One World Government – Obama’s Career Path [Reader Post]

In 1977, John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, co-authored the 1,000 page book “Ecoscience” with Paul and Anne Ehrlich. One section, titled “Population Law,” cited the radical group Zero Population Growth and said “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.”

I ask, who’s Constitution are you reading Dr Holdren? The idea that there could be a time when such measures could ever be considered is in my mind appalling. And this man has the President’s ear.

Rick Weiss, the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s Director of Strategic Communications, said the material at issue was from “a three-decade-old, three-author textbook used in colleges to teach energy policy.”

He could “easily dismiss” fears that Dr. Holdren favors government control over population growth. “He made that quite clear in his confirmation hearing,” Weiss said.
He then quoted a section of the confirmation transcript in which Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) asked Holdren whether he thinks “determining optimal population is a proper role of government.”

“No, Senator, I do not,” was Holdren’s reply, according to Weiss and a transcript of the proceedings.

In other remarks at the confirmation hearing, not cited by Weiss, Holdren told Sen. Vitter he no longer thinks it is “productive” to focus on the “optimum population” for the United States. “I don’t think any of us know what the right answer is.” However, not knowing the “optiomal population” does not dismiss the idea that Dr. Holdren does not believe that there is a need to control populations through government mandate.

The three authors summarize their guiding principle in a single sentence: “To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people.” Fewer people, is fewer people regardless of whether it is a predetermined “optimal” number. This reminds me of the kind of parsing exemplified by “depends on what the definition of is is.”

Politically expedient flip flopping on previously published views is not uncommon in todays world of politics. One has to now look to current administration policies to determine whether Dr Holdren was telling the truth about his “change of heart”. Actions always speak louder than words.

One of Obama’s first acts as President was to restore $50 million dollars to the UNFPA. “I look forward to working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund,” Obama said in his executive order message in January

According to Weiss, Holdren “made clear that he did not believe in coercive means of population control” and is not an advocate for measures expressed in the book “and they are certainly not endorsed by this administration in any way.”

President Obama ignored the connection between the UNFPA and the Chinese forced-abortion program. A State Department investigation came after a ground breaking probe led by the Population Research Institute. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said he had no doubt that the UNFPA was complicit in the population control program. “I determined that UNFPA’s support of, and involvement in, China’s population-planning activities allowed the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion,”

“Our investigation remains valid,” Colin Mason, PRI’s Media Director said. “We put boots on the ground, and made the results available to anyone who wanted them. Those who would disregard our findings show an appalling lack of respect for human rights.

President Obama is no respecter of human rights as evidenced by his no vote on an Illinois bill that would require medical treatment for viable babies that are born during botched abortions.

Vitter asked Holdren to revisit his past statements about environmental catastrophes that have never come to pass and to clear up his 1986 prediction that global warming was going to kill about 1 billion people by 2020.

“You would still say,” Vitter asked, “that 1 billion people lost by 2020 is still a possibility?”

“It is a possibility, and one we should work energetically to avoid,” Holdren replied.

Okay, now I’m confused! If there is a desire “To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people.”, as Dr Holdren and his co-authors have previously stated, then why worry about a billion fewer people due to “global warming”, which we now know to be a hoax.

There seems to be a contradiction here, or is there? If the ultimate goal is really about creating a world government, the pieces begin to fit. The current crop of “liberal progressives” seek control, not just at the national level but at the global level and it seems that they will use any means possible to reinforce the idea that some single world governing body is necessary to address whatever perceived ill is being sold. If you can’t convince people to relinquish sovereignty with the threat of overpopulation, try to sell them through the “sky is falling” global warming scam.

Always with the end justifies the means goal of a single governing body with progressive elitists in charge.

In Dr. Holdren’s book one section is devoted to the idea of a “planetary regime” that 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.” When I see the words “planetary regime” I can only come to one conclusion. A world government.

Now let’s fast forward from a textbook written 30 years ago to the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held Dec 7-18 in Copenhagen.

Former Thatcher advisor Lord Monckton stated, “I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word ‘government’ actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.

“The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, ‘climate debt’ – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.”

It all fits. One world government with progressive elitists in control redistributing wealth on a global basis. Obama has stated that he considers himself a “citizen of the world” and he’s also said that you can know him by the people with whom he associates. Could this be the end game? Is this one world government part of Obama’s career path?

Wake up America… these are dangerous people. Very, very dangerous.