge.
fai1t0liv3 2 years ago
@fatoliv3,
Bush did not have these kind of nut jobs in his cabinet. Can you imagine how the media would have reacted?
averagejoe040 2 years ago
Eric Keroack went around giving free drugs to people that weren't his patients. Mark R. Dybul took funds out of AIDS prevention and put them into abstinence programs. Elliott Abrams was highly involved in the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempts. There are many more, and they where all Bush's "czars". Why didn't the press or Glenn Beck go after these guys?
fai1t0liv3 2 years ago
You saying why the press or Glenn Beck never went after Bush's Czars, is like Bush never having a chia pet of himself.
mrmanown 2 years ago
Glenn Beck at the very most gave Bush a slap on the wrist, whereas with Obama, he's been firing Nuke after Nuke. I'm not saying Obama is an awesome president, but it seems that there is a skewed perspective when Beck talks.
fai1t0liv3 2 years ago
Obama sucks on ice.
Worst President in history Jimmy Carter will become a faded memory compared to Obummer.
People are catching on and they now see they were misled.
Can we get some legislators that will reform health care without making it a government run program?
Can we get some legislators that put JOBS ahead of climate hysteria?
Lord hear our prayer.
averagejoe040 2 years ago
Worst President ever is Andrew Jackson. You want to talk about someone who tried to take over the government, it was him. He was also a mass murder.
Jobs can't be made out of thin air, Reagon taught us that. A President can be doing more than spending every making minute trying to get companies to hire.
I will never trust the private market to put lives ahead of profit, it doesn't happen. The free market is great for selling stuff like computers and clothes, but not human welfare.
fai1t0liv3 2 years ago
@fai1t0liv3,
You don't trust the private market to put lives ahead of profit.
You can't trust government to put lives ahead of political advantage.
Government is not better than business.
We wish it was.
averagejoe040 2 years ago
@fai1t0liv3,
Everybody should know what it takes to create jobs.
Businesses are what create jobs. NO?
So if we lower taxes and relax regulations that cost businesses a lot of money, then they have money to grow and hire more people.
This makes investing in American businesses profitable and so it also encourages foreign investment here.
Is this part of Obummer's plan? NO
averagejoe040 2 years ago
I am against most regulations, but there are regulations that need to put in place, i.e. keeping lenders from lying to consumers in order to sell sub-prime mortgages.
There is another crucial part you missed, and that is lending. No matter how low taxes are or how lax regulations are, if people can't borrow money then they have an extremely hard time expanding. The biggest source of job loss has been directly linked to banks not lending and the government cannot force them too.
fai1t0liv3 2 years ago
failt, do you also support jailing customers who lied to lenders and made up imaginary "2nd incomes" that didn't exist so they could meet the requirements for the home/car they wanted to buy?
RuflessRecords 2 years ago
Well first I think the lenders should be able to verify income sources of customers. As they say, if it's taxed, it's public. Secondly if the customer is guilty of fraud, then yes I believe they should be punished in any manner the courts decide.
fai1t0liv3 2 years ago
@fai1t0liv3,
WOW, that speaks volumes.
"keeping lenders from lying to consumers in order to sell sub-prime loans"
Don't you think the real problem is that we have had way low interest and way too easy money for way too long?
That is what creates the financial bubbles that lead to a bust.
You blame this all on the nasty old banks because they caused the problem?
Banks couldn't do this if government did it's job.
Our congress should have prevented this but instead they led the way with CRA
averagejoe040 2 years ago
The problem was unscrupulous lending and enormous risk taking on the part of lenders. I'm not saying the consumer wasn't without fault, but the banks went out of their way to encourage that behavior. I agree that congress should have foreseen this crisis and done something to stop it, but to suggest that the government was solely responsible for the burst is ignorant. I believe an educated consumer will make the right decision but if lenders are aloud to misconstrue their contracts then its sham
fai1t0liv3 2 years ago
excellent points, so would you consider it unjust if the neighbors of individuals who would have their homes foreclosed as a result of poor banking decisions decided not to let anyone remove their neighbor from their home? after all the banks got bailouts, had they not, they would have found themselves indebted to their depositors. i say we rise up, it's time for a revolution my friend!
chainzdown2dadik 2 years ago
Human welfare is up to humans themselves, don't you think? Why should we expect any entity, private or public, to take care of us?
