Archive for the ‘John Holdren’ Category

HotAir has this piece today on a law professor who wants to exile the Supreme Court and have them tried and executed in absentia for their crimes against the state if they strike down Obamacare, no, wait, he just wants them impeached if they don’t tax you for existing:

Like conservatives, law professor David R. Dow thinks it’s disappointing that the Supreme Court vote on the constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate will likely fall along partisan lines — but his disappointment stems from his utter conviction that the individual mandate is constitutional.

Just to get this out of the way… weird:

Dow writes:

Jefferson believed Supreme Court justices who undermine the principles of the Constitution ought to be impeached, and that wasn’t just idle talk. During his presidency, Jefferson led the effort to oust Justice Samuel Chase, arguing that Chase was improperly seizing power. The Senate acquitted Chase in 1805, and no Justice has been impeached since, but as the Supreme Court threatens to nullify the health-care law, Jefferson’s idea is worth revisiting.

Huh.  That’s interesting.

President Thomas Jefferson, alarmed at the seizure of power by the judiciary through the claim of exclusive judicial review, led his party’s efforts to remove the Federalists from the bench. His allies in Congress had shortly after his inauguration repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, abolishing the lower courts created by the legislation and terminating their Federalist judges despite lifetime appointments; Chase, two years after the repeal in May 1803, had denounced it in his charge to a Baltimoregrand jury, saying that it would “take away all security for property and personal liberty, and our Republican constitution will sink into a mobocracy[.]“[8] Jefferson saw the attack as indubitable bad behavior and an opportunity to reduce the Federalist influence on the judiciary by impeaching Chase, launching the process from the White House when he wrote to Congressman Joseph Hopper Nicholson of Maryland asking: “Ought the seditious and official attack [by Chase] on the principles of our Constitution . . .to go unpunished?”[9]

Virginia Congressman John Randolph of Roanoke took up the challenge and took charge of the impeachment. The House of Representatives served Chase with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804, one of which involved Chase’s handling of the trial of John Fries. Two more focused on his conduct in the political libel trial of James Callender. Four articles focused on procedural errors made during Chase’s adjudication of various matters, and an eighth was directed at his “intemperate and inflammatory … peculiarly indecent and unbecoming … highly unwarrantable … highly indecent” remarks while “charging” or authorizing a Baltimore grand jury. The Jeffersonian Republicans-controlled United States Senate began the impeachment trial of Chase in early 1805, with Vice President Aaron Burr presiding and Randolph leading the prosecution.

All the counts involved Chase’s work as a trial judge in lower circuit courts. (In that era, Supreme Court justices had the added duty of serving as individuals on circuit courts, a practice that was ended in the late 19th century.) The heart of the allegations was that political bias had led Chase to treat defendants and their counsel in a blatantly unfair manner. Chase’s defense lawyers called the prosecution a political effort by his Republican enemies. In answer to the articles of impeachment, Chase argued that all of his actions had been motivated by adherence to precedent, judicial duty to restrain advocates from improper statements of law, and considerations of judicial efficiency.

The Senate voted to acquit Chase of all charges on March 1, 1805. He is the only U.S. Supreme Court justice to have been impeached.

Except Chase continued to serve on the court until 1811 when he died.  And Jefferson’s intent was to remove Federalists from the bench.  Y’know, Federalists – Hamilton types, who wanted greater centralized government power.  Not what Dow is advocating, which is tampering with the court if they rule against greater fedgov power.

But naw, it’s not like Progressives have ever messed with the Supreme Court if they rule against their Progressive-Utopia-Everyone-Gets-A-Pony-Act.

Ignoring that the purpose of the original impeachment was to limit federal power, and that progressives always hate SCOTUS when it blocks their absurdities, Dow goes on:

The problem with the current court is not merely that there is a good chance it will strike down a clearly constitutional law. The problem is that this decision would be the latest salvo in what seems to be a sustained effort on the part of the Roberts Court to return the country to the Gilded Age.

During that period—which ran from the years after of the Civil War to the start of the 20th century—wealth became highly concentrated and corporations came to dominate American business.

At the close of the Gilded Age, the U.S. infant mortality rate was around 10 percent—a number you find today in impoverished Central African nations. In some cities, it exceeded 30 percent. Women could not vote, and their lives were controlled by men. Blacks lived apart from whites and constituted an economic, social, and political underclass. Corporations exerted an unchecked and deleterious influence on the lives of workers.

All these ills were ultimately addressed by the federal government, but the strongest and most sustained resistance to fixing them came from the court. One exception was the great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who argued that where economic regulations are at stake, judges must respect legislative decisions aimed at protecting society’s most vulnerable members. Our Constitution, Holmes famously wrote, does not enact social Darwinism. If the legislature acts to protect the poor and less powerful, its actions must be respected by the judicial branch.

Well why don’t we just mandate that everyone gets three hots and a cot?  Oh, wait, because those three hots and a cot have to come from somewhere – they come from taxpayers.  Mr. Dow, watch and learn:

Hey, look, Mr. Dow, you’re spouting Bullshit!

That idea doesn’t appear to hold much water with the current court. Justice Clarence Thomas, in particular, has a well-known affinity for the values of the Gilded Age. But he has quietly gone from being an outlier to being only one of five consistently regressive votes.

Regressive.  Very clever.  It’s a nice way to say that Clarence Thomas wants us to become a third world nation where 30 percent of babies die in childhood.

From two years ago on The Patriot Perspective in a piece titled Health Care – The Big Picture is Bureaucracy For Life, DEMOCRAT Grover Cleveland had this relevant quote:

Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character. . . .

He was talking about the federal government pulling funds for a natural disaster.  There was a bill sent to him that was popular – one that taxed the backs of working people across the nation to give to a few unfortunate souls, but would’ve ultimately resulted in the nation constantly turning to fedgov for help, undermining the states, undermining the individual, and destroying the national character.  Individual charities, businesses, and organizations ultimately do better than government.  We can see the difference between the effect of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and the flood in Nashville in 2010.

Wealth redistribution on different scales, but the same effect.

Dow rambles:

The pattern began with the court’s 2007 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, a case involving a rarely used, late-term abortion procedure. In holding that the government can prohibit abortion even where a woman’s life or health is at risk, the court overturned a decision that was not yet 10 years old.

To justify the ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy—an ostensibly staunch believer in individual liberty—explained that some women who might otherwise undergo it would come to regret their decision. Ah, fickle women! Since Roe v. Wade the abortion debate has  always involved male-dominated legislatures enacting laws telling women what they can and cannot do. The Roberts Court, it seems, is similarly not averse to helping protect women from themselves.

Wait, Mr. Dow, weren’t you just complaining that Clarence Thomas wanted to kill babies?  Now you’re in favor of killing babies?  Please, make up your damned mind.

Oh, wait, you just say what you feel and then justify it later, don’t you, Mr. Dow?  You don’t have any internal consistency, otherwise you’d have to question that just a hair over 50% of the time, abortion does kill a woman.

