This link is right on target with my recent posts.Chinese Mother Forced to Abort a Seventh Month Pregnancy
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
The following videos are on the subject of eugenics and are highly informative.
The History and Practice of Eugenics
Human Genetic Engineering
Aldous Huxley's Brave New World depicted a future society, where people are selectively bred to be genetically perfect. Their genes determine which class of people they will be born into, a sort of genetic caste system. In our time, this will play out through human genetic engineering. This field purports to be trying to correct the genes that cause disease and chronic health conditions.
What genetic engineering does is alter a person's genotype, or their genetic makeup, in order to change their observable traits, or phenotype. Under modern eugenics, negative and positive are terms applied differently.
Negative engineering, attempts to fix, things that are wrong, genetic abnormalities, etc. This is accomplished, by removing genes to prevent diseases or treat genetic diseases. The cells that are altered are called somatic cells. They are non-reproductive cells. This is referred to as gene therapy and somatic cell gene transfer,(SCGT).
Some of the systems in the human body have self-renewing stem cells. They are constantly dividing to replenish all of the cells within that sytem. Bone marrow has these cells that regenerate in order to make new red and white blood cells. But there are other areas of the body like nerve cells, that don't have these self-renewing stem cells.These are the cells that scientific researchers want to use embryonic stem cells for. Embryonic stem cells, can become any cell type in the body, because they are not already coded for a specific purpose or area of the body.
Once the doctors have these replacement cells, they have to get them into the area of the body they are designed to fix or treat. They often use viruses to do this and the patient runs the risk of a severe autoimmune response, which could lead to death.
But there have been successes, and there are projects being conducted, aimed at curing cancer, blindness and bone marrow diseases.
Negative genetic engineering is also being used to find genetic diseases before and during pregnancy. Most people are at least slightly familiar with what an amniocentesis is. It is when they take a sample of the embryonic fluid withing the amniotic sac. It was only used during the first trimester of pregnancy. Parents who have trouble conceiving can opt to undergo in vitro fertilization and implantation of an embryo. Now they have the option to have preimplantation diagnosis (PGD). This gives parents the ability to only have the healthiest embryos implanted. The embryos not chosen for implantation, are usually disposed of. Parents have to decide whether or not an embryo with a medical condition should be disposed of even if the condition is treatable. Parents could conceivably pick the sex or eye color of the embryos they implant.
If at some future date, the technology is perfected to allow genetic modification of an embryo through gene therapy, it would also affect the embryos sperm or ovum. This gene modification would effectively be changing the genes passed on to successive generations. This is called inheritable genetic modification.
Positive genetic engineering attempts to improve upon people's genetic makeup or the the genes of their offspring. This is sometimes called gene doping. In 2008, the World Anti-Doping Agency defined it as the "non-therapeutic use of cells, genes, genetic elements, or modulation of gene expression having the capacity to enhance performance."
It has not been documented to be occurring, there are those who believe it is being conducted in secret. Earlier, I wrote about the insulin-like growth factor 1(IGF-1) in food. But in 2002, researchers were inserting IGF-1 into the muscle cells of mice to enlarge their muscles and creating "Schwarzenegger Mice." It has also been reported that the fat-burning protein PPAR into mice, gave the ability to run twice as fast. If athletes began using this method of enhancement, those who were testing for it, would have to completely sequence their genome to find evidence of it.
In the not too distant future, people will have to decide where to draw the line. If we altered the genes of short people, so that they could become taller, or gave people better eyesight, without regulation, what is to stop doctors from making people more intelligent or more athletic.
Eugenics is being proposed to us as a choice, as opposed to the forced government coercion of the past. Julian Savulescu is chair of the Oxford Center for Practical Ethics at Oxford University. In a paper he wrote in 2002, called Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children, he said, "Couples should select embryos or fetuses which are most likely to have the best life, based on available genetic information, including information about non-disease genes." He supports choosing children not just with their health in mind, but based on intelligence and gender. He refers to it as a "private enterprise" that is based on the choice of the parents. I have already covered what has happened in China, due to the practice of choosing the viability of a life based on gender. What is less well known, is that parents in the U.S. are choosing in increasing numbers to have male children, which is resulting in a declining number of female children.
If we as a society value male life above female life prior to birth, obviously, female children are going to face discrimination their whole life for being female. A system of giving women reproductive rights, in order to make their lives better, will ultimately make the life of women worse.
The National Bureau of Economic Research, published a paper called, The Demand for Sons: Evidence from Divorce, Fertility, and Shotgun Marriage (NBER Working Paper No. 10281),by Gordon Dahl and Enrico Moretti. They say that "Parental preference affects divorce, child custody, marriage, shotgun marriage when the sex of the child is known before birth, child support payments, and the decision of parents not to have any more children."
They compiled statistics from the U.S. Census from 1940-2000. These statistics show that a first born daughter is much less likely to be living with her father than a first born son. This is because women who only have female children are 2-7 percent more likely to never become married than women with male children. When parents marry because of an unplanned pregnancy, the so called shotgun wedding, it happens much more frequently when they know from an ultrasound that the baby is a boy. If the parents do not know the sex of the baby, the rate of marriage before birth is about the same. Statistic are showing that men who know they are about to have a son, are much more likely to marry the mother.
Couples who only have girls, get divorced more frequently than parents of boys. This increase is between 1 and 7 percent. This would indicate at least the possibility that men prefer spending time with sons than with daughters. They would lose this ability or find it severely limited after a divorce, and therefore may be less willing to lose access to sons as a result of divorce and therefore stay married. This difference in divorce rate is not effected by geographic region, race or economic pr educational level of the family. Fathers are also 11-22 percent more likely to have custody of their sons after a divorce than they are to have custody of their daughters.
Families that already have at least two children, are more likely to have another child if their existing children are girls. Divorced mothers are less likely to get child support for two daughters than for two sons.
Dahl and Moretti say that polls taken since 1940 show that men would prefer to have a son by more than a two to one margin. Women have much less preference toward having daughters.
At the present time, it is expensive to have testing done to choose the sex of your unborn child, but in the future such will not be the case. "As the cost of procedures falls and their reliability rises, the sex-ratio in the population may slowly become more male," Dahl and Moretti conclude. "More importantly, the bias for boys evidenced by our results may lead to worse outcomes for daughters." http://www.nber.org/digest/oct04/w10281.html
But in the West, we have consistently had a stronger prejudice against the sick and disabled than we do against female children.
In April of 2012, ABC reported that a new test to determine if your child had Down's Syndrome, as early as the 10th week of pregnancy. It is called the MaterniT21. It detects extra chromosomes floating around in the mother's blood from the baby. The tests can result in miscarriage. And since most insurance companies are not yet covering it, the cost to parents is about $475.http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/health&id=8634164
A doctor at Children's Hospital Boston, Dr. Brian Skotko, who is a clinical fellow in genetics was the lead study author on a study of 3000 Down's Syndrome patients and their families. It was published in the American Journal of Medical Genetics in October 2011. The study found that siblings age 12 and older were 97 percent said they felt proud of their siblings with Down's Syndrome. The children who themselves had Down's Syndrome 99 percent said they were happy, 97 percent liked who they are, and 96 percent were happy with their appearance.
