The answer to 1984... is 1776

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Walmart in talks with Health Department; vaccination centre this fall?

Thursday, Jul 30, 2009 @01:40pm CST

(Orlando, FL) -- Retail giant Walmart is in talks with U.S. health officials about putting swine flu vaccination sites at some of its stores.

A Walmart official said the retailer might provide sites for swine flu vaccination efforts or help with logistics and the supply chain.

He said about 140 million people visit Walmart stores each week.

Health officials have said about half the nation's population should be vaccinated to guard against swine flu.

About 160 million doses of the flu vaccine will be available in mid-October.

(Copyright 2009 by Newsroom Solutions)

Wal-marts comments:

Click on Title for link to original story.

The Northwest Herald

Monday, July 27, 2009

National Level exercise July 27-31, 2009

OTTAWA, ONTARIO -- (Marketwire) -- 07/27/09 -- Canadian federal officials will participate in a large scale security exercise known as National Level Exercise 09 (NLE 09), led by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Canadian officials will work with their international counterparts in an exercise responding to a simulated terrorist attack.

"NLE 09 offers a valuable opportunity to confirm intelligence and information sharing protocols with our partners and strengthen our response to potential threats," said the Honourable Peter Van Loan, Minister of Public Safety. "Participation in this exercise is an example of our government's on-going commitment to the security and safety of Canadians,
and making our communities safer. We are pleased to work with our allies on this important exercise."

This exercise will involve senior officials of the United States government, as well as participants from Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and, for the first time, Mexico. The objective for this exercise differs from previous exercises that practised disaster response and recovery. For NLE 09, the objective is to demonstrate the capability to prevent a terrorist attack from occurring through effective information-sharing
and coordination.

Canada has participated in the U.S. National Level Exercises since 2003. It is one of the many preparedness activities that Public Safety Canada organizes across the country on an ongoing basis. Participating in exercises such as this one, and applying the observations and lessons learned, enhances Canada's ability to prevent, manage or mitigate emergencies of all kinds.

Public Safety Canada
Media Relations

*****Here is an email from Mrs. J. Perras, media relations with Public Safety Canada *****
July 27, 2009 - 4:33:01 p.m.

Good afternoon ,

NLE 09 will take place entirely in offices and operations centres. There will be no community presence. Because the Canadian component of NLE 09 will take place in offices and government operations centers, it is not suited to an observer program. The presence of observers, including media, could adversely affect the practical component of the exercise.
The Government of Canada is committed to the fight against terrorism. Exercises like National Level Exercise 09 strengthen our ability to prevent terrorist attacks. Our objective is to improve Canada’s ability to respond to threats, whether they originate in Canada or abroad, and to ensure that we collaborate effectively with our allies. NLE 09 will help Canada confirm our operations protocols which contribute to national security. It gives us the opportunity to exercise with partners from the US, the UK, Australia and Mexico, and will help us refine our response to potential threats.
What we learn from the exercise will enhance our ability to work together to confront threats of all kinds, and particularly threats of terrorism.
Exercises like NLE 09 ensure that we work effectively with our international partners to respond to emergencies of all kinds. This exercise is among the many preparedness activities that Canadian departments and agencies participate in throughout the country on an ongoing basis. Canada is pleased to work with our allies on this important international exercise.

If you see or hear reports of military drills/exercises near your area, let us know. (According to this email their will not be any community exercises.)

but if there is... shoot your pics/video/audio and send em in.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Cumis responds to blog article

***CUMIS has responded to this blog article with a comment below***

"CUMIS’ practices are consistent with insurance industry standard practices in Canada. As with any life insurance company, CUMIS typically asks applicants seeking insurance on their mortgage loans to complete a brief questionnaire regarding their medical history.

Whether CUMIS asks for blood, urine and/or oral fluid samples is dependent upon the applicant’s responses to the health questionnaire; the applicant’s coverage history and the amount of coverage requested.

However, CUMIS does not collect hair samples, and has no plans to do so."