TheLegalImmigrant05 2 years ago
Define take care of us? Making sure we have roads, communication technology, police, fire fighters, schools, public hospitals?
fai1t0liv3 2 years ago
"Expect" was the key word in my comment. "Hire"? Yes. "Expect"? No.
TheLegalImmigrant05 2 years ago
these are all things work best when people do them for themselves, individually or locally where people can put themselves in charge of it rather than being at the mercy of a "higher power" that may or may not care to do it properly and can only do it at their own expense anyway.
chainzdown2dadik 2 years ago
@fai1t0liv3,
OK, Eric Keroack was some sort of christian right nutso. I don't like him either.
Mark R. Dybul was openly gay and tasked with AIDS programs. That he diverted funds to support abstinence doesn't seem unreasonable. Abstinence DOES prevent and control AIDS. He seems like a guy BO would like.
Elliott Abrams was accused of involvement in the Venezuelan coup attempt but was cleared. Frankly, I wish they had removed Chavez.
None of these guys were Marxist, Maoist or anti American.
averagejoe040 2 years ago
So it's not Maoist to overthrow a government on the grounds of "we don't like them"? I don't like Chavez either, but you can't oust him without cause.
Keroack was an extremist anyway you slice it.
Abstinence is a way of preventing AIDS, but it's affects are minimal. For some reason telling people they can't have sex doesn't excite them. Taking funding away from programs that actually help to prevent AIDS to support an effort that is minimal at best, undermines the effort.
fai1t0liv3 2 years ago
@fai1t0liv3,
I suppose condoms and clean needles are ways to prevent AIDS.
Options seem limited, abstinence is a still a very good one.
I think Chavez could be ousted for illegally taking power in Venezuela. They once had a thriving democratic society. Chavez ruined that.
Honduras rightfully threw out the jackass that tried to take over as dictator.
Our idiot leader Obama thinks Honduras did the guy wrong.
I wish we could send Obama to Honduras.
He could lie to them instead of us.
averagejoe040 2 years ago
As far as I can tell, Chavez took all the legal steps in his country to take power the way he did. I don't like it, but the cold hard truth is, he is still very popular there and it's up the Venezuelan people to decide that they want him out, not the American public.
Again with Honduras, I didn't like the guy, but you can't have your military going rogue and deciding on who runs the country. That's how Pakistan got to where it is, and how Gaddafi got into power.
fai1t0liv3 2 years ago
Overpopulation is a problem that always fixes itself anyway. Sooner or later you run out of resources, and then the population will go down on its own.
uberjim83 2 years ago
yeah but that means people are suffering.
jukiluti 2 years ago
Yeah, and that would suck. However, I've never heard of any proposed solution to overpopulation that didn't ALSO cause suffering.
uberjim83 2 years ago
So what is the conservative argument then? The finite Earth can support infinite people living infinitely wealthy lifestyles?
At some point, maybe now, maybe not for a long time, some critical resources could start to go rare. This could lead to less for everyone (lower quality of life) if we decided to share. If not, it could lead to conflict or even world war.
But if people are educated as they are in U.S., birthrates naturally decline, no government necessary.
adjohnson916 2 years ago
Yes cause socially the limit on children China put on people has been very acceptable the world over. It isn't about education either
The US has MORE then enough room for people to live, but no one wants to move out to where there is room (Montana one of the largest states has the lowest population to size of any state)
You already have population control in one form. Three words World of Warcraft
TRMerc 2 years ago
If there is any kind of threat as population continues to grow, then I don't see why it should disturb you that some form of limits be put into place. It's like the famous "commons problem" here, where each individual wants to maximize his own right to have as many kids as he or she wants, but in so doing global resources are over-consumed and all eventually suffer from the compounding of acting their own rational self interests. This argument is often used against communism, is it invalid here?