The level of disability and health problems that accompany Down's Syndrome varies. It causes impairment of intellect, heart and stomach problems weak immune system, poor hearing and a shortened lifespan, typically living to their 50's. Some of the children are high-functioning, and healthy. But others can be severely disabled and unable to communicate. Up to 90% of women abort their pregnancies, when told the fetus has Down's Syndrome. While I would hesitate to fault parents who choose to abort a child when faced with the daunting diagnosis of Down's Syndrome, this study does show that there are some misconceptions as to whether such a child and their family can lead happy fulfilling lives.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44703812/ns/health-health_care/t/down-syndromes-rewards-touted-new-test-looms/#.T-q5ZVTwGSo
What other sector of the population can say that 90 percent of them are happy?
In the Journal of Legal Medicine a doctor and lawyer said that a woman who gave birth to a child with Tay-Sachs disease, after being given the diagnosis, should be prosecuted. (Lori B. Andrews, “The Clone Age: Adventures in the New World of Reproductive Technology,” p. 161).
Those who support modern eugenics, say that since it is personal choice, it will not be plagued with the evils perpetrated in the past. I would like to know when in human history has the ability to have free choice, prevented abuse of that freedom?
I believe that all human life is valuable and it should be respected, protected and treated with dignity. We all have human dignity. This is not dependent on our genetics or our perceived disabilities. Our human dignity can not been seen in our genes under a microscope. It has to be experienced.
“The people of our time, sensitized by the terrible vicissitudes that have covered the 20th century and the very beginning of this one in mourning, are able to understand that man’s dignity is not identified with his DNA genes and that it does not diminish with the eventual presence of physical differences or genetic defects.”--Pope Benedict XVI, 2005
Darwin felt that, "Elite status is prima facie evidence of evolutionary superiority."
I am not from any elite family, but my genealogy goes all the way back to Cleopatra; I descend from the kings of the once mythical city of Troy; I descend from a long line of pharaohs; I descend from dozens of Roman Caesars; there are kings from the Jewish diaspora in my heritage; I have several lines from Merovic, the king who the Merovingians derive their name from; I have countless families of European nobility within my line; I descend from the kings of France, Spain, Britain, Scotland and Ireland and Wales; The only difference between me and many other Americans is that I have sought out the information and can prove it. The difference between me and most of the so called elite, is that at some point my ancestors stopped feeling that your bloodline was of more importance than what you did with your life. I do not believe anything is "prima facie evidence of evolutionary superiority." I believe that you prove your superiority with your actions and your character. And above all, I believe that God is no respecter of persons. If it is not in his plan, eugenics will never improve upon His creation. The created cannot improve on the work of the Creator. They may be able to alter or change it, but never improve upon His creation. He didn't put us here to evolve, but to transcend. We were given free will with which to achieve it. If you allow them to take it away, you will never fulfill your purpose.
Men, in their effort to improve humanity have instead, committed some grievous wrongs against mankind in their arrogance
“All animals are created equal, some are just more equal than others”. --George Orwell, Animal Farm.
The History and Practice of Eugenics
I recently saw some statistics, which show the US as being the largest prison state in the world. These statistics show the US having more inmates that China and Russia. In 2006, we had 7,000,000 inmates. Some of the statistics were taken from Justice Policy Institute Report: The Punishing Decade, and US Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ219416, which shows inmates in 2006.
Since 1971, when Nixon declared a "War on Drugs," there has been a huge increase in the number of prisoners. We also, now have, a large amount of privately owned prisons. In 2001, there were about 140,000 prisoners in these private prisons. I also saw video of a Corrections Corporation of America prison that has railroad tracks going to it. Now, logic would make you think that would be a security risk, so why do you suppose they are there? So, they can ship in massive amounts of prisoners, perhaps? These companies that own privately, run prisons, are less accountable to the public.
H.R. 645 calls for the establishment of detainment facilities all over the US, without specifying who would be imprisoned in them.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZY-XIq1xrU On this same video, you can see a place that has tens of thousands of coffins, that will hold up to four bodies. They are made the the Hercules Corporation, which is R&D for Halliburton.
If you look at the maps of these camps on google, for Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia and Maryland, you will find that there is one in Cleveland, OH; Lima, OH;Columbus, OH;Cincinnati, OH; Louisville, KY; Manchester, KY; Lexington, KY; Ashland, KY; Beckley, WV; Alderson, WV; Lewisburg, WV; Mill Creek, WV; Kingwood, WV; Morgantown, WV; Ft. Detrick, MD; Ft. Meade, MD; Ft. AP Hill, VA; Petersburg, VA; https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&gl=us&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=118135173934136151745.00045bc25ee928a8872d0
This is a list of Executive Orders that have amassed slowly over the last 30 years. Just because they had logical reasons for being enacted at the time, doesn't mean they can't be used for more diabolical purposes now.
Executive Orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:...
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 1099allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998allows the government to seize all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports, and waterways.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10999allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis." FEMA's powers were consolidated by President Carter to incorporate the...
National Security Act of 1947allows for the strategic relocation of industries, services, government and other essential economic activities, and to rationalize the requirements for manpower, resources and production facilities.
1950 Defense Production Actgives the President sweeping powers over all aspects of the economy.
Act of August 29, 1916authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in time of war, to take possession of any transportation system for transporting troops, material, or any other purpose related to the emergency.
International Emergency Economic Powers Act
enables the President to seize the property of a foreign country or national. These powers were transferred to FEMA in a sweeping consolidation in 1979.
Let's just take one of them from the middle of the list. Near, Columbus, OH is a small place called New Rome. There was a WWII internment camp that held German prisoners of war. But recently, razor wire has been installed. There are also new buildings, and loading or unloading bays near railroad tracks. The buildings appear to be some sort of brick barracks with lots of fencing around them. Those loading docks are color code, red, orange, and green. The people around New Rome think it is for overflow from a nearby overcrowded prison in Orient, OH. And most ominously, there is something there that visitors describe as appearing to be crematoriums.
Interestingly, there have also been people who went looking for the place and said they couldn't find it. But on another website, I found an account that said there were underground tunnels near Trabue Road, which is where the barracks were supposed to be. I wonder if it is possible that when the information got out, the place was cleared out, aside from the tunnels. They were supposed to have something to do with Marble Cliff Quarries in Marble Cliff, a suburb of Columbus. Interestingly, Prescott Bush had a mansion there.
The Codex Alimentarius
The altruistic purpose of this commission is in "protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations".
It is run jointly by the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization. What actually happens through them is that corporations make more money off of food and control us through food. Obviously, if you control the food, you control the people. The Us is the chair of Codex.
The Codex organization is working toward regulating everything we eat and drink including water. They will implement their regulations in every country that belongs to the World Trade Organization. If these countries do not follow them, then they will face trade sanctions.
Regulations as of December 2009:
* All nutrients (vitamins and minerals) are to be considered toxins/poisons and are to be removed from all food because Codex prohibits the use of nutrients to "prevent, treat or cure any condition or disease"
* All food (including organic) is to be irradiated, removing all toxic nutrients from food (unless eaten locally and raw).
* Nutrients allowed will be limited to a Positive List developed by Codex which will include such beneficial nutrients like Fluoride (3.8 mg daily) developed from environmental waste. All other nutrients will be prohibited nationally and internationally to all Codex-compliant countries .
* All nutrients (e.g., CoQ10, Vitamins A, B, C, D, Zinc and Magnesium) that have any positive health impact on the body will be deemed illegal under Codex and are to be reduced to amounts negligible to humans' health .
* You will not even be able to obtain these anywhere in the world even with a prescription.