The CUMIS Group Limited

** We appreciate Cumis weighing in on the matter, and for voicing there side of the story.**

Column by – Marc Andre
The Northwest Herald

email for contact questions:
SASKATOON - It has become a first for Canadians and the implications can be astronomical, a massively large insurance firm; The CUMIS Group Limited Insurance who have been partnered along with thousands of 'credit unions' across North America for insurance requirements, has now accepted a policy of pre-screening drug tests & hair samples for the right to obtain home loan insurance, a necessity, if you’re going to purchase a home in Canada.
We first learned of this policy from a source who prefers to remain anonymous. The bank in question is called AFFINITY CREDIT UNION in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada; they are partnered with CUMIS insurance to offer home loan insurance.
This precedent setting policy from CUMIS & AFFINITY CREDIT UNION in Canada has now mandated that hair samples, urine drug testing, as well as a documented question and answer portion, (which our sources have indicated to be highly sensitive personal inquiries), will now be the norm for those apparently “high-risk” individuals.
We first learned of this story from a young man in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. Our source was instructed to undergo a rigorous pre-screening procedure in order to obtain insurance for his new home.
Our source stated that; "the bank (Affinity credit union) said that I should use the insurance company they provide to make things smoother, I never thought anything of it." "I don't really care if I get tested; it's just a hassle with my work schedule" said our source. Additional information gathered showed that our sources’ home value was approximately $300,000 when he applied for the loan – slightly above the average cost of a home in Canada, sitting at $287,000.
University of Saskatchewan, Professor William Buschert from the Department of Philosophy and Political Studies, says he is “surprised it is happening in Canada,” he also noted “from an ethical standpoint, it’s disturbing”. “The United States Government, got rid of this mandate in 2008, precisely because of the legal, moral, and privacy implications it presents… not to mention the selective way of ‘insuring’ one group of people and not the other. However, from the stance of the insurance companies, this ensures that they don’t get the “wrong” type of people”.
Professor Buschert also mentioned, playing devil’s advocate at times, that having this practice banned may create an unfair burden on the insurance companies and will ultimately create higher premium rates for the clients they serve.
When asked about the attitude of the general public regarding this issue of insurance companies gaining biometric samples for home loans, when some would say ‘what’s the harm, I have nothing to hide’, Professor Buschert responded with the following, “regardless of whether someone may have a ‘nothing to hide, so what's the harm’ attitude, it is obvious that this is an encroachment of individual freedoms, not to mention the privacy issues herein”.
We also contacted Saskatchewan Government Insurance Canada for comments, (they are a government agency who provides various types of insurance for western & central Canada; it is to be noted that SGI Canada is entirely separate from CUMIS) SGI Canada stated that; "we do not have a policy for drug testing for home insurance purposes."
We also reached the bank in question, AFFINITY CREDIT UNION in Saskatoon, sk, Canada. They commented that "High Risk" individuals may include those who purchase a home above 300,000 dollars".
When asked if AFFINITY CREDIT UNION were aware of their partner CUMIS, performing drug screening, hair samples, and a multitude of highly personal information for ‘high risk’ individuals seeking home insurance, they responded with the following, “CUMIS does conduct the necessary screening procedure for homes above 300,000 dollars.” And does that include hair samples and urine samples? “yes”.
When reached for comment a CUMIS representative stated that; “it is our policy to conduct drug screening for homes loans above 300,000 dollars, so we can protect that money somehow” they also stated that even if you answer ‘no’ to any questions on the health questionnaire you will still have to “provide a urine sample”. Interviewer: Are you aware of an executive order from Bush in 2008, disallowed CUMIS INS from gathering hair and urine samples, in the USA? They responded by saying. “well, were not in the states are we”. Indeed we are not, but the question remains, is it still ethically responsible, regardless of the location?

Upon further investigation, we have concluded that this issue has raised more questions than answers.
How long has this been going on? Are other insurance companies practicing this policy? Is this being documented? What is done with the biometric samples? Legal issues? Are the samples allowed to be sold to other insurance companies? Why is this not being reported in the mainstream media? Is the government going to do anything about it?
What makes this case interesting is that this was not an abnormally large mortgage value, and there were no indications that this individual was singled out for any reason. We are led to believe that this will be the norm from now on, until the public makes a fuss, we will all be forced to give up our freedoms for the greed of major corporations like Cumis Group Limited.
July 23, 2009.
The Northwest Herald

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Feds Prepare To Tax Toilet Paper In Name Of Climate Change