adjohnson916 2 years ago
Holdren is a fascist eugenicist., period.
sullivandrew 2 years ago
Politifact is a lefty site
tommygun6644 2 years ago
facts have a liberal bias yes
DCATPYEO 2 years ago
Comment removed
tommygun6644 2 years ago
i support having sex with cats
hassejensen35 2 years ago
Then I support you ;)
dragon521 2 years ago 2
They are already testing out this population control measures in third world countries through the use of vaccines, which causes sterilization, or death of an unborn baby.
They are already soft killing us here in the US, with fluoride, and fluoridated water, which was used as a rat poison and is more toxic than lead. Also Mercury has been found in like 5 out of 10 products that contain high fructose corn syrup.
I think the swine flu vaccines will be the real population control method though
subjer0 2 years ago
Guess what your tooth paste is made out of? Right, fluoride. Maybe you shouldn't brush your teeth?
fai1t0liv3 2 years ago
Brushing ur teeth with it & Drinkin it r not the same there buddy. especially sence you toothpaste says if you swallow it to contact poison control. but the same active ingredient is in our water supply & comes from the toxic waste created by the aluminum smelting plants.
if you think Flouride is good to drink you go right ahead & drink up. but Nazis put the same thing into the water of the concentration camps to pacify the jew ...maybe thats y we havn't seen a 2nd american revolution yet lol
smkymcnugget420 2 years ago
You're saying that the government is actively funding the pacification of the population and they've not only been able to keep anyone from blowing the whistle, but also keep missing money from being seen on the books. Doubt it.
fai1t0liv3 2 years ago
NO the govt is not actively funding the pacification of the population. they are actively funding the "improvment of dental heath" through the use of NaFl in the water. all they had to do was use some lobbists to pay off the dentists in the same way Pharma pay off Drs. to prescribe certain drugs to patients, or even to promote a brand of cigarettes. Dumping NaFl into the water is also an easy way to get ride of the toxic waste that would otherwise be very costly to dispose of.
smkymcnugget420 2 years ago
Great point near the end where they try to say "because the constitution didnt say anything about it, it means we can say what you need to do on it". Its a ludacris way of thinking. The constitution also didnt talk about when I can go to the bathroom. Can the government come and regulate that because the constitution didnt talk about it? Ludacris. Good job Lee.
MrBoredatwork 2 years ago 3
This reminds me of the interview that then Illinois State Senator Obama had on Chicago Radio where he said the constitution was a document of "negative rights." The leftists want a document that we are beholden to that outlines what the government MUST or CAN do. But that's not the Constitution...yet. I'm sure they have a plan. The leftists have been playing their hand well. They have been lining up their pieces and are waiting for everything to be in place before they go for the checkmate.
CTYankeeinTexas 2 years ago
So basically - "save the planet and kill yourself."
spasticclown 2 years ago
I know the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the right of a woman to have an abortion. Can anyone provide a citation where the court affirmatively states a woman has a right to have a child?
The Constitution does not give rights. It mandates what the government SHALL do (the Articles of Constitution) and what it MAY NOT do (The Bill of Rights).
Troglodite13 2 years ago
it also never said its ok to own slaves & women couldn't vote.
annielwhite 2 years ago
The Articles are pretty lean on the Shall part, and pretty broad on the May part-- the government is obligated to do very little in the Constitution, and permitted to do only a tiny bit more.
The handy-dandy Bill of Rights also gives the Ninth Amendment: I have every right not expressly forbidden by the rest of the Constitution. I think that would include, and has been held to include, the right to run my family and home the way I would like.
Yes, I have the right to another kid if I want.
KinglyTurnip 2 years ago 2
So, John Holdren does support forced abortions? If population gets too high, who would decide this? And who would be the ones to decide who is forced to get an abortion?
Rajaat99 2 years ago 2
people with the guns of course.
