In the 70s, Obama's Science Adviser Endorsed Giving Trees Legal Standing to Sue in Co

Good news!! My Colorado blue spruces and aspens are looking for a lawyer to sue somebody as we speak.

 

Check out the open letter to the zero from Michael Egnor, M.D., from the Discovery Institute.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/07/an_open_letter_to_president_ob.html


.....
There is a deep and disturbing irony in your appointment of Dr. Holdren as Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The irony, sir, is this: Dr. Holdren endorsed the serious consideration of radical measures — including involuntary sterilization and abortion — to cull mankind. And he was not an equal-opportunity culler. He betrayed a particular animus to children conceived of third world parentage to young mothers of limited means. He asserted that they were a burden that we dare not bear — for the sake of humanity and for the sake of the Earth. He implored us to ensure that these children were never given life.
He meant you.
Sincerely, ...

Obama is turning out to be worse than just a menace. I'd like to think there are SOME on the left that have a problem with this appointment.

 

So this guy would give rights to forests, oceans and rivers ... but not the unborn baby in the womb?

 

Obama Science Advisor: Trees Should Be Allowed to Sue in Court
By Bob Ellis on July 30th, 2009

You just can’t make this stuff up, folks. If you made a movie with a character who said nutty things like this, it would flop because people just wouldn’t find it credible. Well, unless it was an “Office Space” type movie.

The outer-space wacko record of President Barack Obama’s “science czar” John Holdren just keeps getting crazier and crazier.

We’ve learned that he wants to “de-develop” the United States and make us a Third World cesspool, *thinks children are not yet human beings, is a Malthusian population control fanatic, and is generally against the American way of life.

Now this from CNS News:

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.

Sadly, we’ve had this kind of nonsense influencing our government at high levels for decades; it just hasn’t been as bold and clear as we now see it in John Holdren.

Dr. Michael Engor has an open letter to President Obama published at the Discovery Institute today. *Michael Egnor, M.D. is a professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook and an award-winning brain surgeon who has been named one of New York’s best doctors by*New York Magazine.

Dr. Engor says, among other things,
Despite his strong scientific credentials, he advanced theories in the 1970’s and 1980’s that have become the paradigm of ideologically motivated junk science. He and his collaborators (such as co-author Paul Ehrlich) predicted world-wide famine as a consequence of over-population by the late 20th century, and they advocated radical coercive public policies to avert catastrophe. These predictions were explicit, public, and were published under professional imprimatur. Obviously, the predictions were wrong. Dr.Holdren’s predictions are an exemplar of scientific incompetence.

At this point, if Holdren said the sun would rise in the east tomorrow, I’d have to stand outside and watch in the morning because he has less than zero credibility; it’s somewhere deep in negative territory.

Can any non-institutionalized human being really be this unhinged? *What’s the real agenda here? Is all this craziness really just part of an effor to destabilize and cause as much chaos as possible to the U.S. legal, financial, business, governmental and societal infrastructure as possible in order to facilitate some Marxist shift? *I’m not usually given to conspiracy theories, but the alternative is to believe someone crazy enough to really believe this stuff has manage to avoid being institutionalized for 65 years.

The really scary part is, President Obama has great influence over scientific policy in the United States, including how our perception of science affects other policies, and how our taxpayer funds get spent on issues affected by our perception of science.

And as Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, John P. Holdren has a lot of influence over the president and his policy decisions. *This wack-job is influencing policy on things like the EPA, government regulations on businesses, environmental issues, global warming, cap and trade taxation, energy policy, oil exploration, solar power, nuclear power, forest management, abortion, medical procedures, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and more.

God help us, because we need His help badly with the blind leading the blind in Washington D.C.


From Here

 

An Open Letter to President Obama Regarding the Appointment of Science Advisor John Holdren
Dear President Obama,

I note with dismay your appointment of Dr. John Holdren as 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. Although Dr. Holdren’s experience in academia and administration may be adequate, his publicly expressed views regarding population control disqualify him from holding office.

I will set aside objections to Dr. Holdren’s scientific competence. Despite his strong scientific credentials, he advanced theories in the 1970’s and 1980’s that have become the paradigm of ideologically motivated junk science. He and his collaborators (such as co-author Paul Ehrlich) predicted world-wide famine as a consequence of over-population by the late 20th century, and they advocated radical coercive public policies to avert catastrophe. These predictions were explicit, public, and were published under professional imprimatur. Obviously, the predictions were wrong. Dr.Holdren’s predictions are an exemplar of scientific incompetence.

But it is the spectre of Dr. Holdren’s competence, not his incompetence, that concerns me. In 1977 Dr. Holdren and his colleagues Paul and Anne Ehrlich published the book Ecoscience. In it, Holdren and his co-authors endorse the serious consideration of radical measures to reduce the human population, particularly third world populations, such as India, China and Africa. The measures include:

• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.

• Women — particularly women of insufficient means due to poverty, nationality, marital status, or youth — could be forced to abort their children and undergo sterilization.

• Implementation of a system of "involuntary birth control," in which girls at puberty would be implanted with an infertility device and only could have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.

• Undesirable populations could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into drinking water or in food.

• Single mothers and teen mothers who managed to have their children despite measures to prevent fertility should have their babies seized from them and given away to others to raise.

• A transnational “Planetary Regime” and a transnational police force should be assembled to enforce population control.

Although Dr. Holdren recently has asserted that he does not support coercive measures to reduce population, he has continued to champion population control ‘science’ and he includes his book “Ecoscience” prominently on his CV, without disclaimer.

In other words, Dr. Holdren dissembles. He insists, despite the record, that he no longer believes what he 'didn’t believe' then. Evidently you accept his denial. As you are, Mr. President, a man of good will, inclined to see the best in people, you may have misunderstood Dr. Holdren’s ideology. It has a history that runs from early 20th century eugenics to the German T4 program to the modern population control movement and eco-fundamentalism. It is a view of man as pestilence. No one who holds that view, or has held that view, or who has publicly endorsed serious consideration of that view, should be in a position of influence in our government.

There is a deep and disturbing irony in your appointment of Dr. Holdren as Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The irony, sir, is this: Dr. Holdren endorsed the serious consideration of radical measures — including involuntary sterilization and abortion — to cull mankind. And he was not an equal-opportunity culler. He betrayed a particular animus to children conceived of third world parentage to young mothers of limited means. He asserted that they were a burden that we dare not bear — for the sake of humanity and for the sake of the Earth. He implored us to ensure that these children were never given life.

He meant you.

Sincerely,

Michael Egnor, M.D.

 

apparently obama can do no wrong, he is not only perfect but those he appoints and buddies up with are equally perfect, obama has been lifted to god status by decieved americans, many of which are chirstians. since when is it alright to sacrifice babies and call trees humans. did God appoint this to be so?