Feds Prepare To Tax Toilet Paper In Name Of Climate Change

Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
The vampiric and gluttonous feeding frenzy currently being enjoyed by the federal government under the pretext of climate change is set to be expanded with a range of new taxes on products disposed of via waste water, including cosmetics, toothpaste and toilet paper.
The “Water Protection and Reinvestment Act,” H.R.3202, introduced last week by Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore), will be “financed broadly by small fees on such things as bottled beverages, products disposed of in wastewater, corporate profits, and the pharmaceutical industry,” according to Blumenauer’s fact sheet.
Though the taxes are “designed to be collected at the manufacturer level,” only the most naive would doubt that multinational corporations would just pass the cost on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, as is routine.
Items disposed of in wastewater, such as toothpaste, cosmetics, toilet paper and cooking oil will be subject to a 3% excise tax, while water beverages will be hit with a 4% tax, “because these products wind up in the water stream and require clean up by sewage treatment plants,” according to the bill.
The legislation also cites “climate change mitigation” as a justification for imposing the taxes. The Feds’ new feeding frenzy will rake in around $10 billion dollars a year.
The bill even defines “toilet tissue” in section 4172. “The rulemaking to define what rises to the level of a bottom-wipe is in the name of a good cause: to tax the stuff,” writes Chris Horner. “The current band of feds don’t think you’ve paid enough tax — this has been established ad nauseam — and now want a dedicated revenue, er, stream, to pay to replace corroded pipes and overburdened sewer systems nationwide.”
The necessity of cleaning up a water supply poisoned with the toxic soup of human disposals seems like a reasonable proposal, especially in light of evidence that antiandrogens in our rivers and lakes are contributing to global sperm reduction and essentially chemically sterilizing men, and yet when the filters are ready to be installed at water treatment facilities that would remove this junk, the government steps in and blocks them under the justification that they contribute to CO2 emissions.
The fact that the global warming feeding frenzy has now reached a level of insanity to the point where the federal government is essentially preparing to tax us to defecate and urinate shows how far down the line we really are. What’s next? A tax on breathing? After all, we humans exhale that evil life-giving poisonous gas carbon dioxide. The New York Times actually introduced the idea of the government imposing a tax on breathing in a March 2007 editorial.
As we are lectured about the necessity of why we must have every aspect of our lives regulated and taxed in order to save the earth, we learn that the government’s last efforts to do so, during the ozone layer scare of the 80’s and 90’s, actually harmed the environment.
The Washington Post reported on Monday that hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), introduced in the 90’s to replace ozone-depleting gases in deodorants, fridges and air conditioners, actually “act like “super” greenhouse gases, with a heat-trapping power that can be 4,470 times that of carbon dioxide.” So while the government was brow-beating us about the evils of emitting CO2 because it apparently caused global warming, they were actually mandating that we use a gas which contributed to global warming to an substantially greater degree.

Monday, July 20, 2009

Cost Of Bailout Hits A Whopping $24 Trillion Dollars

Cost Of Bailout Hits A Whopping $24 Trillion Dollars

According to the watchdog overseeing the federal government’s financial bailout program, the full exposure since 2007 amounts to a whopping $23.7 trillion dollars, or $80,000 for every American citizen.

The last time we were able to get a measure of the total cost of the bailout, it stood at around $8.5 trillion dollars. Eight months down the line and that figure has almost tripled.

The $23.7 trillion figure comprises “about 50 initiatives and programs set up by the Bush and Obama administrations as well as by the Federal Reserve,” according to the Associated Press.

In testimony which will be delivered to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee tomorrow, Neil Barofsky, the inspector general for the TARP, will tell Congress that “the Treasury Department has repeatedly failed to adopt recommendations aimed at making the TARP program more accountable and transparent.”

According to Barofsky, taxpayers are in the dark as to who has received the money and what they are doing with it.

As we have repeatedly highlighted, the destination of some $2 trillion in TARP funds was the subject of a lawsuit filed by Bloomberg late last year after the Fed refused to disclose the recipients. The suit is still ongoing as Bloomberg attempts to discover names of private financial institutions that received the money.

The American people will ultimately pick up the tab as their dollar is devalued because the Fed lends the money from its own balance sheet or essentially just prints more money, as a San Francisco Chronicle article explained last year.

Wages will not keep pace with inflation and if we add to the equation the raft of new taxes being introduced by the Obama administration, the consequences are clear – another lowering of the living standard for millions of middle class Americans.