And then he hits another leftist talking point, the Citizens United decision:

…then came Citizens United, in which the court struck down a popularly supported, bipartisan effort to place limits on the ability of the wealthy to dominate political discourse. Income inequality is a fact of life in a capitalist system. But when it comes to choosing our elected representatives, the people are supposed to stand on equal footing. Your right to control your destiny by electing people who share your visions and values is not supposed to depend on the fatness of your wallet. But now, thanks to five justices, it does. In ruling that corporations have a First Amendment right that precludes Congress from regulating how much money they can spend to support political candidates or causes, the court propped up a regime where the voices of the wealthy drown out all the rest.

Corporations got the same rights that unions already had.   Non-media corporations were allowed a little bit of access that media corporations do.  Corporations, themselves, are made up of people, cooperating.  The difference is that if Ford wants to support a candidate, they couldn’t… but NBC could choose who would get favorable interviews, who would get air time, who would get choice ads, etc.  Now if Hanes wants to support Mitt Romney, or Colt wants to support Ron Paul, or wants to support Newt Gingrich, they can.

Mr. Dow no doubt subscribes to the Tim Robbins view:

Mr. Dow is deserving of this fisking:

Each of these cases was decided by a 5-4 vote, along predictable and ideological lines. Each overturned comparatively recent precedent. Each paid obeisance to a 19th-century norm.

When a 5-4 is for a leftist progressive statist cause, it’s a conclusive victory.  When it’s for freedom and liberty against the state, it tiny margin along ideological lines.

The 19th century norm was freedom.  It wasn’t until the progressive era in the early 20th century that the US started leaning towards statism.  There was corruption before, and there would be corruption after, but there wasn’t an interest in an overpowering state to dictate how people would live.

Dow lays down the stupid:

I will add only two points.

First, Congress’s authority in passing the law rests on an elementary syllogism: You don’t have to drive, but if you do, the government can make you buy insurance. The logical structure at work here is that if you are going to do something (drive, for example), the government can make you purchase a commercial product (insurance, for example), so long as it has a good reason for doing so (making sure you can pay for any damage you do). That logic is obviously satisfied in the health-care context. You are going to use medical care, so the government can make you buy insurance in order to make sure you can pay for it. Liberty, like every other human and constitutional right, is not absolute. Under some circumstances, it can be regulated.

Okay.  Let’s try this one out.  You don’t have to drive, but if you do, the government can make you buy car insurance.  Okay, sure.  Except, as has been stated here on The Patriot Perspective and elsewhere, you don’t have to drive.  You also can drive on your private property without insurance.  Ranch trucks often have expired tags because the ranchers don’t drive them on public roads.  No big deal.

The logical structure at work is that if you are going to do something, the government can make you purchase a product to pay for damage you might incur with abuse of the priviledge of driving on public roads.  Sure.

That logic, in a health care context, is so blatantly absurd that Dow should be taken to a first year philosophy class and schooled like the fool he’s showing himself to be.

What is health insuranc for?  To offset the costs of critical illness or injury, or in the case of some health insurance plans (like car insurance defensive driver courses) to offset potential costs by encouraging good healthy activities (gym memberships, etc.)  How do you get ill or injured?  Those are conditions of living.

So, you don’t have to exist, but if you do, the government can make you buy insurance?

Dow digs deeper:

Which leads to the second point: critics of the health-care law say the only reason the rest of us have to pay for medical services used by people who have no money is that laws require hospitals to treat people who come in for emergencies regardless of their ability to pay. In other words, the critics say, the only reason there is a social cost—the only reason the syllogism works—is because of the underlying laws requiring hospitals to treat the poor.

Unlike silly examples involving broccoli and cell phones, that so-called “bootstrap” argument is sound. But here the critics drop their ideological mask as surely as the court dropped it in the Gonzales ruling. Their argument can be restated thusly: if you repeal laws requiring hospitals to treat the poor, you eliminate the constitutional basis for mandatory insurance coverage.

Um, not quite.  Hospitals can view providing emergency services as the cost of doing business.  They don’t turn away people who are injured on their doorstep, but neither will they do a quintuple bypass and emergency pancreatic cancer screening and removal on a hobo who stumbles in.  If they hobo doesn’t care enough about his own life to work for something to help him in his old age, a hospital needn’t, and isn’t, responsible to send him to the Mayo Clinic for a decade’s worth of chemotherapy.  Now, maybe he did work, and his life fell apart.  Them’s the breaks.  Maybe his family, community, or church will help him out.  There may be charities that help him out, or even pharmaceutical companies that would offer him treatment that’s still in the approval process if he’s willing.

Mandating coverage just means that we all get the same treatment as the hobo off the street, not that the hobo gets better coverage.

You don’t have to pull the analytical thread of that reasoning very hard to see that it boils down to an argument for allowing the poor to die.

Wait, you mean there’s a way for the Supreme Court to keep people from dying?  Well if that’s all it takes, hey, SCOTUS, I don’t want to die either!  Rule that I can’t die!

In other words, the only people entitled to health care are the people who can afford it.

Yes, that’s exactly how it works.  To borrow from Heinlein’s Starship Troopers: “Life?  What ‘right’ to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific?  The ocean will not hearken to his cries.”  If you work and can swim, if you work and can afford health care, you get it.  Do we as a society want to save the drowning man?  Yes.  Do we try to?  Yes.  That’s why hospitals provide emergency care.  If the drowning man keeps making stupid decisions trying to drown himself – in the context of health, if he’s anorexic or obese, a drug addict or an alcoholic, and doesn’t try to save himself, do we have to rehabilitate him?  No.  That’s his life to throw away, unless we’re into the realm of control… which is the progressive ideal.

The only people entitled to health care are the people who can afford it.  People who can’t afford it, under this legislation, are using the government’s gun to take from those who can.  If you don’t pay up and buy, you pay up in tax penalties.  If you don’t pay the tax that’s being redistributed, you pay at the point of the IRS’s new 14″ shotguns.

Keep in mind the whole reason that health insurance companies exist is because the expenses behind really good health care are really high.  Just like the costs for auto repair, or the costs if someone is injured in a car accident are very high, there’s a reason we get insurance – it’s to cover those unexpected, low-frequency by high-impact costs.

To take this all the way back to Samuel Chase, Jefferson was concerned about Federalist power.  Arguing that the fedgov has an authority to tax you or jail you merely for existing, and that you owe someone else a debt merely for existing (or that if you’re poor enough, someone owes you), is absurd.  The government is picking winners and losers based purely on politics, and the Supreme Court exists in part to prevent mob rule, and to provide adherence to the Constitution.

Dow concludes:

We can argue about whether President Jefferson was right to try to impeach Justice Chase. But there’s no question that he was right to say that impeachment is an option for justices who undermine constitutional values. There are other options, as well. We might amend the Constitution to establish judicial term limits. Or we might increase the number of justices to dilute the influence of its current members (though FDR could tell you how that turned out). In the end, however, it is the duty of the people to protect the Constitution from the court. Social progress cannot be held hostage by five unelected men.

