rushmc 23 #1 July 16, 2009 Our New Science Czar. What do you all think? Links in the page have more http://www.examiner.com/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2009m7d16-Science-Czar-John-P-Holdrens-disturbing-beliefs-about-America-capitalism-and-humanity QuoteJohn P. Holdren has been named President Barack Obama's 'Science Czar." Holdren's official titles are: Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Assistant to the President for Science and Technology; and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. The longtime Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, Holdren is no stranger to controversy. Holdren's radicalism dates back to the late 1960s. In 1969 Holdren wrote that it was imperative “to convince society and its leaders that there is no alternative but the cessation of our irresponsible, all-demanding, and all-consuming population growth.” That same year, he and (the now largely discredited) professor of population studies Paul Ehrlich jointly predicted: “If … population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.” In 1971 Holdren and Ehrlich warned that “some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.” Viewing capitalism as an economic system that is inherently harmful to the natural environment, Holdren and Ehrlich in 1973 called for “a massive campaign … to de-develop the United States” and other Western nations in order to conserve energy and facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries. “De-development,” they said, “means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” “By de-development,” they elaborated, “we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.” " In a new report “inspired by this article in FrontPage,” undercover videoblogger “Zombietime” (known for his “candid camera”-style exposes of leftist activists and protesters) got hold of a copy of Holdren & Ehrlich’s 1977 book, entitled Ecoscience, and verified the quotations and page citations provided in the FrontPage Magazine article, by scanning and posting them on the Internet. To this day, Holdren lists the book on his CV. Among other things, Holdren and Ehrlich wrote in Ecosystems: 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. 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. 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. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #2 July 16, 2009 QuoteOur New Science Czar. What do you all think? Links in the page have more http://www.examiner.com/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2009m7d16-Science-Czar-John-P-Holdrens-disturbing-beliefs-about-America-capitalism-and-humanity QuoteJohn P. Holdren has been named President Barack Obama's 'Science Czar." Holdren's official titles are: Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Assistant to the President for Science and Technology; and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. The longtime Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, Holdren is no stranger to controversy. Holdren's radicalism dates back to the late 1960s. In 1969 Holdren wrote that it was imperative “to convince society and its leaders that there is no alternative but the cessation of our irresponsible, all-demanding, and all-consuming population growth.” That same year, he and (the now largely discredited) professor of population studies Paul Ehrlich jointly predicted: “If … population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.” In 1971 Holdren and Ehrlich warned that “some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.” Viewing capitalism as an economic system that is inherently harmful to the natural environment, Holdren and Ehrlich in 1973 called for “a massive campaign … to de-develop the United States” and other Western nations in order to conserve energy and facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries. “De-development,” they said, “means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” “By de-development,” they elaborated, “we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.” " In a new report “inspired by this article in FrontPage,” undercover videoblogger “Zombietime” (known for his “candid camera”-style exposes of leftist activists and protesters) got hold of a copy of Holdren & Ehrlich’s 1977 book, entitled Ecoscience, and verified the quotations and page citations provided in the FrontPage Magazine article, by scanning and posting them on the Internet. To this day, Holdren lists the book on his CV. Among other things, Holdren and Ehrlich wrote in Ecosystems: 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. 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. 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. QuoteObama keeps putting people in charge of things without congresses aproval. Why? how can the population get rid of them if they do wrong? they can't. congress can't. this is not good for America. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #3 July 16, 2009 Our elected leaders need to be reminded that they have sworn to uphold the Constitution. They seem to be giving their sworn oaths lip service, and nothing else.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #4 July 16, 2009 Our Senate seems to be a rational body. I'm seeing them put the brakes on Obama more and more.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #5 July 16, 2009 QuoteObama keeps putting people in charge of things without congresses aproval. Why? how can the population get rid of them if they do wrong? they can't. congress can't. this is not good for America. Basic Constitutional principles: The President - every President - is required by the Constitution to seek the "advise and consent" (i.e., approval or rejection) of the US Senate for all members of his Cabinet (as well as the Federal judiciary). The Senate most certainly can reject a Cabinet nominee; and this does occur from time to time (ditto re: judiciary). Once appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, Cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the President. By law, Congress defines which executive offices do and do not have "Cabinet" status (thereby requiring Senate approval). The President is not required to seek Congressional approval to appoint employees of the executive branch below the Cabinet level - they are considered to be the President's staff, who he hires and fires as he sees fit. Any US citizen who doesn't like this can do either or both of the following: 1. Campaign for an Amendment to the Constitution to change the above formula; and/or 2. Petition the Congress to extend Cabinet status to additional executive employees. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #6 July 17, 2009 Once again, righties whinging and whining because YOU LOST THE ELECTION!!!! Elections have consequences. Us lefties put up with the religious whackjobs that ShrubCo appointed EXACTLY the same way. You all didn't have a word to say when appointees from third and fourth rate "religious educational" institutions were appointed. The righties already control the major media outlets. The folks in flyover country have their heads pumped full of bullshit. Thus the spew from the righties. Suck it up, cupcakes. YOU LOST THE ELECTION. Deal with it. Odds are that having a self made constitutional scholar as a president is going to work out a lot better than a legacy blueblood alcoholic drug abuser from Conneticut by way of Texas did. Time will tell. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #7 July 17, 2009 Quote Once again, righties whinging and whining because YOU LOST THE ELECTION!!!! Elections have consequences. Us lefties put up with the religious whackjobs that ShrubCo appointed EXACTLY the same way. You all didn't have a word to say when appointees from third and fourth rate "religious educational" institutions were appointed. The righties already control the major media outlets. The folks in flyover country have their heads pumped full of bullshit. Thus the spew from the righties. Suck it up, cupcakes. YOU LOST THE ELECTION. Deal with it. Odds are that having a self made constitutional scholar as a president is going to work out a lot better than a legacy blueblood alcoholic drug abuser from Conneticut by way of Texas did. Time will tell. I seem to be dealing with it better than you must have when Bush won.... twiceThink anger management. All you lefties are going to be fun to look at over the next few monthsConsider this an advanced "thank you" "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #8 July 17, 2009 Quoteczar [zahr, tsahr] Use czar in a Sentence –noun 1. an emperor or king. 2. (often initial capital letter) the former emperor of Russia. 3. an autocratic ruler or leader. 4. any person exercising great authority or power in a particular field: a czar of industry. It's a downward spiral.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #9 July 17, 2009 Cant call em a "dictator". Not politically correct....."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #10 July 17, 2009 Head of OSTP, which was established in 1976 under Pres Ford by PL 94-282 (so neither new, a "Czar," nor unaccountable) requires Senate Confirmation. The position is as accountable as any Cabinet Secretary although with a lot less real power, e.g., very small budget. OSTP has a skewed high prestige to power ratio. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #11 July 17, 2009 Quote Head of OSTP, which was established in 1976 under Pres Ford by PL 94-282 (so neither new, a "Czar," nor unaccountable) requires Senate Confirmation. The position is as accountable as any Cabinet Secretary although with a lot less real power, e.g., very small budget. OSTP has a skewed high prestige to power ratio. /Marg So this nut needs to get confirmation? Not what I understand because he is calling this something different. (I could be wrong however) And, I would hope they run this kook out of town on a rail if confirmation is required."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #12 July 17, 2009 He was confirmed in March. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #13 July 17, 2009 Quote He was confirmed in March. Wonderful Another radical in charge............."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #14 July 17, 2009 Quote Odds are that having a self made constitutional scholar ...... For a "constitutional scholar" his understanding of the US Constitution seems especially lacking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #15 July 17, 2009 Quote Quote Odds are that having a self made constitutional scholar ...... For a "constitutional scholar" his understanding of the US Constitution seems especially lacking. Remember, he thinks the Constitution is "a bit dated". He's also a "Constitutional scholar" who couldn't place the 15th Amendment in the correct century.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #16 July 17, 2009 Quote Quote Odds are that having a self made constitutional scholar ...... For a "constitutional scholar" his understanding of the US Constitution seems especially lacking. Based on what cockamamie bullshit posted on what right wingnut website? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #17 July 17, 2009 QuoteBased on what cockamamie bullshit posted on what right wingnut website? How about his inability to place the 15th Amendment into the correct century?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #18 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteBased on what cockamamie bullshit posted on what right wingnut website? How about his inability to place the 15th Amendment into the correct century? Can you point out the many many and multiple times that this error occured? Dates and specifics links please. Or are you extrapolating a single mis-statement that occured one time to indicate a general lack of understanding? it was a one time mis-statement by a fatigued candidate for president. Ignorant attacks of this nature are to be expected from those that financially support scumbags like Saxby Chambliss. ESAD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
