So says the Science Czar.

Just when it seems that Obama’s Science Czar couldn’t be more ridiculous (in a really scary way), I learn more.

Yesterday, I learned the he believed that infants EVENTUALLY became human beings.  I had written I post about the whole thing, but then my kids deleted it (I’m not sure if they are human beings yet, at least according to Holdren…)

As I had previously posted, in 1977, Holdren co-authored a book, Ecoscience, that supported:  mandatory sterilization, forced abortions, mandatory birth control with corresponding requests for permission from the gov to procreate, regulated family size, and drugging the public water with drugs that would cause infertility on a mass scale.

Since then, Obama’s people have clarified that Holdren didn’t really mean that.  He was only a co-author, and the other authors must have written those bits in.

So, why in 1973, did Holdren co-author “Human Ecology” with the same people?  He must agree with them, they obviously have a long term professional relationship. 

Michelle Malkin has more about the book.

Some bits from “Human Ecology”:

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. “De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.”

“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being.”

With ideas like those, it is a wonder he isn’t the Economic Czar, it would explain a lot.

“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.”

So, infants are not human.  Therefore, infanticide is not murder?  One wonders, at what age do children receive full “human being” status?

Then, I saw the following headline late last night:  In the 70s, Obama’s Science Adviser Endorsed Giving Trees Legal Standing to Sue in Court.

I guess my back-yard tree could sue me for negligence.

Since the 1970s, some radical environmentalists have argued that trees have legal rights and should be allowed to go to court to protect those rights.
The idea has been endorsed by John P. Holdren, the man who now advises President Barack Obama on science and technology issues.
Giving “natural objects” — like trees — standing to sue in a court of law would have a “most salubrious” effect on the environment, Holdren wrote  the 1970s.
“One change in (legal) notions that would have a most salubrious effect on the quality of the environment has been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’” Holdren said in a 1977 book that he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich….
“In that tightly reasoned essay, Stone points out the obvious advantages of giving natural objects standing, just as such inanimate objects as corporations, trusts, and ships are now held to have legal rights and duties,” Holdren added.

Stone’s article — “Should Trees Have Standing?” — which Holdren called a “tightly reasoned essay,” was published in the Southern California Law Review in 1972.
In that article, Stone plainly states: “I am quite seriously proposing that we give legal rights to forests, oceans, rivers and other so-called ‘natural objects’ in the environment–indeed, to the natural environment as a whole.”
Stone admits in the article that it may seem improbable to give legal rights to nonhuman objects, but likened it to finally giving rights to black Americans.
“The fact is, that each time there is a movement to confer rights onto some new ‘entity,’ the proposal is bound to sound odd or frightening or laughable,” Stone wrote.
“This is partly because until the rightless (sic) thing receives its rights, we cannot see it as anything but a thing for the use of ‘us’–those who are holding rights at the time . . . Such is the way the slave South looked upon the black.”

I wonder, how do you get a tree to testify in court?  How does it even call a lawyer?  Oh, that’s right – the ecofreaks already speak “tree” and would sue on their behalf.  I just hope that those rights don’t go as far as my azaleas – I just wacked the heck out of them yesterday.

What is really bothering me is that there are several people in Obama’s administration, that he hand picked, that obviously do not believe in the sacredness of human life.  And, since he hand picked them, Obama must feel similarly.  And these are the people that want to push their HEALTHCARE AGENDA????

And that is where I get worried.  If people who do not believe that human life is special or something worth saving start running our healthcare system, then our lives really might be threatened.

They already have said that infants are not human.  Does that mean that the really expensive neonatal care would not be “necessary” or cost effective?

And what about our elderly?  Our grandmothers and grandfathers, who treated us with cookies every time that we visited?  Who had time to listen to our rambling dreams?  Who gave us the uncritical love that parents really cannot give?  (yes, I had two sets of incredible “perfect” grandparents)   But what happens when they get REALLY OLD? 

That answer might be in:  Obama-Care, Euthanasia, and The Boiled Frog Syndrome.

Obama’s “health” czar is Rahm Emmanuel’s brother, Ezekiel.  Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel has this sage advice for doctors treating the elderly, “Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost, or the effects on others.” Kind of warms the cockles of the heart, doesn’t it?

Not to put too fine a point on it, we’re talking about euthanasia here folks—i.e killing people deemed unfit to serve society, because of mental or physical infirmities.  No joke.  The “joke” is that AARP is endorsing euthanasia for the welfare of its elderly members.

Think I’m kidding, or imaging things?  For some good info, and a chronological timeline that shows the steady growth of this insidious idea, check out Tree of Life: http://www.lifetree.org/timeline/index.html

Read the paper Dr Emmanuel co-wrote with Margaret Pabst Battin entitled, “What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide?” For even more fun, you’ll want to dive into his co-author’s “Choosing the Time to Die: The Ethics and Economics of Suicide in Old Age” or the ever-popular, “Age-Rationing and the Just Distribution of Health Care; Is There a Duty to Die?”

You might want to look into The Project on Death in America, started and funded by wealthy Obama backer George Soros, and you won’t want to miss Anton Chaitkin’s short PDF “The Nazi Euthanasia Program: Forerunner of Obama’s Death Council.” Among other interesting facts, you’ll find out about the Hastings Center, which you really should know about.  http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2009/2009_20-29/2009-24/pdf/74-77_3624.pdf

One of the more interesting members of the Hastings Center is the animal rights activist Peter Singer.  Here’s a quote from his paper “Taking Life: Human,” “…the use of the Nazi analogy is utterly misleading. On the contrary, once we abandon those doctrines about the sanctity of human life that…collapse as soon as they are questioned, it is the refusal to accept killing that, in some cases, is horrific.”
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993—-.htm

“The doctrines about the sanctity of human life collapse as soon as they are questioned.” Really?  Gee whiz, I didn’t know that.  And, gosh, I could’ve sworn that you sound a whole lot like a Nazi-style Eugenics nut.  Thanks for setting me straight Doc.

According to Chaitkin, “Singer advocates the killing of handicapped infants, to stop them from being a burden to parents and a cost to society. He believes that humans have no right to life above that of beasts, and that it may be more appropriate to do medical experiments on disabled, unconscious people than on healthy rats.”

Heinrich Himmler, the man in charge of Hitler’s extermination camps, was, like Singer, an animal rights activist.  I’m not implying anything, I’m just saying… I just find it an interesting coincidence, is all.

Our “health” czar, Dr. Emmanuel, is also a member in good standing of the Hastings Center.  How’d you like to be “a fly on the wall” during a chat between Emmanuel and Singer at the Hastings Center?  It would be an eye opener, no doubt.  Probably a jaw dropper too.
I think I speak for a whole lot of retired people when I say, “Thanks AARP!  Really appreciate your looking out for us older folks!” God, what a bunch of duplicitous, back-stabbing weasels.  (Note to self—cancel my AARP membership – and don’t leave Mom alone with any people from AARP).

The Fascist Left will tell you “Oh, that euthanasia stuff is just slippery slope nonsense.  There’s nothing in our health bill about euthanasia.” Don’t you buy into their B.S. for a second.  This is one slippery slope they are just dying to slide down (pun noted).

Part of the healthcare bill (H.R. 3200 Section 1233) is the required attendance of anyone over 65 to a “counseling” session, where they discuss end of life choices.  If the senior citizen is ill, they are required to attend annually. 

If the healthcare system is run by people who think that the elderly are not cost-effective, and who also believe in physician assisted suicide, (remember Emmanuel said ““Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost, or the effects on others.”), what are they going to be discussing in their counseling sessions?

(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

View Technorati blog reactions.

Related Posts