* All advice on nutrition (including written online or journal articles or oral advice to a friend, family member or anyone) will be illegal. This includes naturalnews.com reports on vitamins and minerals and all nutritionist's consultations.
* All dairy cows are to be treated with Monsanto's recombinant bovine growth hormone.
* All animals used for food are to be treated with potent antibiotics and exogenous growth hormones.
* The reintroduction of deadly and carcinogenic organic pesticides that in 1991, 176 countries (including the U.S.) have banned worldwide including 7 of the 12 worst at the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pesticides (e.g., Hexachlorobenzene, Toxaphene, and Aldrin) will be allowed back into food at elevated levels .
* Dangerous and toxic levels (0.5 ppb) of aflotoxin in milk produced from moldy storage conditions of animal feed will be allowed. Aflotoxin is the second most potent (non-radiation) carcinogenic compound known to man.
* Mandatory use of growth hormones and antibiotics on all food herds, fish and flocks
* Worldwide implementation of unlabeled GMOs into crops, animals, fish and trees.
* Elevated levels of residue from pesticides and insecticides that are toxic to humans and animals.
Some examples of potential permissible safe levels of nutrients under Codex include :
* Niacin - upper limits of 34 mcg daily (effective daily doses include 2000 to 3000 mcgs).
* Vitamin C - upper limits of 65 to 225 mcg daily (effective daily doses include 6000 to 10000 mcgs).
* Vitamin D - upper limits of 5 μg daily (effective daily doses include 6000 to 10000 μg).
* Vitamin E - upper limits of 15 IU of alpha tocopherol only per day, even though alpha tocopherol by itself has been implicated in cell damage and is toxic to the body (effective daily doses of mixed tocopherols include 10000 to 12000 IU).
In 1995, the Food and Drug Administration changed their policy and it stated that international standards, i.e. Codex, would supercede US laws, if US laws were incomplete. This is essentially illegal to make some other governing body superior to US law. But in 2004, the US passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which required US regulations to meet Codex standards by 2009.
Effectively, we cannot get rid of these regulations as long as we belong to the WTO. It is believed that the purpose of this, is to control population, through food, with the aid of Big Pharma and the US government. The FAO and WHO estimate that the vitamin regulation will reduce popularized by 3 million.
The more natural things we eat for health or take for health, the more we cut into Big Pharma's profits.
IF proper science were being used, biochemistry would be used to assess nutrients. Instead, Codex uses Risk Assessment, which is a branch of toxicology. Because they want us to view nutrients as toxins.
The Codex Alimentarius Vitamin and Mineral Guideline, can ban high potency vitamins, by setting standards for dosages or supplements added to food extremely low.
The DSHEA, Dietary Supplement Health Education Act of 1994 classifed supplements as food. But Codex supercedes that and calls supplements a drug or toxins, by referring to levels of them as dosages.
So Codex violates a US law with an international law.
I looked around to see what kind of news stories I could find on Codex. I found one that says Argentina joined the International Olive Oil Commission in order to prove that their olive oil was authentic, even though it is different that the oils from Mediterranean countries. The information was found in Codex documents. Things like that are important because the prices of olive oil are down right now.http://www.oliveoiltimes.com/olive-oil-business/olive-oil-prices-lowest-since-2009/27024
Despite the fact that Codex has regulations about putting things like GMO's on the market without testing them, that is exactly what happened in the US. And Codex has done nothing about it. So obviously, they are not really out for our best interests, and someone else is calling the shots, like maybe Monsanto. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-murphy/dan-quayle-and-michael-ta_b_1551732.html
Greenpeace did a study on the vegetables in our grocery stores and found levels of toxins and chemicals at seven times what Codex allows. Yet where is Codex when they could be useful?http://asiancorrespondent.com/82758/contaminated-veggies-switch-organic-produce/
I looked around for some of the more recent videos on Codex alimentarius, so I could post them here.
In 2009, in the mother of all conflicts of interest, Obama appointed Michael Taylor as a senior advisor for the FDA. He had previously served as vice president at Monsanto. Among other things that they do, Monsanto in a leader in GMO, genetically modified foods. He was also the food Czar at the FDA when GMO's were first allowed onto the market, without any testing at all to determine their safety.
Monsanto markets genetically modified corn that is insect resistant. In Europe, six countries from the EU refuse to allow it to be grown in their countries. The EU has been highly resistant towards any GMO's. Corn or corn products are in everything. The Monsanto corn has pesticide in the seeds, and now there are indications that bugs are becoming resistant to the pesticides, so why keep them in there if they don't work or are starting to fail? It is estimated that before they started making this modified corn, it cost farmers about $1 million a year in damaged crops and pesticide costs.
Monsanto's corn is engineered to produce the Cry3Bb1 protein from Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, a natural insecticide. There is also SmartStax corn that has an additional chemical from Dow Chemical and Dupont. SmartStax corn has eight different genetically modified traits in it. Prior to it's development, the most any other product had was three. The corn produces six insecticide toxins and is tolerant to 2 herbicides.
Monsanto also makes seeds for corn, soybeans and cotton, that have Round Up in them. But weeds are becoming resistant to that also.http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-15/monsanto-corn-injured-by-early-rootworm-feeding-in-illinois
One of their newer products is GMO drought resistant corn. They developed it in partnership with BASF. It was approved earlier this year. The USDA said, "corn and progeny derived from it are unlikely to pose plant pest risks and is no longer to be considered regulated article under APHIS’ Biotechnology Regulations." and "would have no significant impacts, individually or collectively, on the quality of the human environment and will have no effect on federally listed threatened or endangered species, species proposed for listing, or their designated or proposed critical habitats."
The Cornucopia Institute reported that the USDA received almost 45,000 public comments opposed to MON 87460, with only 23 comments in favor. Apparently, this had little or no impact on Obama or Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack.
Now they are wanting to sell corn that is resistant to 2, 4-D, which was the primary ingredient in Agent Orange. If that doesn't sit well with you, the USDA is taking public comments on it, but whether or not your comment will matter is unlikely, given that they didn't listen to people opposed to MON 87460.
When I was growing up, my Grandmother told me how they had a cow that was solely to provide my Dad milk. This would be unpasteurized and unprocessed milk. But the FDA is conducting armed raids on farmers who produce and sell unpasteurized milk. Michael Taylor is responsible for these raids.http://www.change.org/petitions/president-obama-dump-former-monsanto-lobbyist-as-fda-food-safety-czarhttp://www.change.org/petitions/president-obama-dump-former-monsanto-lobbyist-as-fda-food-safety-czar
Taylor's job at the FDA has been on again off again, because part of the time he works for companies like Monsanto. In1994, he wrote the labeling guidelines for dairy products that have the hormone rBGH in them. So that these products wouldn't be stigmatized, he forced companies that make products without rBGH state on their labels that rGBH wasn't any different than the naturally occurring hormone, so people would think that their product wasn't any better because it didn't contain it.
Before he was able to do this, as a lawyer for Monsanto, he advised them on whether or not it would be legal for states to institute such labeling regulations, and whether or not Monsanto would be able to sue
other companies for telling people that their products were rGBH free. So while in the private sector, he worked out the legalities, and through his public position he worked out the logistics and implemented the program.
