Click for larger view The above photograph shows Ron London and Bill Mottern setting up their low power x-ray machine, the same device that was at least in part responsible for the seizing of all of STURP's equipment by Italian customs upon its arrival in Italy back in
John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet Book he authored in advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population Forced abortions. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.
The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? In a book Holdren co-authored inthe man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that: That must be an exaggeration or a hoax.
No one in their right mind would say such things. Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no exaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and this report contains the proof.
Below you will find photographs, scans, and transcriptions of pages in the book Ecoscienceco-authored in by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich.
The scans and photos are provided to supply conclusive evidence that the words attributed to Holdren are unaltered and accurately transcribed. Make sure to read the new statements issued by the White House and by John Holdren's office in response to the controversy raised by this essay -- you can see them below following the Ecoscience excerpts, or you can jump directly to the statements by clicking here.
But that article, although it contained many shocking quotes from John Holdren, failed to make much of an impact on public opinion. Because, as I discovered when discussing the article with various friends, there was no proof that the quotes were accurate -- so most folks even those opposed to Obama's policies doubted their veracity, because the statements seemed too inflammatory to be true.
In the modern era, it seems, journalists have lost all credibility, and so are presumed to be lying or exaggerating unless solid evidence is offered to back up the claims. Well, this report contains that evidence. Of course, Holdren wrote these things in the framework of a book he co-authored about what he imagined at the time late s was an apocalyptic crisis facing mankind: He felt extreme measures would be required to combat an extreme problem.
Whether or not you think this provides him a valid "excuse" for having descended into a totalitarian fantasy is up to you: Totalitarian regimes and unhinged people almost always have what seems internally like a reasonable justification for actions which to the outside world seem incomprehensible.
Direct quotes from John Holdren's Ecoscience Below you will find a series of ten short passages from Ecoscience.
On the left in each case is a scanned image taken directly from the pages of the book itself; on the right is an exact transcription of each passage, with noteworthy sections highlighted.
Below each quote is a short analysis by me. Following these short quotes, I take a "step back" and provide the full extended passages from which each of the shorter quotes were excerpted, to provide the full context.
And at the bottom of this report, I provide untouched scans and photos of the full pages from which all of these passages were taken, to quash any doubts anyone might have that these are absolutely real, and to forestall any claims that the quotes were taken "out of context.
And prepare to be shocked. Compulsory abortions would be legal Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
As noted in the FrontPage article cited above, Holdren "hides behind the passive voice" in this passage, by saying "it has been concluded. By the authors of the book, that's whom. What Holdren's really saying here is, "I have determined that there's nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force women to abort their babies.
Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone.
If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it.
Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.
Holdren and his co-authors once again speculate about unbelievably draconian solutions to what they feel is an overpopulation crisis. But what's especially disturbing is not that Holdren has merely made these proposals -- wrenching babies from their mothers' arms and giving them away; compelling single mothers to prove in court that they would be good parents; and forcing women to have abortions, whether they wanted to or not -- but that he does so in such a dispassionate, bureaucratic way.
Don't be fooled by the innocuous and "level-headed" tone he takes: Holdren seems to have no grasp of the emotional bond between mother and child, and the soul-crushing trauma many women have felt throughout history when their babies were taken away from them involuntarily.
This kind of clinical, almost robotic discussion of laws that would affect millions of people at the most personal possible level is deeply unsettling, and the kind of attitude that gives scientists a bad name.
I'm reminded of the phrase " banality of evil. I think that abortion should not be illegal. But that doesn't mean I'm pro-abortion -- I don't particularly like abortions, but I do believe women should be allowed the choice to have them.A book report is an objective summary of the main ideas and arguments that the book's author has presented.
The purpose of the report is to give enough information to help decide whether the book will be of use or interest to any potential readers. How to Write a Book Report. Writing a book report can be a lot of fun. It gives you a chance to read a new book and then tell your teacher and friends what you thought about it.
Writing a Book Report Book reports can take on many different forms. Three types of effective book reports are plot summaries, character analyses, and theme rutadeltambor.comg a book report helps you practice giving your opinion about different aspects of a book, such as the author's use of description or dialogue.
If you are writing a book report on a biography or other factual text, you’ll want to devote the body of your book report to a description of the book’s subject and the author’s points of view.
Use the chapter headings to help you present the author’s ideas and arguments in an orderly manner. A good book review doesn’t give an extensive summary of the book and then one or two lines about your thoughts. Readers can get the summary from lots of places.
What they want to know is what you thought of the writing, the message, the story. It is with the deepest sadness and regret that I must report the unexpected passing of our dear friend and colleague, archaeologist Paul Maloney, peacefully at his home in Quakertown, Pennsylvania, on August 27, Paul was one of the most respected Shroud scholars in the world and the news of his passing came as a great shock to the Shroud community.