Meanwhile, Henry Paulson, one of the chief architects of the bailout and the man who committed financial terrorism by threatening the Congress with martial law and food riots if they didn’t pass the initial TARP package, brazenly pockets $200,000 in Goldman Sachs profits tax free while handing out billions in ill-gotten gains to his bankster buddies, all this after he pulled a bait and switch by changing the entire focus of the bailout from buying up toxic debt to giving money directly to financial institutions.

We dread to think what the bailout figure will be in another eight months. Will it triple again to $70 trillion dollars? How about $100 trillion dollars?

The only thing that can bring an end to the wanton looting is Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Fed, which has received overwhelming support in the House but is being blocked by the bought and paid for traitors in the Senate who would rather see a continuation of the grand larceny rather than real accountability and transparency.

Watch a CNBC discussion of the $24 trillion figure below.

Paul Joseph Watson Prison Monday, July 20, 2009

Thursday, July 16, 2009

SWAT Team Descends On Screaming Video Game Player

A man from Bound Brook, New Jersey, has been arrested and taken to hospital for psychological evaluation after his "screaming" while gaming attracted the attention of a pedestrian, the police and ultimately the SWAT team.
The incident began Tuesday afternoon when a woman called police to report screams emanating from a house she had walked past. Police responded and asked the man who answered the door, who cannot be identified due to the ongoing investigation, if anything was wrong; he responded that he was yelling because he was playing videogames.
At this point, things get a bit hazy. The man became "irrational," according to a report by, although why or in what fashion is unknown. More police showed up and the man became "increasingly irate," refusing the let the officers into his house, threatening them and eventually "slamming the door" on them.
The situation escalated further. The SWAT team was called in while police maintained contact with the man through open windows. And then, about an hour after it all started, he left the house "without incident," at which time he was arrested, charged with disorderly conduct and taken away for his psych evaluation.
Details are scarce and it's impossible to tell if this guy was a legitimate nut-job or just one of the hardcore who got caught up on a hot round of TF2 and wasn't interested in answering stupid questions from overly-aggressive police. But looking at it purely from the perspective of a gamer I have to think that there's a good chance the police got it wrong. Anyone who's played games online knows what it's like: I've been hurling obscenities at inanimate objects since at least the early 90s and my sister - my respectable, mother-of-three businesswoman sister - yells things that would make a longshoreman blush when she plays Call of Duty 4.
Whatever the case, the lesson seems clear: Hootin' and hollerin' from the bleachers is one thing but if you want to do it in the privacy of your own home, you'd better be ready to answer some questions - politely.

A Philosophical Argument against Forced Vaccination

A Philosophical Argument against Forced Vaccination

Note: This essay deals only with the philosophical argument against forced vaccination by the state.
A few years ago I entered into a discussion with a close friend regarding vaccination. This person stated that their child was not up to date with state recommended vaccinations and was debating internally whether or not she felt they were necessary. Without being asked my opinion, my reaction was quite strong in favor of vaccination and I made common claims that vaccinations were for the ‘common social good’ and that we all had to ‘do our part for society.’ Days later I thought back on the encounter and was surprised at how undiplomatically I pursued this argument. I had never researched vaccines, the potential health benefits or risks, or sought information from a variety of sources as one would commonly do before making an argument on any important subject. Regardless of our differing opinions I was only able to bring to the discussion force to try to convince her of my opinion – I offered no information, cited no facts or statistics in my debate – the apparent ‘will of the people’ which my ignorance represented was argument enough. Was this enough to base a decision on concerning the health and well-being of a child?

No well researched, honest nurse, doctor, or even bureaucrat would deny the risk involved in vaccinations.