0bodobod0 2 years ago
The US population would have to exceed 2 billion for us to consider population control. Even if we sucked up all the fuel in the world we would still have the most important resource, food and water. The very fact that we supply 1.7 billion people outside the US with food should give us enough leeway to not have to worry about population problems for some time.
fai1t0liv3 2 years ago
And who are you to decide that the population is too big at 2 billion? I sure some think it's too big now.
I think population control is silly. If there's too many of us, we'll die. No forced abortions needed.
Rajaat99 2 years ago
At 2 billion people, the US will be a critical mass as far as what we can sustain. Sure we could just let people starve and die, but some how I think people might get upset at that.
But like I said, the idea that we would need population control is a long way off.
fai1t0liv3 2 years ago
I'm not arguing the number, 2 billion, 3 billion, whatever, that's not the point.
The point is WHO will be making the decision as to how many is too many and who gets forced aborted?
Rajaat99 2 years ago
Not boring at all. I don't agree with you, but good video.
TimesEyes 2 years ago
Actually I do agree with you on this video. Just to make that clear.
TimesEyes 2 years ago
Does anyone else find the irony in Mao's state of "Of all things, people are most precious"? This quote coming from a man that committed mass murder, and he is who the Left looks to for inspiration. Lovely!!!
shoutanoise 2 years ago
The left doesn't turn to Mao. I, myself, look to the works of Clausewitz and Thomas Paine as my political inspirations. The comments of Dunn are disconcerting to be sure, but I haven't seen her act in anyway that would support his authoritarian views.
fai1t0liv3 2 years ago
What is wrong with this book, if you are explaining how to get zero population growth it is a good book.
redface626 2 years ago
It's still insane that Holdren would support these measures under ANY circumstances. Especially since the goal of a socialist is to CREATE such circumstances.
3cl3c71k0r 2 years ago
One of your best videos.!!!! I hate that psycho Eugenic fuck Holdren. There are so many psychos in this administration. With Obama charing the UN before makes u think.... can we stop the NWO. Wake up, things are not rite.
Plat465 2 years ago
Holdren is a eugenisist. Eugenics is a cornerstone of the Progressive movement. It should come to no surprise that there's a rise in the Eugenics movement (again). Where it was stopped in Germany, it continued to thrive in the US for many years. These ideas just don't go away, they mutate, change their face, and continue.
Read Madison Grant. The father of the Progressive movement, read about his legacy.
ravenslaves 2 years ago
I know I am a simpleton when it comes to poliitics but, what if the reverse was the case - the government made you have more children. Victory is sometimes a numbers game.
Libratarot 2 years ago
A great hypocrisy- claiming to protect individual rights while violating individual rights. This is the philosophy of American Liberalism.
Hatesfury08 2 years ago
"friendly discussion" with LV?
you called him names throughout the "discussion". LV was respectful. you acted like an ego-driven idiot.
franzpolak 2 years ago
That wasn't boring. I enjoy the more informative videos :]
TrueEmergence 2 years ago
This is HTWW's best video in my humble opinion (which is not actually humble at all).
dannidandannikins 2 years ago 2
94 comments,320 views, wow almost one out of three makes a comment, This apparently coes not fit the youtube model for political correctness.
thetimman00 2 years ago
Why does the government care how many spouses a person has? Do they regulate how many sex partners someone has? Why is multiple fornications OK and multiple spouses not?
steve0281 2 years ago 3
bc then they would have to give tax breaks for each wife lol
wop2k6 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Viva Liberal Viewer!
ronantv 2 years ago
The world is not over populated. You could fit every man, women and child on earth in Australia, giving each person 1/4 acre, and still have half of Queensland and the rest of the world empty.
United States can fit 9 billion people giving each a 1/4 acre.
Do the math, it's true. Plenty of room for all of us. John Holdren has two kids and five grand kids. Wonder which one he's keeping?
flooringpro 2 years ago 3
I'm sorry, but that statement is pathetic.
drubs9 2 years ago
2,968,000 sq miles in Australia, 640 acres is a sq. mile.