There’s no undermining Constitutional values in protecting the one from the many.  There’s no undermining by protecting in the few who will be subject to bills of attainder to pay for the many who vote by mob rule for redistribution.

There are other options, like the aforementioned Court-Packing scheme, meant to undermine the actual Constitution by trying runarounds.  The Constitution is what it is, not what some progressive demands it is.  Note also that when those five unelected men are department heads like EPA head Lisa Jackson, Interior Department Ken “Boot Stamping on a Human Face Forever” Salazar, Science and Technology Czar John “Sterilize the Water, Force Abortions” Holdren, and the like, it’s okay.

Social progress cannot be held hostage by five unelected men.

Dow, you just put yourself firmly in the camp of the enemies of actual freedom.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

- William Pitt the Younger

HT HotAir, this piece via LiveScience:

Conservatives Losing Trust in Science, Study Finds

Politically conservative Americans have lost trust in science over the last 40 years while moderates and liberals have remained constant in the stock they put in the scientific community, a new study finds.

The most educated conservatives have slipped the most, according to the research set to appear in the April issue of the journal American Sociological Review. The change in conservative attitudes likely has to do both with changes in the conservative movement and with changes in science’s role in society, said study author Gordon Gaulet, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

“There’s been this need to cultivate conservative ideas in reaction to what is perceived as mainstream culture, which a lot of conservatives would suggest is biased toward secular liberalism,” Gaulet told LiveScience. “Part of what being a conservative means is looking for alternatives for mainstream ideas and bases of knowledge, and science and the media are those.”

No, not quite.  Science has gotten away from observation of natural phenomenon and looking for empirical data and turned into Climategate, medical ethicists that push for infanticide, and again constantly pushes for discredited global warming, and the push for any pseudoscience that further pushes a leftist agenda.  Watermelon environmentalism (green on the outside, red on the inside) keeps pushing for this same crap over and over – with the intent always being the same – control of the individual.

Of course, according to “Science”, non-leftists are dumb anyway.

Meanwhile, science has changed, too. Research used to be done under the auspices of NASA and the Department of Defense, Gaulet said. Both of these agencies seemed far-removed from daily life. However, over the decades, science has become more intertwined with everyday policy. The Environmental Protection Agency is a “poster child” for science informing real-world regulation that some conservatives oppose, Gaulet said.

“It’s almost a contradiction,” he said. “We use science because it has this objective point of view or credibility to figure out which policy to use … but by doing that it becomes politicized.”

Except that’s backwards.  The politicians figure out what they want based on their sociologial theories, then they use “science” to get it.  They use the delta smelt to kill California’s Central Valley, they use the California Condor to go after citizen’s gun rights, and they use fake climate studies to destroy US energy.

Manbearpig has been busted, yet they still push the same dogmatic faith as “science” when it isn’t.

And then there’s things like this, from the same source – LiveScience:

Engineering Humans: A New Solution to Climate Change?

So far, conventional solutions to global warming — new government policies and changes in individual behavior — haven’t delivered. And more radical options, such as pumping sulfur into the atmosphere to counteract warming, pose a great deal of risk.

There may be another route to avoid the potentially disastrous effects of climate change: We can deliberately alter ourselves, three researchers suggest.

Human engineering, as they call it, poses less danger than altering our planet through geoengineering, and it could augment changes to personal behavior or policies to mitigate climate change, they write in an article to be published in the journal Ethics, Policy and the Environment.

“We are serious philosophers, but we might not be entirely serious that people should be doing this,” said Anders Sandberg, one of the authors and an ethicist at Oxford University in the United Kingdom. “What we are arguing is we should be taking a look at this, at the very least.”

Here we go again.

Their suggestions

In their article, they put forward a series of suggestions, intended as examples of the sorts of human engineering measures that people could voluntarily adopt. These include:

-Induce intolerance to red meat (think lactose intolerance), since livestock farming accounts for a significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions.

-Make humans smaller to reduce the amount of energy we each need to consume. This could be done by selecting smaller embryos through preimplantation genetic diagnosis, a technique already in use to screen for genetic diseases. “Human engineering could therefore give people the choice between having a greater number of smaller children or a smaller number of larger children,” they write.

-Reduce birthrates by making people smarter, since higher cognitive ability appears linked to lower birthrates. This could be achieved through a variety of means, including better schooling, electrical stimulation of the brain and drugs designed to improve cognitive ability, they propose.

-Treat people with hormones, such as oxytocin, to make us more altruistic and empathetic. As a result, people would be more willing to act as a group and more sensitive to the suffering of animals and other people caused by climate change.

So, the focus of “science” is control of the population.  It’s force, it’s control, it’s eugenics, the same Malthusian crap that Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren has been spouting for decades.  Mainstream “science” is taking a decidedly leftist bent, intent on telling us how bad we as humans are, how we’re all guilty of original sin against Gaia, and how we need to make people “smarter” so there will be fewer of us, how we need to inflict suffering and sacrifice on the masses of people for the good of “all mankind”, making us more “empathetic” while simultaneously hurting us as a species, as a race, and as individuals.

If “science” weren’t proposing the same leftist Malthusian “New Man” progressive garbage that they’ve been recycling since Margaret Sanger started saying we need to kill black children for their own good and generations of failed eugenicists and mass murderers throughout history have spouted – maybe we wouldn’t be so skeptical of those calling themselves “scientists”.

They’re the damned eco-daleks blowing up kidsAgain and again.

From the Journal of Medical Ethics:

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Alberto Giubilini1,2,
Francesca Minerva3,4

+ Author Affiliations

1Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
2Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
3Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK

Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; francesca.minerva AT

Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript.

Received 25 November 2011
Revised 26 January 2012
Accepted 27 January 2012
Published Online First 23 February 2012


Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

And then it gets worse from there:

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.

And the progressive eugenicist stupidity abounds:

The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Criminals have made concious decisions to forfeit their right to live by destroying others’ lives.   The argument that the state should not kill its own citizens is the best argument against capital punishment.  Neither is analagous to a newborn.  Fetuses where abortion is permitted are often also called into question, and for many, even embryonic stem cell research is considerd loathesome because it’s tampering with the beginnings of life.

Although fetuses and newborns are not persons, they are potential persons because they can develop, thanks to their own biological mechanisms, those properties which will make them ‘persons’ in the sense of ‘subjects of a moral right to life’: that is, the point at which they will be able to make aims and appreciate their own life.

It might be claimed that someone is harmed because she is prevented from becoming a person capable of appreciating her own being alive. Thus, for example, one might say that we would have been harmed if our mothers had chosen to have an abortion while they were pregnant with us7 or if they had killed us as soon as we were born. However, whereas you can benefit someone by bringing her into existence (if her life is worth living), it makes no sense to say that someone is harmed by being prevented from becoming an actual person. The reason is that, by virtue of our definition of the concept of ‘harm’ in the previous section, in order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm.