In 2006 I found out that I was going to be a father. A close friend of mine suggested I do some research on vaccines and sent me information from a variety of sources. At the time I was sure vaccination was the route to go, despite the fact I still had no solid information, facts or research to base my opinion on – only the widely accepted idea that vaccines were responsible for ridding western society from small pox, polio as well as many other diseases and that any child without his shots was a threat to the health of all of us and furthermore that the parent was being irresponsible. These ideas were backed up by the media and rest of society. But I became utterly consumed with the topic, buying many books, watching documentaries, listening to lectures, looking at University studies and reading articles from many countries. It is safe to say I spent hundreds of hours on the subject looking at information from a vast array of sources – pro & con vaccine.
Needless to say when I really dove into the subject, I was alarmed at the amount of conventional medical history and government statistics that showed both the ineffectiveness and oftentimes outright harm that vaccinations could cause. As a member of society that deemed all children without shots as somehow a threat to its well being, and would bar them from the school yard as well as brand any parent who did not agree with them a heretic, I’d never been offered contrary information about the effectiveness of shots by primary education or the media who advocate them. What about the other side? Did I not deserve the best information with which to make an informed decision by?
In my basic understanding from school or mainstream media such as TV, I’d been taught about the miracle findings of Jonas Salk & Albert Sabin with their polio ‘cures’ – but had I been taught about SV-40? No. SV-40 is the 40th simian virus which was discovered in the monkey kidneys used to manufacture the polio vaccine (yes most vaccines are from monkey, chicken or bovine organs or tissue). For a period of years and debatably decades until the 1990’s, polio vaccines were administered by law (and thereby force) that at the time unknowingly contained SV-40 to millions of people. SV-40 undoubtedly causes cancer in many animals, and many controversial studies have shown it does the same in humans. Was I given this information? No. Was I taught about contraindications? No. Contraindications are health concerns such as family history of autoimmune or neurological disorders, allergies that conflict with vaccines and can cause minor or major reactions. With a family history of severe autoimmune disorders and an undiagnosed neurological episode of my own as a teenager this information could be critical to me. Why was I not taught to protect myself or to research to find my own opinion at least? It should be noted that more research is needed to discover why these contraindications cause such severe health problems – the simple fact is that as much as doctors know, they do not know everything and more research is needed. Again this essay is not dealing with medical arguments against vaccination – I am raising such issues to show that the medical community is by no means all-knowing and that common means by which we receive information rarely show us enough to make an informed decision. These decisions require much research and careful thought if they are to be made well. The medical opinions and advances of one generation that are hailed as miracles are always surely to be laughed at by the next. Common use of asbestos and lead – both deemed safe by the medical community at the time by the prestigious Melon Institute, or Lipitor and Vioxx in recent years are proof of this. As much as they do not wish to believe – those who put their faith into science alone and not the full scope of reason are using just that – faith – which those same scientists may consider absent of reason. Science is ever changing and evolving and we should consider this when making important decisions about our health – especially if these ‘decisions’ are imposed by law, and thereby force.
  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

‘Social good’ or ‘will of the people’ – what do these terms mean? With reference to vaccinations these mean the submission as free individuals of our bodies and minds and those of our children to vaccination by the whim of the state for the good of the collective. This idea tells us we should discard personal research or the ability of the individual to reason for these are less noble than the collective and are a potential threat to society. What is the limit of this philosophy? How far could it be used to suppress the power of the individual? When does the collective decide to stop imposing this submission? Can it? The collective does not think, it does not reason or research. Who influences the collective? Where is the room for the individual to plead his case to it? What about to the government body that forms these laws? If these laws are for ’social good’ why must they come at the expense of the power of the individuals mind to reason what is best for itself? Why is using the mind to ones own benefit for personal health punishable by the state? In a country such as ours whose forefathers fled tyranny and set up a government based on the promise to the individual of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ is it possible to be free if you don’t have control over something as basic as what enters your body? Submission to a government and to a collective for the benefit of ’social good’ is a direct conflict with the principles of liberty that separated America from other nations and allowed for greatness.
It is quite acceptable for a woman to have an abortion in America and while I recognize this subject is taboo and am not going to make an argument for or against abortion I’m going to use it to make a point. If that makes you uncomfortable, ask yourself why and question your beliefs (on either side). It is common belief that a woman has a right to an abortion because the child is ‘her body.’ It would be entirely unacceptable for a woman to be kept from an abortion or forced into one because this would be an infringement on her right to choose for her own body. Yet that same woman must by law submit her body and her child’s body to an ever increasing list of vaccinations that can cause serious short and long term health risks or in rare cases death. Given this conflict presented by current laws does the woman have an absolute right to decide what’s best for her body? No she does not. This shows the ineptness and unprincipled tinkering of our lawmakers and the often arbitrary thinking of the collective as well. Whether you believe in abortion or oppose it, believe in vaccination or oppose it, it is quite obvious that there is not by law a clear definition of the right of the individual to ownership of his or her body. Lease is a better word, granted by the state. And since children are not responsible for themselves, it could be said their bodies are leased to parents by the state as well with a strict set of guidelines to be followed, punishable by force. By what right do they claim this ownership?
The collective also seems quite willing to support its beliefs even if on the sole basis that vaccination is in certain cases required by law. It does not seem to question the laws or the body imposing these laws and its role or effectiveness (or lack thereof). Are we to believe the same government that has broken its own constitutional laws with aggressive wars on false pretenses is without error in regards to our health? Even the most ardent war supporters would admit Rumsfeld’s blunders in this area. Should we submit our ability to reason to a government that has plunged our nation into 60 billion dollars in debt with total unfunded obligations? Can a government capable of such an economic failure be without error in the case of vaccinations? Are we to believe these laws are not merely to benefit the products of the vaccine makers who spend millions lobbying in Washington; products that are sometimes mandatory and through government enabled monopoly are often unimproved for decades as in the case of DPT? Are we to believe a group of bureaucrats with a history of failures are without fault in determining 100% what is best for our bodies, regardless of how just the laws are? Is this a system to rest our faith and the health of our children on?
No well researched, honest nurse, doctor, or even bureaucrat would deny the risk involved in vaccinations especially since the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund has awarded over a billion dollars to families of children harmed by vaccinations since it was started in 1988. In light of this and the principles of liberty this nation was founded on, we should be free to decline and make decisions as we see fit without having to navigate difficult unjust laws. Instead we are forced to hand responsibility over to our doctors and government who don’t have to live with the consequences or raise disabled children. Their only answer is to hand us money as an apology for their bad policy, as if that is adequate compensation for any physical or mental injuries as well as the submission of our bodies, our minds ability to reason, and our rights as free individuals.
John Burke
July 16, 2009