Taylor is not the only person who goes in and out the revolving doors between Monsanto, the FDA, and the EPAhttp://www.rense.com/general33/fd.htmhttp://www.rense.com/general33/fd.htm
Both of my children had trouble tolerating infant formula, so they had to be switched to soy formula. Now soybeans are GMO's and soy allergies went up by 50% when GMO soy products were introduced to the UK. So, if your child is lactose intolerant, or allergic to dairy, and they are allergic to soy, what are you to do, especially if breast feeding wasn't an option. In my case I was on massive doses of antibiotics for a year after my son was born, and the medicine would have passed into breast milk.
One of the types of genetic modifications in food, is antibiotics. We hear all sorts of statements that germs are antibiotic resistant due to doctors over prescribing antibiotics. But is more likely, that the antibiotics in our food cause it. For one thing if those genes transfer to bacteria in your digestive tract, then it would modify the bacteria and make it resistant. Now with the idea that gene transfer is possible, what happens if GMO pesticides in corn transfer within our digestive tract, we would be turning the bacteria inside us into pesticide factories. No tests have been done to see if these GMO genes do transfer, but it is scientifically possible. The American Academy of Environment Sciences doesn't think GMO's are safe. “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The AAEM asked physicians to advise patients to avoid GM foods."
It sounds to me like a good way to lower the population, to make people infertile, vulnerable to disease because of damaged immune systems, increase their risk of diabetes, cause organ damage, and cause them to die early.
At least sugar, fat and salt in food makes it taste better, the GMO's usually don't unless you count the new ones that are specifically made for that out of fetal cells. If someone handed you two boxes, one that contained an all natural herbicide and one that contained an all natural pesticide, would you eat them?
Here's a link to a current news story about people signing petitions to get rid of Michael Taylor. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/monsanto-petition-tells-obama-cease-fda-ties-to-monsanto/2012/01/30/gIQAA9dZcQ_blog.html
Here's the petition if you would like to sign ithttp://signon.org/sign/tell-obama-to-cease-fda
One of the most telling things I found out about Monsanto GMO's was that they had been busted on the fact that they don't serve them to their employees in their cafeterias. Bill Gates follows the same practice. And so do the Rockefellershttp://templestream.xanga.com/759470927/gates-and-rockefeller-cafeterias-reject-monsanto-ge-foods/
This brings us around to David Rockefeller, and good old Bill and Melinda Gates again. In February 2012, he was at a press conference hyping up his digital revolution of the food supply in Rome. The reporters asked him about GMO's and he replied,"You should go out and talk to people growing rice and say do they mind that it was created in a laboratory when their child has enough to eat?” I suppose right at the moment they were filling their children's bellies, they might not mind, but if you gave them a choice between GMO's and organic food, they wouldn't opt for the GMO's. Their cafeterias are organic too.
AGRA or the Alliance for A Green Revolution in Africa, is jointly funded by the Rockefeller and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations. Thanks to them, cassava, which is a staple food in Africa, is now GMO cassava. Monsanto also introduced GMO corn into Africa through the WEMA or Water Efficient Maize for Africa program. The Bill Gates Foundation and Warren Buffet both supported it. Rockefeller University's website says it only serves rGBH free milk, cage free eggs and organic food. The Gates Foundation owns stock in Monsantohttp://templestream.xanga.com/759470927/gates-and-rockefeller-cafeterias-reject-monsanto-ge-foods/
They are all members of the so called Doomsday Seed Vault in the Arctic. This is a stash of unmodified seeds, ostensibly just in case of some environment catastrophe. But the reality is that they don't want seeds to be sold or grown that they don't have the patents on. http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=10300
In India, it is being reported that there is an epidemic of suicide among farmers. These farmers are told that they will become rich if they switch to growing GMO crops. But when droughts and other things cause their crops to fail, they are deeply in dept because they have to borrow money to buy these seeds from Monsanto. Their government has encouraged these farmers to opt into GMO crops, because in return for doing so, India received International Money Fund loans back in the eighties and nineties. These loans helped the economy of the cities at the expense of lives.
They were told that they wouldn't have to use pesticides, but instead, their cotton crops were ravaged by boll worms. They were not told that these crops require more water, and then they were hit with droughts.
All through history, farmers have saved seeds to replant next year, but with GMO seeds, they don't produce seeds that can be planted. So, the farmers have to buy new seeds every year. As a result of the plight of these poor Indian farmers, Prince Charles is setting up the Bhumi Vardaan Foundation. It will promote organic crops.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html
In the US, Monsanto even made sure that farmers who tried to grow crops that would allow them to save seeds for the next year would be penalized for doing so. In 2011, they won a court case that was begun back in 2007 against an Indiana farmer named, Vernon Bowman. They said he infringed on their patent by saving seeds that had some of the Monsanto seeds mixed in with them for replanting. Bowman said he bought the seeds in part of some mixed commodity seeds. Commodity seeds are not required to differentiate between GMO and non GMO seeds.
The court ruled that Monsanto's agreement with farmers prohibits them from selling the progeny of Round Up Ready seeds, that it didn't prohibit the sale of second generation seeds. But farmers are not allowed to plant those same seeds in the ground in order to grow more seeds to sell. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/21/us-monsanto-lawsuit-idUSTRE78K79O20110921
Monsanto has been tracking down farmers all over the Midwest and suing them for saving seeds. They have a toll free hotline where people can make anonymous tips about farmers who are cleaning and saving seeds. The farmers have to sign a contract that says they won't do that, but instead buy new seeds every year from Monsanto. These contracts say how much GMO Round Up Ready acres they plant. Monsanto also runs television and radio adds to encourage people to turn in their neighbors. When they get a tip, they send out detectives to go through the farmers records and over their farms looking for evidence. They look to see how much seed they bought and how much they sold. Monsanto sues the farmers that if feels it can prove have saved seeds. They say the money they will goes to American Farm Bureau for scholarships.
Monsanto says that they are just trying to protect the millions of dollars that they have invested in the research and development of their products. But the National Family Farm Coalition filed a suit, that claims that they are just trying to monopolize the sale of seeds, and that they fix prices so that they can create and maintain this monopoly.
Some of the court cases have claimed that after the second generation of seeds, the patent exhausts itself. Others have claimed that Monsanto cannot patent plants, which self replicate in the first place; saying that patent law was established for machines and things that someone invented.
In 1970, Congress enacted the Plant Variety Protection Act. Under that act, farmers could save seeds. But a Supreme Court case said that companies like Monsanto could patent GMO'shttp://www.organicconsumers.org/Monsanto/farmerssued.cfm
Monsanto is following the lead of Big Pharma with regard to patents. It's patent on the Round Up Ready soy beans is due to run out in 2014. Under normal circumstances, that would allow competition from other companies. But rather than allow that to happen, they have already come up with Round Up Ready 2 and are forcing it on the market, so that the Round Up Ready 1 seed will be obsolete, and they will maintain their monopoly. This is the tactic that pharmaceutical companies use. They will modify an existing medicine slightly, give it a new name and extend their time before the patent runs out. This makes the consumer have to wait years before there is an affordable generic available.
Farmers would like to be able to start saving their seeds when the patent runs out, but it will be difficult to find seeds that only contain Round Up Ready 1, so that they won't violate the patent. Cross pollination is a very real possibility, because even Monsanto can't control the wind, or contamination that occurs via animals. In a bit of false magnanimity, Monsanto says it won't try to keep farmers from saving seed. But they know how hard it will be to find only Round Up Ready 1 seeds, which is why, Monsanto is trying to get the new Round Up Ready on the market now. They also didn't start saying that until the Justice Department started investigating them for antitrust law violation. It has been reported that they were not going to re-license companies to use the RoundUp Ready 1 gene, which will force them to buy the Round Up Ready 2 gene. But with the Justice Department looking at them, they backed down on that, but only in the U.S.