This is an ethicist arguing for the Broken Window Fallacy in human capital instead of financial capital.

If you smash the baker’s window, you haven’t harmed the tailor, since the suit the baker would have bought with money he now has to spend fixing the window simply never comes into being.  If you kill the non-person, who doesn’t become a person, then you haven’t done any harm… except for the potential person who never comes into being.  Therefore, you’ve done no harm.  And you’ve helped the glazier and Kermit Gosnell.

From the next paragraph:

If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. So, if you ask one of us if we would have been harmed, had our parents decided to kill us when we were fetuses or newborns, our answer is ‘no’, because they would have harmed someone who does not exist (the ‘us’ whom you are asking the question), which means no one. And if no one is harmed, then no harm occurred.

The Broken Window Fallacy, with human capital.

The Blaze and HotAir also have pieces on this.  HotAir notes that the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, went on to write this piece, lamenting:

What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.

You’re debating how to morally justify infanticide.  From a dispassionate, logical standpoint, you are arguing for the Broken Window Fallacy with regards to human beings, Julian.  Your argument on how to justify infanticide is that people aren’t people, and therefore can be killed.

Now on to the moral side of this.  From the article:

This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons.   Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.

Animals have more rights than infants, because they are “in the condition of attributing value to their own existence”.  So what about people suffering depression?  They aren’t attributing value to their existence, so can you kill them?  You aren’t depriving them of anything they don’t want.  Justified, right?

Our point here is that, although it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a ‘person’,

No it isn’t.

a necessary condition for a subject to have a right to X is that she is harmed by a decision to deprive her of X.

No it isn’t.

such a condition depends on the level of her mental development,6 which in turn determines whether or not she is a ‘person’.

Notes Tina Korbe at HotAir:

Once upon a time, abortion advocates would accuse pro-lifers of “slippery slope logic” when those pro-lifers suggested it was only a matter of time before someone would use the abortion advocates’ arguments to defend infanticide. According to Savulescu, that began to happen a long time ago — and it continues to happen today. Turns out, it is a slippery slope, after all. If humans don’t have a right to life from the moment of conception, when does the right to life kick in?

That, of course, is the point.  It’s the cry of eugenicists worldwide, and has been since the days of Malthus.  There are certain people who are unfit to live and therefore must be destroyed.  Obama’s science czar John Holdren believes the same thing.

The dutch have famously gone over to infanticide. From the original article:

In The Netherlands, for instance, the Groningen Protocol (2002) allows to actively terminate the life of ‘infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering’.4

But there’s also a little difference between the “ethicists” argument that a non-actualized life can be destroyed since it isn’t a life, and an infant with a hopeless prognosis and unbearable suffering could be snuffed out because his whole existence would be pain and suffering until he rapidly dies anyway.  Which, taken to gothy extremes, simply would mean that no life is ever valuable.

But back to the original article:

Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

Where have I seen this before… oh yeah…

"This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too."

Maybe we shouldn’t be paying for health care.  Then Giubilini and Minerva’s state won’t have a compelling reason to exterminate the Je- they mean “conduct after-birth abortions on newborns who are not people in the relevant sense”.  Death panels indeed.

Why is this so familiar?  And why does it seem like we know where this comes from already?

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.

Since, after all, babies aren’t people.  If you kill them before they’re people, they’re not really people, so it’s not really murder.

Clicky. Perhaps best watched in German.

A few weeks back, I pointed out that some Marine scout snipers stole an SS flag to use as their own, intentionally depriving it of its old context.  The ideas behind the symbol were offensive, to such a degree that the Marines’ diametric opposition to the symbol’s old users and the SS’s ideals wasn’t enough to divorce the symbol completely from what it once was – hence the offense (in varying levels depending on how well one understood the Marine’s opposition to the old SS).

This is the reverse.  Couched in pseudo-intellectual bullshit, these “doctors” are taking the exact same moral and ethical route as genocidal Mathusian eugenicist Nazis have in the past, under the guise of modern medicine.  One stole a symbol from villainous owners to use as their own in combat against allies of the old symbols’ mindset, while these “doctors” have thrown away the symbols, but reach back to the same villainous mindset while trying to hide under the guise of modern medicine and respectability.  They take away all the “the Jew is not human” language, and change it to something the modern leftist can agree with, and suddenly the exact same things that actual Nazis were saying and doing – dehumanizing and destroying life – can be supported, advocated, and defended in the name of “liberal values”.

Editor Julian Savulescu’s moral he took from this:

What the response to this article reveals, through the microscope of the web, is the deep disorder of the modern world. Not that people would give arguments in favour of infanticide, but the deep opposition that exists now to liberal values and fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement.

Giving arguments in favor of infanticide is okay.  Arguments in favor of infanticide are “reasoned”.  Arguments in favor of infanticide are “liberal values”.  Yeah…

From a simple moral argument, these “doctors” are DEHUMANIZING infants so they can be killed.  They’ve used clever wordplay to justify their actions.  Dressing up any knee-jerk attacks by people who believe in life on people advocating actual baby-killing (remember when that used to be an epithet used against the right?) as “fanatical opposition” is absurd, and demonstrative of diseased, insular groupthink.

Going back to the “ethicists” argument:

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.

Who ascribes that right to life?  Here the ethicist does.  Why?  Because there is no law but that which the ethicist has created in his own little twisted worldview.  I’ll take this worldview instead:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


Not to an ethicist, apparently, but to any other human being on the planet.  Do you have a right to exist?  Yes.  Why?  Because you exist.  Why do you exist?  Because you were created – whether by God, nature, or nature’s god, you are.  He is Who is, and created you, and now you are.  Or you were randomly created by the primordial ooze and you’re a random assembly of chemical reactions, either way, you still exist – and to say you have no right to exist, when the universe’s machinations clearly created you – and your very quest to understand your nature validates your existence – cogito ergo sum, etc.  To hold the “ethicists” statements true, no one ever understands the universe, and not understanding, then no one ever really has life, and therefore no one has a right to exist.  Welcome to nihilism, Donny.

Merely being human is itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.  The “ethicists” are fundamentally flawed in a myriad of ways, whether from the standpoint of human capital, morality, or even basic humanity.

Self-described leading online source of news and commentary from an African American perspective, founded in 2008 by Harvard Professor Henry “Beer Summit” Gates has this interesting story:

It’s a Great Time to be Racist (Alternate title: Obama and Racism: How Else to Explain the Insults?), by Nsenga Burton

Let’s face it: There’s only one explanation for some of the attacks on President Obama.

Racists have officially lost their minds.

There’s someone who officiates that?

In recent weeks, the venom spewed at President Barack Obama would leave one to believe that we are in the midst of a racist renaissance. “A dick,”jackass,” “tar baby, “your boy” — you name it and the president has been called it. For some reason, some people are so enraged by how this country is purportedly being run that they cannot separate a real critique of the president’s decisions from mean-spirited name-calling related to his race.

A racist renaissance?  Dick, jackass, tar baby, your boy?  That’s it?

For some reason, some people are so enraged by criticism of how this country is being run that they cannot separate a real critique of the president’s decisions or general name-calling from actual racism.

Yes, the country that likes to pretend that it is far removed from its racist past has engaged in the verbal equivalent of a throwback jersey. Some people have reached far back into that Reconstruction-era closet, pulled out that dingy jersey adorned with racial slurs, shaken it out and put it on proudly. Elected officials have reduced themselves to behaving like petulant children, storming in and out of meetings and running to the media to lob personal attacks at the president, then offering lame apologies shortly afterward.

Well, we aren’t that far removed from our racist past.  Democrat Senator and Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd hasn’t been dead for that long.  Leftists still keep dividing people by race, segregating them into new voting blocks.  They keep going back to ideas of racists past, like their progressive progenitor Woodrow Wilson, who segregated the fedgov and military.  They keep going back to the ideas of unabashedly racist Lyndon Baines Johnson, whose Great Society led blacks into state-dependant poverty in order to form a voting block that, as per LBJ’s words: “I’ll have them n*ggers voting Democrat for the next two hundred years.”

Now, I wasn’t aware that dick, jackass, and tar baby were racial slurs.  “Boy” if given proper intonation, can well be.  But it’s also often used as a term of criticism separated from race as well, like saying “your buddy”, “your brother”, “your son”, “your papi”, etc.  Expressions like “your boy”, “your son” can be referring to subordinates who aren’t displaying competence, while simultaneously denoting that the person being addressed is their superior and is therefore responsible for their lackluster performance.  “Your buddy”, or “your brother” refer to peers who are windowlickers, while “your papi”, “your dad”, etc., refer to a higher ranking individual who is by no means superior.

Corporal, tell your boy to stop lifting sandbags and start filling ‘em.

Hell, even a “black” website like… The Root… knew that “your boy” wasn’t racist.

Slur? We’re going to have to go with Pat here and agree that it wasn’t one.

Well, until the next piece is written and “your boy” turns into a racist comment.

We got a peek at what was to come just seven months into President Obama’s tenure. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted, “You lie!” during the president’s speech about health care reform. Clearly Wilson had a flashback to legalized segregation, when folks publicly bullied, threatened and heckled blacks to remind them of who was “in charge.”

Wilson subsequently issued an apology, saying his actions were “regrettable” and he’d let his emotions take over. He was just the first of a series of elected officials acting like fools and then offering weak apologies as a remedy for said actions.

Obama did lie.  Joe Wilson called him on it… and was correct.  How is it racist to call a liar a liar?

Yes, it’s clear to anyone that “Wilson had a flashback to legalized segregation”.  Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurreee….

Well is it racist or not?

To be clear, “You lie!” is not a racist exclamation. Yet and still, it is insulting and in recent memory has not been used against any other president, even when he may have been lying about one thing or another.

Again, Obama lied.  How is calling a liar a liar racist?   I’d use the phrase “calling a spade a spade“, but over-sensitive racists might see that as a racist comment, despite the expression dating back to 1542 or so.

The problem is Joe Wilson shouldn’t have apologized.  John Wayne had this to say: “Don’t apologize, it’s a sign of weakness.”  Joe Wilson, and numerous others accused of racism are apologizing for doing what they think is right – and those apologies turn into admissions of guilt and culpability for actions that aren’t wrong.

Pundits and politicians like Wilson have been letting their emotions and their acidic tongues take over ever since. We’ve had other comments and shenanigans, like Tea Party member Marilyn Davenport of the Orange County Republican Central Committee sending out “chimp” emails of the first family, insisting that it was political satire and yet apologizing, while refusing to step down. That email was clearly racist because of the long history of comparing blacks to apes in art, literature, film and history, based on a so-called hierarchy of humans.

Well, maybe.  It could be racist, or it could just be imitating the political discourse of the left.

Let’s look at some of that leftist discourse now!

Just to make heads explode… Chimpy McBushitler meets Barack Obamonkey.  One is not racist in the least, and is a clever criticism of the worst president ever (according to sites like the Smirking Chimp), while the other is the most racist racism ever in the history of racist racism.

The most recent example of racial commentary comes from Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), who referred to President Obama as a “tar baby.” He not only apologized but also said that he was certain the president would accept his apology because he is a “man of character.”

Tar baby comes from an Uncle Remus story.  You touch it, you get stuck in it.  It’s a folksy southern analogy that could’ve just as easily been a black hole.  Hey, is that racist?

Thanks, kid!

Not knowing anything about Rep. Lamborn aside from what I’ve read just now, I’m immediately critical of his apology.  If he didn’t mean to say it, why did he say it?  If he has to explain it because the audience is ignorant, then he has to explain it.  But why apologize based on someone else’s being offended?  If it wasn’t intended to offend, just say “it wasn’t meant to be offensive, you should grow some thicker skin and see when something is and isn’t meant to be racially offensive”.  Guess what: there are a lot of non-racist people out there.

Organized Racism

Therein lies the rub: These examples of what appears to be a fundamental lack of respect for President Obama have more than offensive words behind them. Racism is the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others. These politicians and pundits appear to be engaging in racist acts based on this flawed ideology at the same time that all kinds of “movements” have sprung up in reaction to Obama’s election.

Obama has a fundamental lack of respect for the nation.  He considers the compact between people and government – the Constitution – to be fundamentally flawed and a “charter of negative liberties” – he’s critical of restrictions on government power imposed by free people.  His choices in racists like Sotomayor and radical communist racists like Van Jones and radical advocates of genocide like John Holdren indicate a lot more offense than anyone calling him a “dick”.

So if racism is wrong, why are the distinctive cultural characteristics embraced by the left in order to form voting blocks and ethnic constitutencies right?  Oh, because it’s leftist racism.  Doublethink.

No other president has had his qualifications for the office challenged so vigorously.

8 years of criticism of Bush and we’re expected to believe that?

Is it just partisanship? Could be, but it seems to be pretty darn close to racism.

Except it’s not.  And your own article admits it.  And your own website admits it.  And it’s not racism.  If you want to see racism, you’ll find plenty on the media/Democrat left, and plenty on the national socialist left at Stormfront (I’m not linking to them).

Rush Limbaugh and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky are on record for wanting President Obama to fail. Why? McConnell and Limbaugh uttered these words early in Obama’s tenure as president, even before he could reasonably have gotten anything off the ground.

Yes.  And that’s not racism.  Obama’s stated goals were to “fundamentally change” the country.  Michelle Obama said Barry would “force us to change”.  Obama said we couldn’t drive our SUVs or have our heat at 72 based on what other countries think.  Obama said under his plan, “energy prices would necessarily skyrocket“.  Obama said he wanted to “spread the wealth around”.

If Obama were to succeed, those who’ve succeeded (and in turn employ those working their way up), will have their costs of living increased, their nation changed by force, their accumulated wealth forcibly redistributed, and the entire nation will fail.  Obama’s plan is antithetical to the continued success of the United States and all its citizens (and legal alien nationals within the US).

Could it be partisanship? Yes. Could it be a profound lack of patriotism? Yes. But again, it smacks of something that has nothing to do with partisanship or patriotism but with the basest of reasons for disliking and disrespecting someone: because he or she does not look like you.

Could it be aliens?  Yes.  Could it be our robot overlords?  Yes.  Could it be crab people?  Yes.  Could it be Descartes’ Great Deceiver?  Yes.

Is it?  No.

Partisanship comes from having different ideas.  The left wants a command economy, control of people’s lives and freedom.  The right wants a free economy, and only select traditionalist elements want any control of people’s lives and freedom.  Patriotism stems from wanting your country to do well.  If Obama’s fundamental changes succeed, we’d have things like contracts being rendered null and void due to political pull, “under the radar” attacks on the Bill of Rights, and so on.

One of the critical failures of this is the doublethink that then comes about when someone like Thomas Sowell or David Webb criticizes Obama.  Then they’re suddenly “not black”… even though both are much blacker than Obama (given that his mom Stanley is about as white as you get).

If it isn’t because President Obama is black, then what is it? There is plenty to criticize about the current administration, but the inability to do so with respect for the man or the office is the giveaway.

No it’s not.  If Nsenga Burton and those of similar ilk don’t get it, they should see these links by photojournalist Zombie:

Bush As Hitler

Death Threats Against Bush

There is plenty to criticize, and given Obama’s disrespect and contempt for the nation, its traditions, its virtues, and its people, is something that the population at large is willing to reciprocate.

The racial climate is suffocating and getting worse. Every other week, another politician or pundit is apologizing for making what he or she keeps calling inappropriate comments about President Obama. But what these people call inappropriate, insulting or partisan, I call racist — a term that describes abusive or aggressive behavior toward a member of another race based on the belief that some races have an intrinsic superiority over others. If this is not what we’re witnessing, then I don’t know what it is.

They shouldn’t be apologizing.  That gives the impression that what they said is wrong.  In this case, their apologies are to people who are oversensitive, and the apology itself turns into an acknowledgement that something is amiss.

If you try to calm a dog during a thunderstorm or when scared by changing your tone of voice, the dog gets worried.  Since you changed your tone of voice, something must be amiss.  If you go “don’t worry, boy, it’ll be okay” in a coddling tone, the dog starts to think that there’s something wrong, and it actually stresses the dog out more.  If you address the dog in normal tones of voice and don’t act like anything is wrong, the dog will still sense the danger, but won’t fret.

Likewise, if people with criticisms ignore the perpetual cries of racism, then they give the racialist racists nothing to feed on.  If you apologize for every little thing, then it’s going to seem like you know you’ve done something wrong, and something is wrong.  Consider above – the dog analogy and the use of the word “boy” may have just set off some leftist racialist racist’s dog whistle, but I don’t really care.  It’s not racist, it’s an analogy.

When leftists go after Clarence Thomas because they want an unrestrained government, then they’re doing what they believe.  When they say he should be hanged or fed his own toes, well, they’re racist.  The left’s institutional racialist racists ignore anything done against those they oppose on political grounds.

Obama’s being criticized by a rare few because he’s racist.  Find the n-word thrown around by a non-democrat and you’ll find some racism.  Sure, democrat union thugs beat black guys and call them the n-word, but like most leftist doublethink, that means nothing, and since Kenneth Gladney was a tea partier, he must’ve really been white.

Yes, it’s a great time to be a racist, and a horrible time to be the nation’s first black president.

I guess if you have the right political orientation – namely leftist, then it is a great time to be a racist.  And why is it a horrible time to be Bill Clinton?

How else to explain the insults?  How about he’s fundamentally opposed to many of the things that have made the US great, he opposes things we do well and right, he divides people in the same manner he did as a community organizer, his hollow rhetoric duped people who meant well, his constant blaming of others for his own abysmal failures at every turn becomes a cry for more power – how about the fact that his success means the country’s failure?  People are mad at him.

They’re not mad because he’s half-black, they’re mad because virtually all of the things he believes are in opposition to what everyone in the nation believes.  They’re mad because those who voted for him blindly out of hope and change are regretting their foolish decision to vote on emotion instead of logic.  They’re mad because they’ve seen his successes lead to the nation’s failure.  They’re mad because his every success is meant to crush the nation.  They’re mad because he bows to and hugs dictators, but shoves the Dalai Lama out the back door of the White House past the trash.  They’re mad because his claim of opposing corporatism is in direct opposition to his unabashed favoritism for G.E.  They’re mad because he’s overseen two stimulus programs, both of which we were told would save the economy, and neither of which has done so – they’re mad because every failure of his turns into a need for more power.  They’re mad because so many of the things Bush was accused of, Obama has perpetuated.

They’re mad because he told veterans to pay for their war wounds.  They’re mad because he’s so far disconnected from society he blathers about arugula and doesn’t know how to say corpsman.  They’re mad because he doesn’t act like an American, he doesn’t care about America, and he wants America to change into what he wants.

Most Americans are pretty proud of their nation, and Obama’s constant and utter disrespect for the nation wears thin.

It’s not his skin color.  It’s the content of his character.


Posted: October 1, 2010 by ShortTimer in Al Gore, Environmentalism, John Holdren, Leftists, Liberal Fascists, Manbearpig

>I’m coining a new term today:

For those unfamiliar with Dr. Who, a Dalek is one of these:
Wikipedia entry here:

They’re slow-moving, nigh-invulnerable aliens with one goal. To EXTERMINATE pretty much everything that isn’t them. (They’re also low-budget monsters with plungers for death rays, but they’ve got cultural staying power and some good story arcs.)

So what exactly is an Eco-Dalek? An environmentalist-ecoterrorist that believes in extermination of mankind for the sake of the planet.

(Alternately, they can be Enviro-Daleks.)

The bad guys in Tom Clancy’s Rainbow 6 novel were representative of that. Obama’s Science & Technology Czar, John Holdren, holds this view. He believes in forced abortions and mass sterilization by poisoning drinking water to exterminate the population in order to “save the planet”. The concept of overpopulation by people overpopulation and consumption overpopulation also results in this view – where if there are too many poor, or rich who use too many resources, they must be exterminated.

In fact, most Malthusians think this way. Some educated idiots simply compare humans to bacteria while their projected malthusian catastrophes never happen. They know what’s best for the planet, and the planet is the most important thing. So humanity has to start dying.

Of course, they believe that they are the chosen ones who should live since they’re the best stewards of the land and know how to preserve and protect the planet. Everyone else must die, they must live, since they are perfect. It almost parallels Marxist doctrine of class enemies, but here the class enemies are based on piety to adherence to the doctrines of environmental mania and their leaders whether through advancement of the AGW cause or at least buying carbon indulgences. This is why Al Gore, with a mansion and jetsetting around the world as the prophet of Manbearpig, can be an absolute hypocrite (though he buys carbon credits from his own company). Al Gore, while he is the prophet of Manbearpig, doesn’t seem to be an eco-dalek yet. He hasn’t actually said “you should die”. (Yet.)

Al Gore’s brand is more of an enviro-statist. He’s all for the government regulating your life until you’re a subsistence farmer who doesn’t harm the earth at all, or until you’re simply hooked up to pods like in Matrix and fed bonemeal slurry Soylent Green from dead people so we don’t even have to farm anymore.

This is his world:

A world where you submit to the eco-state. The state, of course, does whatever it likes. And of course, those who consume more are evil, those who consume less are good, so it’s also a bit of watermelon environmentalism. Green on the outside, red on the inside. A dictatorial authoritiarian government will rule your life, for your own good. Alternately: Enviro-nazis.

The eco-dalek is something else.

Consider the following ad from the land that brought you 1984, Dr. Who and blood pudding:

This is a real ad. No, this is not a spoof by the Onion.

The UK Guardian has part of the story here. It’s part of the 10:10 project, telling people they must reduce their carbon emissions by 10% in 2010.

Hotair has a good roundup of critical responses here.

You don’t do what they “nudge”, then they will EXTERMINATE!

For your own good, of course.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.

- C.S. Lewis
Al Gore merely wants to tell you how to live for your own good. He’ll dictate how your life shall be, and you’ll live as he tells you to. The eco-dalek tells you you should not live. He’ll dictate that you must die for your own good.



For those late to the party, the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia was hacked a few days ago by some unknown Russians. A large datadump hit the internet very soon after, which included some 60mb composed mostly of text files – including a huge number of emails between Anthropogenic Global Warming proponent “scientists”. Many of the emails between the “scientists” were instructions and suggestions to other scientists to hide or otherwise obfuscate data, outright lie, delete dissenting information, and paint an all-around picture of AGW proponents as simply manufacturing data to support their frenetic quest.

Many snippets of the emails with links and summaries here:

Often referenced in the East Anglia emails and data is Michael Mann. Michael Mann is the individual responsible for the so-called “hockey stick” graph used in Al Gore’s propaganda film “An Inconvenient Truth”.

Which, naturally, was in large part fabricated.

Among the complaints and concerns were that the data (much involving tree ring samples) was not shared or objectively reviewed. No one outside the priesthood of global warming was allowed access to the data, and heretics were actively squelched. Furthermore, their efforts at doing real research were stymied as the criterion for “peer review” were modified.

The short version: you need to be peer-reviewed to be viewed as a reputable scientist. So in order to prevent reputable arguments against global warming canon, heretics were simply denied peer review. Ta-da! No more “reputable” scientists coming out against global warming… even though some 35,000 have signed petitions against it.

See how easy it is to make it look settled when you simply control the data?
From the AGW site: More specifically, 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

With no recognition from the church of global warming, dissenters were all heretics spouting apocrypha. And of course, as the data is shown to be manufactured, it’s very easy to dispute.

Now I’ll do it:

All scientists are opponents of anthropogenic global warming. And in order for any counterclaim to be reputable and worthy of consideration by science, you’ll have to be published in a peer-reviewed professional blog. Namely this one. See how easy it is to manufacture consensus?

The myriad of individuals showing up in the datadump also get more interesting as time goes by:

All of this would be simply entertaining academic infighting were it mathematicians bickering over solving Fermat’s Theorem.

But how it applies to all of us out here in the non-academic world is that right now there are international discussions about Cap & Trade and Carbon Tax. The idea behind those is that governments regulate the amount of carbon emissions that individuals can put out. That’s how much you breathe, how much you burn, how much your business emits. If you accept the fallacy that carbon dioxide is a bad thing, it starts to sound like a good idea.

Some of the facts are that carbon dioxide levels rise after temperature increases. And plants need it to breathe.

The sun influences global temperatures much more than does the amount of CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere, and the recent solar cycles have been of notice to both those who follow climate (and aren’t blinded by their orthodox theology) and those who are concerned about the solar ebb for the last few years.

But the most important words were two paragraphs ago: governments regulate.

The idea is that governments must control the amount of CO2 produced. AGW theory supposes that all CO2 is bad, and therefore must be controlled. This gives governments a new control mechanism, all “for our own good.” It is one where if governments don’t begin to act in a dictatorial fashion, we will all die, and thus those powerful men in government know best for us, and they know they must act – even against us – for we are too stupid to see the truth that they must lead us.

Reread genocidal maniac Holdren’s email. I’ll wait.

AGW theory creates a zero-sum game for the world, and creates a system by which global government, whether through treaties or outright, is created in order to “save the world”. The do-gooder intentions of those masters of men then becomes to “save us” from their fabricated crisis. In order to not have great sections of the world simply revolt – i.e. developing nations – they establish global carbon credits, by which poorer developing nations are simply paid to halt their development. They’re given unearned riches and wealth simply for being poor, while their development of their people is retarded, but certainly rewarded for their rulers.

The global carbon credit market will also benefit those businesses (like GE), who are the first in bed with government. This is why GE has been conducting such propaganda scams as “Green Week” on NBC, and why GE is now producing the CFL light bulbs (in China, of course) that the US govt. has mandated for us.

Were this about saving the environment, everyone would get behind it. Why? Because it’s good sense. If it weren’t about handing over govt. power, people would go out of their way to do more environmentally friendly activities in their daily lives – people bend over backwards to recycle.

(It is economical and ecologically friendly in the case of metals, but that’s about it.)

People want more fuel-efficient cars because it’s cheaper. Everyone wants more energy-efficient homes because they cost less in the long run. Everyone wants to pay less and use less (it leaves more for other things), and a lot of people are willing to go the extra mile to keep Iron Eyes Cody from crying (even if he wasn’t a Native American and was a fraud).

If the science were actually discussed (rather than hushed up) and we didn’t simply tolerate the lie spouted by modern-day orthodox druids who advocate Malthusian exterminations, forced abortions, and sterilization to “save the planet”, and we didn’t put up with the propaganda spouted by a company that serves to make millions from our tax dollars, this would be an important issue. Right now, it’s an eggregious example of science, government, and business collaborating to force things upon not only citizens of the US, but of the entire world.


For one parallel example, right now, we put up with things like ethanol, which cost 3 gallons of petrochemicals to produce 4 gallons of ethanol, plus the added economic and environmental cost of further refinement and production, at a return of 10% or less gas mileage and with added damage to automotive components. Thus, it destroys cars which take more economic and environmental assets to maintain, and it pollutes at a higher rate due to the loss of gas mileage. There’s also the loss of food production, both in sweet corn and in feed corn.

The local government stooges benefit by reelection by bribing their constituents at the expense of the nation, the constituents and their businesses in bed with the govt benefit from having the force of government behind the government mandated sale of their product, and environmentalists get to claim victory and advance politically, even though they do so detrimentally to the planet. The winners are the conspirators. The losers are everyone else.

>Well-known blogger Zombie has done a better review of this man than anyone around, and first I must give acknowledgment to that blogger (who is deep behind radical lines in San Fran):

Direct quote from John Holdren’s book “Ecoscience” pg 837:

To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. 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. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.

Note also that the “usual suspects” are utilized by leftists here. The general welfare and interstate commerce clauses are cited, as well as the 14th Amendment. They’re often used as end-runs around the Constitution.

The general welfare clause is limited by the enumerated powers that follow – otherwise the Constitution would just say “govt. can do whatever means well”.

The interstate commerce clause, was intended to allow the federal govt. to prevent individual states from interfering with commerce. For example, if a good was being sold and shipped from Georgia to North Carolina and South Carolina chose to tax it along the way, the federal govt. could step in to ensure that commerce was protected.

I fail to see how “equal protection” includes forced abortions and sterilization, but I’m not a liberal advocating what amounts to genocide to “save the planet”.

From page 838:
Individual rights. Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the “right responsibly to choose” the number and spacing of children (our emphasis).

“Our emphasis” is Holdren & Ehrlich’s.

Consider that first sentence: “Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction.” Really?

The argument for abortion is that it’s a woman’s right to her own body. The argument against is that the fetus is a human life, and therefore deserving of equal protection under the law.

The argument here is that the woman has no right to her own body against the govt’s power to murder its citizens, and the fetus has no right to exist against the power of the govt.

For once, pro-choicers and pro-lifers should have something to fundamentally agree on.

More from 838:

It is often argued that the right to have children is so personal that the government should not regulate it. In an ideal society, no doubt the state should leave family size and composition solely to the desires of the parents. 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?

There’s quite a bit more at Zombie’s blog. I direct you readers to read it there – as s/he went to the trouble of scanning pages of the book to show you exactly what was written. You can look at it in context, and read full quotes.

The man spent a lot of time seriously deliberating how to get around the Constitution to start sterilizing you and me. We’re an overpopulated animal on the planet to him.

Is this the kind of man you want as the advisor and regulator on science policy? Because he’s the Science Czar you have.

Much like Levar Burton on Reading Rainbow would say: “Don’t take my word for it.”

Another collection of info on John Holdren can be found here, including a video of Holdren at an event advocating zero-growth:

Now, why is all of this terrifying? Well, according to the leftist propaganda site Media Matters, which is funded and supported by major leftist groups, this is all smear and taken out of context.

Except you can go and read it in context. All of it.

The man’s written a blueprint of how he thinks – everything from advocating forced sterilization of women to releasing sterilizing chemicals in the water supply to a global regime to mandate the population.

May as well just get these ready:

If any one of us – you, me, JBH, any member of your family, your friends, your boss or your teacher – were to write a 900-page scholarly treatise on how a certain race needed to be exterminated, we’d probably have difficulty getting a government job. If your name were attached to “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment and Eskimos”, we’d be done for. You couldn’t advocate extermination of a race. Sure, Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright, who married he and his wife, can say vile things about “the JOOOOOS”, and that’s okay. But were he to actually write a 900 page book on how the Danes must be sterilized by poisoning their drinking water, he probably would’ve encountered some difficulty.

John Holdren escapes this by being in academia. Academia is notable for being insulated from the real world, as academics are funded by grants and free money, where all they have to do is talk to earn a living. Their ideas are tossed around, and are mostly meaningless, and they’re insulated from the effects of their nonsensical ideas due to being subsidized by alumni and those seeking tax breaks on their grants; and of course by govt. grants that never have any strings attached. Also of note, when discussing something in great detail that doesn’t matter one whit, folks will use the phrase “It’s all academic anyway” – saying that it’s a meaningless discussion with zero effect on reality or decisionmaking.

But when these eerily progressive ideas get out, they rapidly metastasize into something far worse. The “academic” ideas of phrenology and eugenics back in the 1800s and 1900s led to the conclusion that there were “superior races” and led to continued injustice against blacks in the US, who were considered subhuman by “scientists” like John Holdren. These crackpot theories dreamed up by men of letters led to entire schools of racial purity in Europe, and beyond the murder of 6-12 million and a war that killed millions more, there were also the forced abortions and sterilizations of “undesirables.”

John Holdren, like many leftist tyrants, believes in equality. All races are equally worthless to him – and he believes in egalitarian misery.

His statements of a shrinking world and Malthusian overpopulation are from the world of a zero-sum mindset. There are only so many resources and they must be divided equally, so says he – to the point that growth cannot be sustained and populations must be culled to manage resources.

Mankind are not deer on a hunting ranch or cows on a feed lot. This ignores the free market, where the individual has limitless capacity to produce and benefit everyone else in the system as well. The only limits on resources available for production (or consumption) are those placed by government.

Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. 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? Or both?

Go and read it all.

A while back I got into a discussion with someone over government health care. I was in the midst of reading a lot about government control of people’s lives, and rather than bring up how rationing of resources results in poorer care, I mentioned the power aspect of it. You can have “know what’s best for you” monsters in charge with government-run health care, and that of itself is terrifying.

We now have one such monster as science czar.

The main problem is one that is endemic on the left – it’s a worldview that sees life as a zero-sum game. It sees overpopulation as a problem and children as a punishment -

- and the world as “lifeboat” with fixed resources.

This cynical, cold worldview is one that allows leftist/statist/collectivists to believe that they are best to be in charge because they should distribute the resources. The cynic among them is watching out for himself and putting himself in a position of power, and the do-gooder believes himself above the masses and in need of the indulgences he takes by being in power as necessary for the “greater good”. Both of them concur that they are more important than “the masses” and thus they should dictate how the world will run.

But murdering millions is of course, for the greater good – according to such masters of men.

Reality check, folks: this shit is real. We have a man who’s entirely similar to the mass-murdering supervillains in both Tom Clancy’s novel “Rainbow Six”, who seek to obliterate humanity (except for themselves) for the good of the planet, and the water-poisoning semi-spoof supervillains of “The Tuxedo”.

The difference is that John Holdren is a real person in a real position of power to really impact your life (or the termination thereof) through his mandates. He’s already looked for end runs around the rule of law to get away with it so that he can’t be punished.

Everyone everywhere who’s ever been the victim of this kind of madman has said “it can’t happen here”. Then when it happens, “there’s nothing we can do about it.”

Spread the word. Raise your voice. Get this man and all his enablers, supporters, and his appointers removed from any office of power.

I don’t want to be saying “I told you so” and wandering the wasteland looking for gasoline for my Pursuit Special.