does anybody other than the ellite want a 'new world order'

I find it interesting.
that most people are opposed to a 'new world order'.
and that their is hardly anyone out there, in favor of it.

what do you want?

I guess this guy does:

and even this guy does:

NAM calls for new world order
Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:18:59 GMT
More than 50 heads of state from the developing world will meet to tackle the fallout from the global economic meltdown, with calls for a new world order.

The Cuban President Raul Castro said in a speech at the opening session of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit that the financial crisis had hit the developing nations the hardest.

The Cuban President also called for a new monetary and economic world order that would take into consideration the needs of the developing countries.

Global power dynamics also need to be addressed, the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said, demanding a restructuring of the UN Security Council which he branded as a form of terrorism "monopolized by a few countries that are permanent members."

Gaddafi said he wanted to correct the imbalance at the UN Security Council, demanding a permanent seat for the 53-member African Union, which he chairs.

This is while the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that members should play a bigger role on the world stage.

The Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani expressed optimism that relations with India were headed on the right track.

India, along with the host Egypt, is one of the founding members of NAM, the largest grouping of countries outside of the United Nations, aimed at giving a voice to the developing world.

Founded in 1955, NAM's 118 member states represent around 56 percent of the world population.


Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Holdren Forced To Respond To Controversy

Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Obama’s top science and technology advisor John P. Holdren has been forced to issue a statement in which he denies advocating the totalitarian population control proposals outlined in his own academic textbook. However, Holdren’s response is a tissue of half-truths, spin and outright lies.
The controversy began this past weekend when fresh attention was given to passages from the 1977 book Ecoscience, which Holdren Co-authored with close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, leading to accusations that Holdren supported the numerous eugenicist policies outlined in the book.
“This material is from a three-decade-old, three-author college textbook. Dr. Holdren addressed this issue during his confirmation when he said he does not believe that determining optimal population is a proper role of government. Dr. Holdren is not and never has been an advocate for policies of forced sterilization,” reads a statement provided by Holdren’s staff.
A statement from Holdren’s co-authors the Ehrlichs was also released by the White House which read, “Anybody who actually wants to know what we and/or Professor Holdren believe and recommend about these matters would presumably read some of the dozens of publications that we and he separately have produced in more recent times, rather than going back a third of a century to find some formulations in an encyclopedic textbook where description can be misrepresented as endorsement.”
During his confirmation hearing, when asked whether he thought “determining optimal population is a proper role of the government,” Holdren answered, “No, Senator, I do not.”
Is it likely that Holdren’s true feelings towards overpopulation can be extracted from a five word response at a confirmation hearing, or from his own encyclopedic length textbook?
On the one hand we have to weigh the credibility of a one sentence comment at the public sideshow of a confirmation hearing, a spectacle that has become synonymous with the art of lying, deception, and hiding skeletons in the closet, as can be witnessed right now with the Judge Sonia Sotomayor hearings.
On the other hand we have a 1000-plus page book which is littered with proposals centered around forced abortion, numerous different methods of forced sterilization and numerous other proposals describing invasive government control of pregnancy and the life cycle.
Which is likelier to be a true representation of Holdren’s real position on the subject?
Holdren’s claim that he “never has been an advocate for policies of forced sterilization,” alongside the Ehrlich’s claim that “formulations” in the Ecoscience textbook have been misrepresented as endorsements, is provably an outright lie.
Phrases such as “it has been concluded” are used in the book alongside proposals for forced abortion, such as the passage on page 837 which reads, “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.”
Holdren and the Ehrlich’s do not identify who “it has been concluded” by, leaving the reader in no doubt that “it has been concluded” by the writers themselves that forced abortion should be introduced. This is called “hiding behind the passive voice.” It provides the writers plausible deniability, but only the idiotically naive would deny that it represents anything other than an endorsement of forced abortion and sterilization.