There are farmers who need to be able to establish that their crops are organic, because they sell to companies like Whole Food Market. And they are suing Monsanto, because their GMO's are contaminating their crops, and they say, that Monsanto can then claim their crops are GMO's. So, far they have been unsuccessful, because they have been unable to prove in court that Monsanto threatened them. But if they had gone about it, just by saying that Monsanto had contaminated their crops they might have won. Either way, it is highly doubtful that Monsanto ever intended for their product not to cross pollinate with non GMO fields. And that is significant when you realize that it is not just soy beans, but corn and cotton that they are monopolizing.
Other countries require GMO patents to be renewed periodically, and Monsanto intends to maintain those licenses until 2017. American farmers would not be allowed to sell seeds to those countries, which would probably cause them not to want to grow crops that they can't export.
In 2005, the Brazilian government made GMO soybeans legal. But they did this because it was shown that about 75% of the crops were grown from Round Up Ready seeds, made by Monsanto. Round Up ready crops have been modified so that it can be sprayed on them without hurting the plants.
Since the crops were now legal, Monsanto started charging the farmers 2% of the sales of the soy beans. The amount of farmers growing these GMO soybeans was now up to 85%. And they test all of the crops to make sure who is growing them. If the farmer claims that his crops are not the Round Up Ready soy beans, and they prove that they are, he has to pay 3% of his profits.
Monsanto says that the farmers are getting the Round Up Ready seeds illegally. The Brazilian Association of Seeds and Seedlings, says they are not. In April, the Brazilian courts said that they were charging this 2-3 percent illegally, and ordered them to pay it back. Right now, it is in appealhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/18/monsanto-brazil-soybean-farmers_n_1606267.html
Monsanto does not want us using bio-fuels like hemp and sugarcane. Hemp doesn't require insecticides, or phosphate fertilizer. So that would cut down on their profits. Instead, they prefer that we grow their corn, which requires their pesticide.
Whether or not you believe in legalized marijuana/hemp. The reason it is not already legal, may not have anything to do with drug usage. It is estimated that 1 acre of hemp could yield more paper than 2-4 acres of trees. Even though we are living in the digital age, we still need paper, and the demand for it will continue to grow. If we don't find another source for it, we will have massive deforestation. This in turn will have environment results, which ultimately will cause declines in population.
Even cars can and have been made from hemp based plastic. Ford made one in 1941. This hemp plastic is supposed to be 10 times stronger than steel. Only half of the oil we import is for fuel. The other half is for plastic manufacturing. It is ironic that organizations like PETA want us to use pleather, without realizing that by using something that is a petroleum product, we injure far more animals than those who might lose their fur on a farm. And what about the children who starve or get cancer. But save the animals?
Viscoloid Corporation was established in 1900 to make celluloid which was basically plastic. About 25 years later Dupont bought it. Another company that made celluloid was Fiberloid, which was bought out by Monsanto. I.F. Farben's Hoechst-Celanese, also makes plastic. And everyone know that plastic is related to petroleum and therefore the Rockefellers. Round Up is made with Rockefeller fossil fuels, as evidenced by it's chemical name, glyphosate.
I am not sure if I mentioned this before, but Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas used to be a lawyer for Monsanto in the 1970's. He wrote the majority opinion that Monsanto's GMO's were patentable under U.S. patent law.
Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone or rBGH is the Monsanto growth hormone that causes cows to produce more milk. It was approved by the FDA in 1993. The EU, and Canada, as well as other countries have banned it's use. The American Cancer Society says that it is not the rGBH that we should be concerned with but IGF-1, insulin-like growth factor, which is linked to all sorts of cancer. They say it is also in soy milk. This brings up an interesting point, is IGF-1 in Monsantos soy products? It would seem so. IGF-1 is not destroyed by pasteurization.
The FDA prohibits dairies from claiming that milk with rGBH is different than any other milk. Because rGBH injected cows get more mastitis, they have to be given antibiotics. Monsanto was accused of trying to bribe scientists in order to get rBGH milk approved in Canada. http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/news/10009.htm Kroger and Walmart have chosen not to sell store brands of milk with rGBH in it.
The History and Practice of Eugenics
So what kind of things are going on now during President Obama's administration?
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel was the chair of the Department of Bioethics at the US Institutes of Health. Bioethics is basically euthanasia education. Now he is working for President Barach Obama and is seen as being responsible for the "death council" that has made the list of medical practices that will deny care to the elderly, chronically ill, and poor. Ezekiel's brother is Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.
In 1953, The American Eugenics Society joined Rockefeller funded Population Council. Daniel Callahan was given a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1668-1969 to found the Hastings Center in Garrison, NY. The Hastings Center is a bioethics center, Theodore Dobzhansky, geneticist and evolutionary biologists, was a founding director of the Hastings Center and was also chairman of the American Eugenics Society. And Daniel Callahan was a director of the Eugenics Society. Ezekiel Emanuel is a Hastings Center fellow, and so is his wife Linda Emanuel. Ezekiel Emanuel's deputy director of the Federal Department of Bioethics, Christine Grady, is also a Hastings fellow and director of the Hastings Center.
Dr. Emanuel wrote a book in 2008 called Healthcare, Guaranteed. In he he advocated a National Health Board to oversee and cut healthcare and to approve all payments and procedures. "To reduce political interference and allow the necessary tough choices to be made. But he believes this board should not have any pressure from elected officials, Congress or the President, and that they should be funded independently from Congressional appropriations. Basically, this board would be autonomous and would not have to answer even to Congress and they would be getting their money from rich backers and we the voters would be at their mercy.
Senator Tom Daschle was at one time the pick to be basically a health czar for Obama. He too, wrote a book in 2008, called Critical: What We Can Do About the Healthcare crisis. He feels that anyone who signs up for Medicare should have to sign a document that says to what degree they consent to be killed in an end of life situation.
You can read some of the papers written by him here: http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdfhttp://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf
He advocates prioritizing adolescents and young adults as far as healthcare goes, at the expense of the very young and the very old. He says that adolescents have had a lot of education and parental care invested in them whereas infants haven't got much invested in them yet. So adolescents if not saved would be a waste of that investment. He is talking about a hypothetical healthcare emergency, but the problem is, it's not so hypothetical. We could easily find ourselves in some sort of pandemic, and what he is saying is that people between the ages of 15 and 40 would get medical treatment before anyone else. While he says this shouldn't be based on their economic background, it would quickly degenerate to just that. Because he also says that "instrumental value" could also be used as criteria for deciding who gets an organ or a vaccine. This means someone is going to be deciding how useful you are to society.
In the second paper, he says that people who have dementia or children with learning disabilities, should not have basic healthcare guaranteed to them, because they are irreversibly prevented from becoming participating citizens. But healthcare should be guarantee healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation of citizens in public deliberation. Again, the more valuable you are deemed to be to society, the more likely you will be to get medical care, so that you continue to be valuable to society.
President Obama also has a man named John Holdren working for him. He is referred to as his Science Czar, because he is his senior advisor on science and technology, because he is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Director of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and he co-chairs the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Before going to work for the Obama administration, he was director of Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard as well. He also served as Director of the Woods Hole Research Center.
His was trained in aeronautics, astronautics and plasma physics. He focused his energies on environmental change, and energy technologies and policies, how to reduce dangers from nuclear weapons, and science and technology policy. So his whole life has been dedicated to changing our national policies with regard to science. He also served on President Bill Clinton's President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
He testified before Congress during his confirmation hearing that he doesn't believe that the .government should have a role in population control and that he never supported forces sterilization.
But he has written, " if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come." He believes that we should lower our population increase below replacement because, "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many." He co-authored a textbook titled, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, with Paul R. Ehrlich, and Anne H. Ehrlich. In this book they cover family planning, enforced population control, forced sterilization after a predesignated number of children, birth control and abortion. They call these things possible options that could be implemented. They suggest the idea of putting drugs into the drinking water to cause sterilization. They feel that teen and single mothers should have their children taken from them and given away to others to raise. Rather than calling people degenerate or unfit, they refer to them as people who, "contribute to social deterioration" and say that they "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility."And he is in support of a One World Government. He called for a "Planetary Regime" that would take control of the economy of the world and government in general, and the method of doing this would be an international police force.
After his and the Ehrlich's book laid the groundwork by saying that it is a fact that we are overpopulated, on pg. 837 of Ecoscience, it says this: "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." By using phrases like "it has been concluded" he avoids taking responsibility for making the conclusion, probably so that he would meet with less criticism and was therefore able to testify in Congress that he had not supported forced sterilization.
Page 786 is the source that says children should be taken away from single mothers. "one way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption--especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society."
Now given that it has basically been the agenda of the elite for the last 100 years or better to undermine the traditional family, by encouraging a relaxation of morals that resulted in more children being born to single mothers, and through women's liberation, encouraging women to think that fathers are not necessary, and they are now condemning women for having children out of wedlock, they are basically showing the ultimate aim; to make as many children as possible wards of the state. This would result in easily indoctrinated and trained drone type citizens for the future world they are working diligently towards. While doing away with the legal bonds between mother and child or father and child or man and woman, they have forgotten to factor in the emotional bonds that were provided by nature. Children are irrevocably changed by being wrenched from their mothers' arms, and the mothers themselves are devastated, often in a way that they never recover from. But they want us to be robotic machines, so they convince themselves that we already are beneath feeling human emotion, in order to absolve themselves of any responsibility toward human decency and kindness.
By proposing enforced abortions, he is effectively going to the opposite extreme from anti abortion. Because he is taking away choice, just for a different reason. And his reason has nothing to do with any consideration for the sanctity of life. There is anti abortion at one extreme, pro choice in the middle and enforced abortion at the opposite end of the spectrum. Both extremes take away choice. Anti abortion supporters want to protect the rights of the unborn child. Those for enforced abortion take away both the rights of the child and the rights of the mother by forcing a medical procedure upon her. Even if a woman supported abortion, it would be horribly traumatic to be forced to undergo one. And no surgery is without the risk of complication and death.
He discusses involuntary fertility control on page 786-7, "A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and remove when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."
When this book was written, in 1977, we didn't have those implants, but we do now, in the form of Norplant; and when they first came on the market, the first women they were marketed to were young teen black women. Baltimore was the first city to begin offering Norplant in their high schools in 1993. And it was implemented without adequate testing. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-08-27/news/1993239014_1_norplant-clinic-public-schoolRight after it came on the market in 1991, judges and legislators started trying to mandate its use. Some states began telling women that were convicted of child abuse or drug use during pregnancy, that they either got the implant or went to jail. Some of the bills that were introduced in some states offered financial incentive to women to get them to have the implants inserted. What that means is that if they wanted to receive public assistants, which they might need for the survival of their family, they would have to get the implant. The ACLU holds that forcing women to get these implants violates a basic constitutional right to reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity by interfering with the decision of whether or when to bear children and by forcing a medical procedure upon them, because they are not in a position to reject it.
The ACLU says that these policies are based on the notion that low income women have children indiscriminately. But according to their figures, in 1990 just before Norplant came on the market, low income families had 1.9 children, which was no larger a family than those who were better off financially. They also bring up the point, that Norplant would stop a woman from conceiving, but not stop her from using drugs or abusing her children, so really does not address the problem. I am of the opinion that what they state the problem is, is just their public spin on their real aim, which is finding legal excuses to sterilize women. The ACLU also says these laws discriminate against women, because men are not punished for drug abuse or child abuse by being forced to have vasectomies. They also say straight out that the fact that low income women and especially women of color are targeted by this type of sentencing, is overt racism and eugenics. (http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/norplant-new-contraceptive-potential-abusehttp://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/norplant-new-contraceptive-potential-abuse
On page 787-8, he discusses adding drugs to the water supply to sterilize people. "Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock." There is no mention of whether or not it poses any moral questions. And animals seem to be more important than humans.
Page 838 of Holdren's book says that people who cause social deterioration, should be sterilized. "If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility- just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource consumption patterns- providing they are not denied equal protection."
If you could understand his argument on the basis of degeneracy, you still can't possibly agree that having more children than some would like makes you a degenerate. He is reverting back to the eugenics term "degeneracy" but he is broadening the definition to include someone who chooses to have a large family as degenerate. Implying that people wouldn't be denied equal protection under the law is meant to show that he wouldn't be racist in determining who had to be sterilized. That just means that they wouldn't just be limited to race in their ability to determine who has to be sterilized. They just need to show that you are degenerate, which would be relative to the person making the determination. They need to make that distinction about "equal protection under the law" because there has already been a Supreme Court case, Skinner vs. Oklahoma, that determined that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibited state sanctioned sterilization being applied unequally to certain types of people. It's hard to do away with a Supreme Court decision, it is easier to maneuver around one by giving the appearance that you are not being racist in your decisions.
On page 838, he suggests that if the law can tell you how many spouses to have it should be able to tell you how many children to have. "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?"
You might wonder if he has trouble understanding the constitution or something. But the fact is, he would like to do away with the government we have and establish a One World Government. He thinks the UN should be able to make the decisions on population and on how all the world's resources are used. This effectively does away with US sovereignty, and makes constitutionality a mute point."Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international super-agency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."(page 942-3) Food, commerce on the oceans, because they are a source of resources, and all of the economy that is based on our resources, would then be under the control of the "Regime."
In case he wasn't clear enough there that he wants to do away with our sovereignty, on page 917, he says it straight out. "If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization."
When the book was published in 1977, he said we had to stop overpopulation by the year 2000. It must get his gall to know that he didn't quite meet his goal. And it probably makes him even more fanatical in his desperation to see his plans implemented. "Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants' destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world." (page 944)
You can look up the book yourself. I have given citations. If you think that John Holdren didn't himself say the things in the book, ask yourself, if he doesn't agree with the ideas within the book, then why did he allow his name to be put on the book? Why are the acknowledgments in the book to people at Berkeley, where he worked and to his wife? Ecoscience is not the only book he has written though. He has written other on his own. You can go to Google books and look them up. The Obama administration tried to do a spin on him, by issuing a press statement to the Washington Times, that said that the book was "a three-decade-old, three-author college textbook. Dr. Holdren addressed this issue during his confirmation when he said he does not believe that determining optimal population is a proper role of government. Dr. Holdren is not and never has been an advocate for policies of forced sterilization." I won't cut him any slack for the book being old, if he felt these things strongly enough to make sure they were being taught in a text book, and he has changed his mind, he should feel strongly enough about his supposed new opinion to see that it is taught from text books. And he should hold himself highly responsible for any student who was influenced by his older opinion.
His co-author Ehrlich said that the book was an encyclopedia and that these things were descriptions and not necessarily endorsements of the things that were defined in the book.
Which thing do you give more weight to, an opinion that they felt strongly enough to put in print and leave in print so that people could be taught from, or Holdren's reply when asked whether he believed the government should determine optimal population, "No, Senator,I do not." Has he written a book titled, No Senator I Do Not? If he thinks his earlier opinion was wrong, he should correct that wrong, and it should have taken precedence over a job on the Obama Administration.
Their more recent statements make as much sense as a child pornographer putting out a movie that depicts deviant behavior and then saying they don't endorse the behavior, but just thought people ought to be aware that it was an option.
Another point to be made is this, if John Holdren is not eugenicist in philosophy, then why does he consider Harrison Brown to be more or less his hero? H has said that Harrison Brown's book, The Challenge of Man's Future changed his personal philosophy and was the impetus for him making a career in science and population policy. Harrison Brown was a eugenicist. In 1986, John Holdren edited and co-wrote a book about Harrison Brown titled, Earth and the Human Future" Essays in Honor of Harrison Brown. I would think that if he worked on a book to honor Brown, then he must honor him.
Interestingly, his comments in the book on Brown, prove my point. "Harrison Brown’s most remarkable book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, was published more than three decades ago. By the time I read it as a high school student a few years later, the book had been widely acclaimed. … The Challenge of Man’s Future pulled these interests together for me in a way that transformed my thinking about the world and about the sort of career I wanted to pursue. I have always suspected that I am not the only member of my generation whose aspirations and subsequent career were changed by this book of Harrison Brown’s. … As a demonstration of the power of (and necessity for) an interdisciplinary approach to global problems, the book was a tour de force. … Thirty years after Harrison Brown elaborated these positions, it remains difficult to improve on them as a coherent depiction of the perils and challenges we face. Brown’s accomplishment in writing The Challenge of Man’s Future, of course, was not simply the construction of this sweeping schema for understanding the human predicament; more remarkable was (and is) the combination of logic, thoroughness, clarity, and force with which he marshalled data and argumentation on every element of the problem and on their interconnections. It is a book, in short, that should have reshaped permanently the perceptions of all serious analysts."
He straight out says, that reading a book transformed his thinking and that he believed that the book changed the aspirations and career choices of not just him, but many others of his generation. Now he can't claim that his book might not have had the very same effect of people who read it. And so, he is responsible for it. The book by Harrison Brown that Holdren praises so highly calls for the sterilization and birth control of the degenerate and feeble-minded.
" The feeble-minded, the morons, the dull and backward, and the lower-than-average persons in our society are out-breeding the superior ones at the present time. … Is there anything that can be done to prevent the long-range degeneration of human stock? Unfortunately, at the present time there is little, other than to prevent breeding in persons who present glaring deficiencies clearly dangerous to society and which are known to be of a hereditary nature. Thus we could sterilize or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. We could go further and systematically attempt to prune from society, by prohibiting them from breeding, persons suffering from serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness, blindness, or absence of limbs. … A broad eugenics program would have to be formulated which would aid in the establishment of policies that would encourage able and healthy persons to have several offspring and discourage the unfit from breeding at excessive rates."
His co-author Ehrlich said that people should read some of their other books if they wanted to know what they believe in. I guess he was right. This book sure seems to make it clear.
The most bizarre thing about this whole issue of eugenics and Obama care is that people always thinks that if they support the government it will never turn on them. The Emmanuels, Rahm and Ezekiel are Israeli born Jews. And I read somewhere, that they have a sister born with cerebral palsy. How does a Jew support eugenics? They think it will be the other guy that is sterilized, that's how. There were Jewish scientists that worked for the Nazis too.
As a society, we have to make some decisions. They have been claiming for 150 years that the world was on the brink of a disaster because of overpopulation, and that the more valuable elements of human society were going to be extinct because they were being out bred by those deemed degenerate. So far, we haven't had this predicted catastrophe. So the first decision we have to make is whether or not they are right that the world as a whole, really is overpopulated.
If, and that is a big if, you believe it is, then the next thing we have to decide is whether or not we want people in positions of power who believe that the only thing that can stop overpopulation is the use of totalitarian government force.
Or you can decide to go for social reform and education policies. These would be designed to get people to voluntarily comply with birth control measures. In 3rd world countries where population is said to be leveling off, it is believed that better standards of living and better education are responsible. But there is a hidden danger here; education and social reform have been the method consistently used to push the very same communist/socialist agenda that was implemented by force in China, the Soviet Union and other places. Just the very suggestion that social reform and education needs to be used, smacks of people saying, "get them to decide to do it for themselves, because it is easier than pointing a gun at them, for all concerned." It indicates that we are being brain washed to believe that overpopulation exists, when it really doesn't.
So is there any evidence that that is true? How about the fact that China, which was supposedly so severely overpopulated, now has another type of crisis on it's hands. They are expected to have as many as 24 million men than women between now and 2020. The Pulitzer Center reports that it will lead to a population of life-long bachelors the size of Texas by 2020. Again governments and scientist forgot to factor in the human element. Even though it is against the law for Chinese couples to do genetic testing to see if the child is male or female, it is still routinely done in rural clinics. Some rural villages are so disproportionately male that they are called "bachelor villages." This results in other social problems, like women being sold by their families in poor regions. Because women are scarce, they have become a commodity. It has been predicted that a marriage economy could develop due to the trend of families building up large savings in order to attract women to marry their sons. And lower class families could seek upper class husbands so they could raise the status of the family. And some people predict that sexually frustrated men in such large numbers could lead to social unrest.
If the ACLU feels, as I do that forced abortions and sterilization in a violation of constitutional rights, which are equivalent to human rights, in the US, then they are a violation in China. The system in China is so oppressive that one women takes her life every three seconds there.
Last month, May 16, 2012, CNS News reported a story about Chinese human rights activist, Chai Ling testified during a House Foreign Affairs Subcommitteeon Chen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese activist, who fled to the US Embassy iin Beijing. He was imprisoned by China because he was fighting for human rights for women.
Chai Ling told the story of a woman named Deng Lourong. She was the second of 3 girls. Her parents wanted a boy bad enough that they violated the one-child policy. Chinese officials tore down their home and took all their belongings.
The mother and father both fled, and left the three girls with their grandmother. The grandmother was subsequently imprisoned. The girls had no one to be their guardian, and Lourong was raped at the age of 12. Because this happened, her grandmother was released to take care of them but died soon afterward. The man who raped Deng Lourong one served five days for it.
Deng Lourong was sold as a child bride three years later, and her sisters were sold by traffickers and no one can find them. The man who Deng Lourong had to marry, prostitutes her out to bachelors, and as a result she is mentally ill. (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/human-rights-activist-woman-takes-her-life-every-three-seconds-china)
Even if you believe we are overpopulated, should we do things that result in even greater harm to mankind? I think not. The ends never justifies the means.
In 2009 Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the comment that, "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
That sounds rather elitist, but she then went on to say, "The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman." That sounds like she believes women should make the choice, but do the two comments taken together mean she thinks that poor women or whatever she was referring to as "populations we don't want goo many of" should be encouraged to make that choice?
At the time the interview was taken, Obama's pick for a new Justice was Sonia Sotomayor.
Her detractors have pointed out that she is a racist. While making a speech at a gathering of La Raza Law Journal, she said, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences … our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. … I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
You could interpret that to mean that since she is from a minority race and a woman, which is often another minority, that she would be doubly compassionate in her decisions, because she had been in their shoes. But you have to consider the circumstances the statement was made under. La Raza, means "The Race." If some white lawyers had a Law Journal and called it "The Race," it would be considered arrogant at best, and racist at worst. The point is, in our world and in our country, racism and reverse racism, happens in all walks of life, and everyone thinks they are justified in it, and that they will personally should never be the victim of it, and everyone else can fend for themselves.
On December 25, 2010, the NY Times reported that Obama's healthcare plan would pay doctors who encouraged or advised patients on options for end of life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life sustaining treatment. When this stuff came up before Republicans like Sarah Palin said that the government was going to use the healthcare bill to cut off care for the critically ill. Obama denied it saying that they weren't going "to cut off grandma's life support." But the final version of the bill that President Obama signed, has Medicare coverage of "voluntary advance care planning," to discuss end of life treatment, as part of the annual visit. Doctors can provide information to patients on how to prepare an advance healthcare directive. I really don't understand what's to cover. They have been making those little pamphlets that explain the whole procedure to people for years, and you can download and print one off the internet. Unless they mean they will cover the cost of printing those up, there's nothing to cover. So what it appears to really mean is that they will pay doctors and nurses for their time explaining and encouraging old people to get one set up. When someone feels bad and someone in a white coat comes at them with a bunch of pressure to make a decision, they could easily fall victim to what they perceive as a person of authority. Older persons can have trouble making decisions on a good day and sometimes need more time than a younger person to think over the pros and cons of something and work it out in their mind what they are going to do. But doctors could easily get them to agree to something like a DNR order right there on the spot, especially with a financial incentive. There is nothing in the bill that says doctors are not permitted to get an older person to make up their mind. One of the things doctors have to explain is that Medicare pays for hospice care. And basically, that is keeping a patient comfortable until they die, but no medical intervention. Who are the persons or organizations on the list of helpful resources that doctors are to tell their patients about? They might give you the address for the Hemlock Society or something.
As messed up as that seems, if you don't have something in writing, the doctors get to make the decisions rather than you and your family. I chose personally to get a Medical Power of Attorney. In my state that is the better way to go. But the states around me use the advance healthcare directives. When you go to the hospital for the slightest thing, they want to know if you have one, and they frown if you tell them you have a medical power of attorney. But that is a much better way of handling your wishes and it is what is required in my state anyway. I imagine that if you don't take care of things yourself, you could be encouraged to do all sorts of things by the doctors providing the information to you. With a Medical Power of Attorney, someone you trust is making decisions when you can't. You just do not want some doctor or doctors doing that for you, when a situation not described in an advance directive or living will comes up. When I had mine made up, no one was paid to influence me. I told my lawyer what I wanted and asked if that was legal, he said yes, and made up the paperwork which was signed and notarized.
Whether or not the end of life counseling will result in the government forcing death on people, there are other aspects of the bill that do. In July 2014, there will be an Independent Payment Advisory Board that decides how much Medicare gets reduced by if it goes over the limits of annual growth rate stipulated by the Obama administration. There is a set amount of money that can be spent for Medicare every year, and after that this board gets to decide who gets what.
I can't find the actual London Times story, but there are websites and blogs all over the internet, that say that in May 2009 they covered a story saying that , Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Ted Turner, David Rockefeller, Warren Buffet, George Soros, and Michael Bloomberg, met at the New York home of Sir Paul Nurse, a Nobel Prize winning biochemist and President of Rockefeller University.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss population reduction. A quote from Patricia Stonsifer, who formerly headed the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, said that these people would continue to meet over the next few months. They were supposed to be discussing population issues as a possible environmental, social and industrial threat. http://www.wnd.com/2009/05/99105/http://www.wnd.com/2009/05/99105/
I did manage to find an article on Market Watch at the Walls Street Journal on the meeting.http://articles.marketwatch.com/2009-09-29/commentary/30802021_1_global-warming-collapse-bomb
Let's address the opinions, policies and actions of some of these people. In a CNN interview March 5, 2010, Bill Gates said that child deaths and sicknesses are not the only benefits of vaccinations. And population control is another benefit of vaccinations.
The $800 million dollars that his and Melinda's foundation gives yearly for global health is almost as much as the UN WHO annual budget and is close to the amount that the US Agency for International Development spends to fight infectious disease. He pays 17% of the world budget for eradicating polio. In 2005 his foundation gave the Global Alliance for Vaccines and immunization $750 million dollars. He gave $27 million to the Children's Vaccine Program, which is run by the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health in2003. This was supposed to vaccinate against Japanese encephalitis. This vaccine reportedly causes sterility. They gave the University of Washington Department of Global Health, $30 million to found the department. They have given $287 million to HIV/AIDS research. They gave $280 million to Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation. In 2012 he pledged $10 billion to provide vaccinations to children world wide.
During a speech that he gave at the TED conference in Long Beach California in 2010 he said that vaccinations, healthcare, reproductive health systems, could lower the population caused use of Co2 by 15 percent. Reproductive health systems means abortions and birth control. He also recommended reporting every birth by cell phone. Vaccines will be the key. If you could register every birth on a cell phone—get fingerprints, get a location—then you could [set up] systems to make sure the immunizations happen.” He thinks that in rural areas of the world, cell phones would be instrumental in insuring that people get vaccinations and take their TB medicines. “Malaria and TB are going to be the first things where you say, ‘Wow, without this mobile application, all these people would have died."
I guess now we are going to have an app for that. He told the audience that there is "no such thing as a healthy high population growth country." "If you are healthy, you are low population growth." He has a weird idea that if parents have healthy children, then within five years, they will decide to have less children, and that is the basis for his push for vaccinations. OR so he says. He thinks that robots are the next big thing in healthcare. He suggested that C-sections are routine, so a robot could perform them. Having had a C-section, I cannot imagine how surreal it would be to be drugged up and have a robot cut into your body from your belly button to your pubic bone and extract the life that you have carried an nurtured for nine months. It makes my incision scar hurt to think about it. Let's change the subject.
The Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation (David Rockefeller) created GMO biotechnology, and are financing The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa(AGRA). Former UN chief, Kofi Annan heads it. It's board has people from both foundations on it.
The Rockefeller Brothers' Fund and George Soros sponsor the Center for American Progress, which cooperates with Common Purpose. As I pointed out earlier, the Rockefeller Foundation, as well as the Ford and New World Foundations fund the Hastings Center. I won't get into what all it does here but the Rockefeller's are tied to the Council on Foreign Relations.
The film maker Aaron Russo was friends with Nick Rockefeller and told Alex Jones that he said the Rockefeller's bankrolled women's liberation because half of the population wasn't being taxed and if they entered the work force they would be. And their children would have to enter the public school system earlier, which would make it easier to indoctrinate them to accept the state as their primary family. Their aim was to break up the traditional family model. He also said that Rockefeller talked about the need for people to be ruled or controlled by the elite, and one of the ways of doing this was through population control. Population needed to be reduced by half. He also said that Rockefeller wanted people implanted with a chip to control their brain. This idea comes from trans humanism and post humanism. They think technologies could be used to create simultaneously better humans and more easily controlled humans.
This video will give you a little more visual understanding of what I am trying to get across. I found it after I finished writing this. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2615496775977574586http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2615496775977574586