2,968,000 x 640 = 1,899,520,000 acres
4 1/4 acres in one acre.
4 x 1,899,520,00 = 7,598,080,000
I guess 4th grade math is pathetic!
flooringpro 2 years ago
@flooringpro:
No, that's simply naive. You forgot about all the farmlands that would be necessary to produce a food supply capable of sustaining that level of population. What about factories? Offices? Parks? Hunting grounds? Wildlife reserves? And what about finite natural resources? Quality of life would drop dramatically if 300 million in the U.S. went to 9 billion, I don't think natural resources and productive capacity could increase by anywhere near the same amount.
adjohnson916 2 years ago
My point is the earth is not overpopulated, i'm not implying to move everybody to Australia. Just saying there is plenty of room.
flooringpro 2 years ago
And currently the US produces more food then it consumes. The US is the #1 EXPORTER of food (normally in the form of foreign aid) to other countries
Trust me the US has enough food to feed itself for a while
TRMerc 2 years ago
the Us also has the highest percentage of obese and obese poor doesnt it
MitchofSmeg 2 years ago
I don't know about you but the only obese poor people I've seen have been poor for 6-9 months.
Though if you count people on welfare that is simple to explain, most of the money they get must be spent on food so they buy a LOT of food (mostly fast fatty foods such as Mc Donald's, and KFC)
TRMerc 2 years ago
Even China, after carefully examining the facts would be wary of John Holdren.
bsharker 2 years ago 4
I truly wish that these views seemed crazy to me, but having talked to people that very much believe that 5/6ths of the population should be eliminated for sustainability for the planet, his views don't seem that crazy anymore. I believe he's nuts, but I've talked to so many other people that are worse in these regards, it's hard to get all worked up about it. The fact that he was confirmed to work in the government really says a lot about the standards in place.
somefreak82 2 years ago
Lee, will you please send me theliberalviewer's phone number? I just want to say hi.. and a few other things.
snookumsthacat 2 years ago
The claim that 45 percent of doctors would bail if the public option passes is bogas
gooyzit 2 years ago
Disturbing.
Jaimetud 2 years ago
He's just another elitist eugenicist that has to lie and back peddle when someone catches him saying publicly what is commonly advocated only in dystopic science fiction novels. He probably didn't think anyone would get off of their lazy butt and dig into his history, or he assumed that the eugenics movement would have brainwashed more people by now to support his assertions, but he was wrong. These elites aren't gods, they make mistakes. He has no qualms about lying to save face I'm sure.
3sevenX 2 years ago
Definitely not a boring video. The amount of research you did into this is pretty impressive. Keep up the good work.
NoleMan007 2 years ago 2
Lee, thanks for this video. I had a discussion with a friend from church who is a raging liberal, though very much pro-life, about this subject and he had actually read Ecoscience. His take was that Holdren's positions were a "worst-case scenario," but you clearly show that Holdren believed in some of these positions when the book was written. The positions in this book are immoral and non-defensible. I believe more fervently than ever that Holdren needs to go. Thanks again.
CTYankeeinTexas 2 years ago
Why on earth Mao's name keep poping up latey or ever since Chairman Obamao took office.
THX1138x29 2 years ago
Chairman? is that another word for president ? i am not insulting just curios .
realhxq 2 years ago
That's is in comparison to what the Communist China's commaned-in-chief who oversee their Centrl Commitee.
THX1138x29 2 years ago
ectopic pregnancy the body won't expel.
0bodobod0 2 years ago
mother in coma with a child that endangers her life.
0bodobod0 2 years ago
This whole whitehouse admin disturbs me. I do not think there is a real red, white and blue American in the whole bunch, just a bunch of commy hacks that lie.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
lmao all the youtube eugenicists coming out.
0bodobod0 2 years ago
I think the right to reproduce should never be taken away. However, people must exercise some reproductuve restraint. If a couple can not afford to raise a child they should not have one anyway. Forcing others to subsidize their decision through the welfare system.
helical4 2 years ago
That is an easy fix. End the welfare system.
asm42 2 years ago 7
(asm42) "That is an easy fix. End the welfare system."
I agree! But then we'll have another moral dilemma on our hands. Children starving. As a civil society, can we tolerate such suffering?
helical4 2 years ago
Whats this "We" crap? The real question is can YOU tolerate this? You have no right to force people to be moral (i.e. take their money to feed starving children) you have every right under the sun to use YOUR money to do with what you wish (i.e. feed starving children) only if you believe that people don't care about starving children (i.e most people are evil disgusting humans) would you believe that using force (government) to MAKE people do these things (i.e. taxes) is necessary.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
(Twiggy269) "Whats this "We" crap? The real question is can YOU tolerate this?"
The words I used were carefully chosen. The word YOU can be interpreted as being positional or accusative. I'm not really sure where I stand on this issue. No, I don't think people should be forced to pay money to feed starving children. However, the reality is some families don't have very much money. Without welfare, it is likely people will starve. If costs continue to rise people will not have money for charity.
helical4 2 years ago
Its a sad situation but remember we are all responsible for ourselves, it really is a choice to help others and this choice should never be forced. Its the parents responsibility to take care of their kids not society. It matters not whether a child is starving or not. How is it that a child deserves more consideration over a starving adult? Ideas like that lead to rationing.
asm42 2 years ago
"If costs continue to rise people will not have money for charity" I would refer you back to a basic economics class to understand the relationship between costs for goods and services in a market and how it is related to government fiscal and monetary policy. From 1833 to 1930 the price of gold went from 20.65 to 21.32 (for an ounce) imagine if you could still walk into a shoppe and buy the finest suit in the place for $20. If you want to help the poor, fight against the federal reserve
Twiggy269 2 years ago
(Twiggy269) " I would refer you back to a basic economics class to understand the relationship between costs for goods and services in a market and how it is related to government fiscal and monetary policy."
Yes, I would be the first one to admit that my knowledge of economics is lacking. If you have a reference to a chapter in an Economics textbook that explains what you are referring to I'd greatly appreciate that. Because I don't understand what you are talking about here.
helical4 2 years ago
well, do you want to hear someone quickly explain how the fed (central planners) destroy the value of currency and cause prices to rise, and also cause the misallocation of capitol, or would you rather read a real economics book that is pretty straight forward and easy to understand that will give you tons of knowledge?
for the 2nd part I refer you to "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.
If you just want to watch a vid or something short and quick, you can find it all over.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
Reckon you could point me towards the debunking of the 'most important' video/document?
Because your mention of historical experience doesn't convince me just yet, as it would appear plainly obvious that this problem is unprecedented.
And I'd really like to more closely examine the prices and efficiency argument.
cheers.
Lazzzyeye 2 years ago
(Lazzzyeye) "Reckon you could point me towards the debunking of the 'most important' video/document?"
Yes, a link to this debunking video would have been nice to see. I've seen the "most important video you'll ever see" before. It makes some very important points about exponential growth and population sustainability. Lee, are you trying to tell us that the exponential growth function plays no part? Arithmetic, as you once told me.
helical4 2 years ago
1977 was a long time ago. Maybe Holdren has changed his mind on some of those things - or he forgot what was in the book he wrote. However, I agree, if he did have a change of heart he should make it explicit. Of course I loved cake as far back as I can remember - and I still do. Maybe Holdren still likes cake - and by cake I mean Maoist totalitarnism.
mephamphetamine24 2 years ago
HOLDREN IS A EUGENIST!
To many people, therefore we must die so that only the elite of the elite can live in the world.
SunBeamsan 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i think the scariest thing about it is the fact that people give a fuck what the constitution says to begin with. and the fact that people seriously believe that writing something down and calling it "law" is reasonable grounds for violent and oppressive behavior. assuming that humanity even has a future, this time period will be looked at as more barbaric, primitive and self destructive than that of early man. america is fucked, it's time to look for more sane people to live with.
chainzdown2dadik 2 years ago