Furthermore, the whole tone of the Ecoscience book is directed against those who would disagree with coercive population control measures. These people are even referred to in a derisory tone as “pro-natalists,” a word invented purely for the purposes of the book. The book does not merely present a neutral stance on “formulations” as is claimed – the endorsement of these proposals is implicit in the fact that opponents of them are scorned throughout the book.
Ecoscience is clearly an endorsement of totalitarian population reduction measures. Anyone who has read the quotes contained in the book in their full context can see that this is manifestly the case. Holdren and the Ehrlichs are presumably counting on the fact that the book is now out of print and that no one will actually read it, because if they did then the entire context of what the book endorses becomes crystal clear.
Furthermore, some of the nightmarish proposals about adding sterilants to the water supply and food that are outlined in Ecoscience are already taking place, with global sperm counts dropping worldwide, partly as a result of the discovery of antiandrogens in rivers and lakes, which are also used in pesticides, and have been found to release “endocrine disruptors” that induce demasculinization in both fish and rats, according to several scientific studies.
It is also somewhat amusing to see that the Ehrlichs are trying to distance themselves from positions they held 30 years ago and attempting to get people to focus only on what they are saying now. I’m sure this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Paul Ehrlich’s alarmist predictions about overpopulation which were made in the 1960’s and 70’s have proven to be spectacularly wrong, wrong and wrong again in every instance.
  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

It would be very embarrassing indeed for more people to learn about how Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist by the year 2000, that 4 billion people would starve to death during the 1980’s, and that the average American life span would be 45 years of age by the start of the 21st century, especially that Ehrlich now spews his doomsday threats under the banner of global warming alarmism.
Holdren’s attempt to use the fact that the book is over 30 years old to distance himself from its content is also a deceptive move, because before this controversy arose, Holdren was perfectly happy to conduct a major interview with the Associated Press with the book proudly displayed on his bookshelf in the background. If Holdren has changed his mind about the proposals in the book, or never agreed with those presented by his fellow authors in the first place, then why does he prominently display a copy during this interview? Watch the clip below.
In the video, Holdren talks about “geoengineering,” effectively terraforming the planet by injecting untested aerosols into the upper atmosphere in an apparent attempt to offset “global warming,” with unknown side effects.
This brings to mind another example where Holdren has flip-flopped and apparently changed his mind in an attempt to defuse controversy.
In April, Holdren told the media that talks were already underway within the Obama administration to explore the possibility of geoengineering the planet. However, following a largely negative reaction, Holdren then backpedaled and told the New York Times that administration level talks had not taken place. Days later, Holdren told an Massachusetts Institute of Technology audience that , “Large-scale geoengineering projects designed to cool the Earth could conceivably be done.”
We reprint below quotes from Ecoscience and leave the reader to make their own mind up about whether the book was merely presenting “formulations,” as the Ehrlichs claim, or whether they were de facto endorsements, keeping in mind the fact that opponents of such measures are regularly undermined throughout the whole book.
Page 786: 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.”
Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control
Involuntary fertility control
“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children
“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.“
Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size
“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”
Page 942-3: A “Planetary Regime” should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born
Toward a Planetary Regime
“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”
“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force
“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”
Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism
“Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the “tragedy of the commons,” wherein the “commons” is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.”
Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000
“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.”

Article printed from Infowars: