Sunday, April 23, 2017

BAY OF PRIGS
BLOG TALK RADIO SHOW

 

 LIBERTY’S THUNDER: irreverent, relevant and radioactive American Nationalism with a bite Sunday, April 23, 2017 A.D. 8:00 PM ET

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/libertysthunder/2017/04/24/bay-of-prigs

Call in number (646) 649-1013

Despite a rigged system, Trump was elected to dismantle the Deep State. Yet, whenever his rhetoric or his actions appear to be out of sync with the ideology of his supporters, they become prigs erupting in paroxysms of paranoia. Perturbed by perceived betrayal they bray in a banal salvo of bromides against their own bifurcated perceptions under the pretense of perplexity, which appears to be little more than a pretext for angst breathlessly waiting to be unleashed at the President for his much-anticipated equivocation.

Bannon warned, “If you think they’re going to give you your country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken…every day, it is going to be a fight.” Our war against the Deep State was never going to be easy, it wasn’t going to be a clean break with globalism. Defeating the New World Order is complicated business and nothing is as it appears to be. Either we leverage the election of Donald Trump or we succumb to invisible tyranny. If we give in to fabricated strategies of tension, we will capitulate to capturing ourselves in our own private gulag, one in which the doors are unlocked, the chains unclasped and the inmates feign to desire escape but only muster enough human will to complain about the entertainment.

A global corporatist empire demands a global currency and military hegemony while appearing to be democratic, liberal and market-oriented. Shadow Government operatives ‘leak’ gossip to the Deep State Media on the Left and the Right in order to move public opinion against our own interests. Within this false dialectic there is no escape. The only question is: can the New World Order matrix be used against the Deep State? This is war. The era of empty talk is over; now is the hour of action!

President Trump declares, “there is no global anthem, no global currency, no certificate of global citizenship” and the Deep State trembles. The power is not in the courts, it is not in Congress and it certainly isn’t in an eighteenth-century parchment; the real power is in the stealthily stratified permanent administrative state and the billionaire globalists who fund and guide it. The idiots that killed the Republic and brought us into Empire NEVER expected Trump....he is the Emperor they never wanted. SMASH!

Americans finally have a champion to lead the America First movement and dismantle the fake stream news, the Marxists in both the Democrat and Republican Parties and the military-industrial-intelligence complex-the real enemy-the Shadow Government embedded in the Deep State and the entire hidden apparatus of the nearly defunct New World Order globalists. The stage is set for regime change right here at home simultaneously yielding financial collapse and genocide across the globe to end America First and nascent nationalist movements resulting in the restoration of the New World Order.

The lines have been drawn.

The gauntlet is thrown.

The Lion has roared....

...this is war...

...Release the Kraken....SMASH!!!!

Politics is about power; Trump has the power. Will he hold it and use it to restore America, or will you allow it to be taken back by the globalist oligarchs?

The globalist establishment’s lawless hordes of Cultural Marxists, oligarchs, kleptocrats, technocrats, propagandists, useful idiots and their fellow travelers on both the left and the right hide in the shadows of the Deep State apparatus embedded inside what appears to be the Federal Government, free press and independent think tanks; they will continue to undermine, thwart and attempt to defeat Trump and the America First movement. Victory is ours, but only if we never let up. Ladies and gentlemen, we are at WAR.

Join Rex & Trog on Liberty’s Thunder for irreverent, relevant and radioactive American Nationalism with a bite Sunday nights at 8:00pm ET http://www.blogtalkradio.com/libertysthunder/2017/04/24/bay-of-prigs

Please LIKE and SHARE us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertysThunder

and Twitter: https://twitter.com/LibertysThunder



And consider joining our Liberty Militia where we post links to videos & articles from the show: https://www.facebook.com/groups/TexandRexLibertyMilitia/



The pre-Trump, "Obama-Bush-Clinton-Bush" Chaos continues. The question is how much of the mechanism designed to create the chaos has Trump already destroyed? Frankly, with the Trump White House's terse public statements, always stating things with a big broad brush that in some cases are nearly meaningless, and the CIAmerican Fake Stream Media's CONSTANT lies, we really do not know. Rex Christi of Liberty's Thunder Radio show opined two weeks ago, "How do you comment, how do you analyze when you have no data? We have no data?" He was talking about Trump's moves in Syria, which are much more clear two weeks later. But so much is not clear.

So let us remind ourselves what has to be dismantled.



Doug Hagmann wrote on April 23, 2012:"Riots, property destruction, chaos, and death seen in Athens and other European cities shown on the television news is coming to America very soon

"America and the world today is in chaos. Wars, rumors of wars, high gasoline prices, increasing food prices, growing divisions among races and between classes, current and impending financial collapses dominate the headlines. Critics and detractors of Barack Hussein Obama claim that it is a result of his failed policies that our house and much of the world is in such disarray. Investigation into the man known as Barack Hussein Obama II and the people behind him suggests otherwise.

"The chaos that presently exists domestically and across the globe is destined to get worse, but it’s not due to Obama’s inexperience or failed policies. Rather, it is the direct result of the implementation of his successful policies. The chaos in which we find ourselves is exactly what has been planned for decades. Chaos is the tactic, the means to an end, and not the result of failure of policy by the man known as Barack Hussein Obama II.

"We have seen only the tip of the full frontal assault of the chaos planned for this country. Actually, we haven’t seen anything yet.
"Connect the dots

"Investigative findings suggest that our present state of disorder was crafted long ago, compliments of a shadowy cabal of government leaders and their often unwitting lackeys, complicit media moguls and their eye-candy mouthpieces, and ideologues intent on changing the United States and thus the world. While this might sound like a bad fictional plot from the film noir genre, a good bit of investigation indicates otherwise."

After laying out the boiler plate reality of who Obama really is and what the goal really was, he listed a series of "dots" to connect, and were we to add to this list everything since April of 2012, the list of dots would indeed be long.



"Consider recent executive orders and other executive actions as “big dots” in our dot connecting exercise. The importance or relevance of these executive orders in our normal existence have either been downplayed or ignored by the media, and are subject to ridicule when brought up in political discussions. After all, they’ve been standard procedure since 1789.

DOT: On Friday, April 13, 2012, Obama signed an executive order titled ” Supporting Safe and Responsible Development of Unconventional Domestic Natural Gas Resources.” This order is a stepping stone for the takeover of the natural gas (and related) industry. Moreover, it creates an oversight group headed by Ceclia Munoz, chairman of the White House Domestic Policy Council who connected to globalist George Soros and a number of other socialist groups antagonistic to private U.S. energy production.

DOT: On Friday, March 16, 2012, Obama signed the order on National Defense Resources Preparedness, which dramatically expanded the Defense Production Act of 1950, and essentially gives Obama the power to take over our national resources and infrastructure for reasons that are no longer limited to times of war or declared states of national emergency.

DOT: On February 9, 2012, Obama signed Executive Order 13600, “Establishing the President’s Global Development Council,” which is an enhancement of the 2010 National Security Strategy and the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development. In short, it is internal subjugation to a global agenda, or global governance.

DOT: Consider that the Department of Homeland Security recently acquisitioned 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition (an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity, one year contract with 4 option years). Hollow points, as well, which are not used for target practice. Also consider that the Department of agriculture has ordered 326,000 rounds of mixed caliber ammunition this month as well.

DOT: Consider that the executive branch has the unfettered authority to execute American Citizens deemed “a threat.”

DOT: Several unconfirmed reports indicate that the Department of Homeland Security have ordered Mine Resistant Anti-personnel Carriers (MRAPs) for deployment in the United States.

DOT: During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in March, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey openly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but they take their orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.

DOT: Consider other reports of FEMA quarters being readied here in the U.S., ostensibly for disaster relief and protection of its citizens. In consideration of everything else taking place, can we afford to take their word for this “preparation?”

Readers can fill in numerous other “dots” unaddressed here. The point is that it would appear that final preparations are being made not necessarily for the protection of our citizens, but against them. By a man in the Oval Office whose legal name we do not know, and whose allegiance is suspect at best."
(Hagmann Article Link - http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/46200 

 +++
 We cannot write in terms of "recovering" because that would be more than deceptive since we are AT WAR, and in the FOG of WAR we really have no or better stated, "little data."  Some of that little data is HUGE, like blowing up the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement,[LINK] but we still have not exited the Paris Climate Change Agreement, the second of the two most enslaving Globalist Agreements.  Some think we will remain a member like a virus in a cell to blow it up, since giving up the American Voice in it, would not kill it. They may be right. Yet, the mechanism of control represented by that agreement is indeed DANGEROUS.  (Insight on the state of Climate Change negotiations under Trump [LINK])
The announcement has been made, notice given to Canada and Mexico of our intention to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. Again, the presence of this Globalist mechanism of control represents a danger we do not need.

Have any of Obama's draconian anti-Liberty police state executive orders been rescinded?  In the Fog of War, we do not know.  I read at least one-hundred articles or more from the FAKE STREAM Media and other sources from all around the world everyday, and listen to every pronouncement from the White House, and in that FOG of verbiage, truthfully, there is very little information, little hard data. 

I understand Trump's need to "cloak" since this is WAR, and you cannot broadcast your every next move to your friends without informing your enemies. I get it.  The only answer is to stay alert, examine the slivers of broken data, try to paste together the puzzle pieces, and to give Trump fair warning, that this needed lack of openness, must not, cannot, will not be accepted as a permanent reality of the NEW AMERICA.  We are at WAR, and no war can succeed without giving proper direction to the foot soldiers who ARE YOUR Power, Mr. President.

Saturday, April 22, 2017




Did Extortion 17 cover-up sink Rep. Chaffetz?
Exclusive: Larry Klayman tells of inadequate committee hearing on fateful U.S. mission Published: 15 hours ago
http://circa.com/politics/retired-air-force-captain-says-attack-on-extortion-17-could-have-been-prevented

I told you that I would not drop this story until the truth was public. A big chunk of the truth came out this week.


Yes, like I claimed at the time, Obama's Defense Department LIED to the parents and spouses of the victims of Extortion 17. They claimed there was no "eye in the sky" over the operation, which was radical enough. Turns out there was an "eye in the sky" Airforce Captain, Joni Marquez, and she is now talking. This is knowledge Jason Chaffetz of Utah, had, ignored and covered up.


SHE and her team saw the ambush coming, REPEATEDLY asked Centcom's permission to take out the Taliban fighters, or to turn back "Extortion 17" THEY WERE IGNORED. It was a setup, like I said at the time, it was a purposeful mass assassination of Seal Team Six and others, who KNEW the Osama Bin Laden assassination was a HOAX.  - Archpriest Symeon Elias

(This is a mirror from "Freedom Watch - You may read the original article here
http://www.wnd.com/2017/04/did-extortion-17-cover-up-sink-rep-chaffetz/


Larry Klayman 


Larry Klayman is a former Justice Department prosecutor and the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch. His latest book is "Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment."


This week we learned that the ever “media friendly” smiling publicity hound of the House of Representatives, Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, would not run again for his seat next year. Ironically, as Chaffetz announced that he would step down from his seemingly powerful role as chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee – a body that is the investigative “scandal arm” of the House – it was revealed by Circa News that an investigation he had conducted over the tragic shoot down of Extortion 17 was part of an elaborate government cover-up, itself criminal in nature. Had Chaffetz remained as chairman, ironically, his own committee would have had to investigate and likely take action against him. Let me explain.

Extortion 17 was a hastily arranged mission in Afghanistan in 2011 whereby 30 American servicemen, 22 of them special ops, were sent into battle allegedly to kill terrorists and then shot down by the Taliban, with the financial and other assistance of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the complicity of then Afghan President Hamid Karzai, one of the most corrupt politicians in world history. Here is the video of a presser we held on May 9, 2013 explaining this tragedy.

 


This occurred just three months after Osama bin Laden was allegedly killed. (A picture of bin Laden’s body has never been disclosed publicly. Some have speculated that he died before of natural causes and that President Obama claimed credit to further his 2012 election effort.) Several brave heroes died tragically on that fateful day, Aug. 6, 2011.


The shoot down of the Extortion 17 mission was payback for America’s having “killed” bin Laden. Karzai’s involvement – whereby it is believed he disclosed the coordinates of this secret mission, allowing the Taliban to shoot down the Chinook helicopter that was carrying our servicemen – was undoubtedly intended to offer up the dead bodies of our heroes in exchange for cash and an agreement by the Taliban not to bring down his corrupt Afghan administration and/or assassinate him.

There remained many mysteries about the Extortion 17 shoot down. First, the Obama administration’s Defense Department’s crash report stated that there were no eyes in the sky over the Chinook helicopter, which generally are intended as a safety measure to warn mission commanders and their troops of danger from the air and on the ground. Next, the crash report stated that a black box that would have revealed the cause or causes of the crash was never found, and instead it washed away in a flood. (I have quipped sarcastically that there has not been a flood in this part of the Middle East since Noah’s Ark.) To add even more suspicion, the Obama Defense Department revealed that seven Afghan commandos – who were to go on that tragic mission – were substituted out for seven unknown other Afghan commandos at the last minute before taking off. The manifest of the flight, which must be kept under our military’s protocols, never listed who these new commandos were. Last, but hardly least in the anomalies of the crash report, the old and slow Chinook helicopter, of 1960s vintage hovered over the crash site for about 13 minutes, sitting there like a “dead duck” before being shot down by an “RPG” or “MANPADS.”

As a final insult, the bodies of some our heroes were cremated, without the permission or informed consent of their parents, by the Obama Defense Department to cover up the evidence of the causes of their death.

The secretary of defense at the time was one Leon Panetta, a soft-spoken and seemingly likeable man who in reality is a corrupt political hack. I had obtained and uncovered in court during the 1990s, when Panetta was President Clinton’s White House chief of staff, that he had effectively obstructed justice in the Chinagate scandal when he instructed staff to “slow roll” production of incriminating documents to Judicial Watch in my successful case against the Commerce Department over the illegal sale of seats on trade missions in exchange for political contributions.

How can one explain that 30 servicemen, including members of SEAL Team VI, were sent into battle on an old, out-of-date and hellishly slow helicopter and allowed to so easily die at the hands of the Taliban? And, how can it be explained that when many of the victims’ families asked Chairman Chaffetz to conduct a real investigation concerning the causes of the tragedy and who is responsible for it, that the hearing he and his congressional minions eventually held offered no new information. Instead, they refused to allow our clients, Charles Strange, the father of dead NSA cryptologist and support personnel for SEAL Team VI Michael Strange, to testify, as well as prevented the father of National Guardsman Patrick Hamburger, Doug Hamburger, to say his piece.

This week, insight into this cover-up was disclosed by Circa News in an interview with a highly decorated Air Force pilot/targeter, Joni Marquez, who indeed, along with her co-pilot, was flying above the Chinook, as an eye in the sky, that fateful night. Embedded below is that interview of this brave whistleblower who, after years of emotional distress, is risking her career to come forward to tell the truth about the cover-up.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/04/did-extortion-17-cover-up-sink-rep-chaffetz/#z0UGwHp5uh4Zl1zb.99

Is Trump a backer or a dupe?

Trump's friends and business partners in Indonesia are backing a coup against the democratically elected government there.  Actually backing the general who was directly responsible for the slaughter of 400,000 Christians in East Timor, under the old CIA-backed regime. The face of this revolutionary move is, believe it or not, ISIS, that is Islamists/Jihadis allied with and philosophically aligned with ISIS. (i.e., a CIA backed insurrection)

It is a real question whether this is a

sad coincidence, but one beneficiary of the coup, if successful, or even if simple chaos is created in the country, is Carl Icahn, one of Donald Trump's heroes, friend, and top backer. Carl owns the mining company, Freeport-McMoRan, that is being challenged by the present government, to renegotiate their contract with the Indonesian Government.
 

This post, nor the videos are a right or wrong judgment of Trump's involvement, rather this is an informational lesson, so that events in the future will tell us who Trump ultimately is by showing us whether he stands with Truth, and the protection of the Christian minority, or for the benefit of his close friend, creates the next round of Christian genocide in Indonesia. This is an acid test and sounds all too familiar. Another CIA-backed coup, using ISIS/Jihadi/Radical Islam, but with the twist of Trump's friends and business associates being on the side of the Jihadis.

I KNOW the videos are "Democracy Now" but as I have demonstrated in the past, sometimes they get it right.  This is a level handed report, giving the facts of the situation with only one lie, that I discern, and that is Journalist Allan Nairn's description of the first iteration of Trump's so-called "Muslim Ban".  Aside from that it is rather non-political.
 




journalist Allan Nairn

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

My beloved and sincere Roman Catholic Friends.

Nothing creates in me more sadness and frankly, frustration, than witnessing my Roman Catholic Friends reach for THE FAITH once and for all delivered unto the saints, (Jude 1:1-4) uncontaminated by Cultural Marxism, and finding only the "Latin Mass" an innovation, upon innovations.  Listen closely to this Roman Catholic author explain Tradition as "what has previously happened, never to be forgotten." Sorry, that is "custom" not "Tradition" and it was your own "Traditionalist Cardinal" Fulton Sheen, in HIS OWN VOICE, who suggested it.  REALLY, was he CLUELESS of the meaning of Tradition? Sadly, YES HE WAS. 

THINK PEOPLE, we are humans, created by God, given natural instruments of worship - the Human Body and the Human Voice.  Do we need a pipe organ? Violins?

Do we need a "holy language?"  Latin? Church Slavonic?

Isn't our own vulgar tongue enough? 

Did "I AM" show up on the mountain, speaking some original HOLY LANGUAGE?  Or did the Eternal ALL, speak to Moses in HIS OWN TONGUE?

Cardinal Fulton Sheen was a sincere soul, (I love him) but he represented the last chance for Roman Catholicism, and even what he taught was rank with innovations upon the TRUTH, upon the HOLY and NON-man-made, Tradition.

I would hate to be a Roman Catholic and dependent upon the 1940s version of INNOVATION, for SANITY (i.e. Salvation).  Yet, the 1940s version is LIGHT YEARS closer to the TRUTH (Jesus Christ) than is the 2017 version of Roman Catholicism.

Innovations:  I had a conversation with one of my favorite Roman Catholics this week, about the date of Easter.  He, of course, shamed the Orthodox Tradition for not following the Innovative, Naturalist, Modernist Roman Tradition, so we could, every year, celebrate Easter in "unity."  He is an observant fellow, yet he has not observed that in the "liturgical Church" every church that has bowed to the New Calendar (Innovation) has also bowed to Cultural Marxism.  REX, once you bow to "rational" innovations, you give to "science" the power of TRUTH?  You said to me something about the Orthodox Catholic Church needing the "regularize" to the cycles of the moon. Really?  Should we also "regularize" to the "science of Global Warming" of "Gender Identity?" Regularize to the ordination of women, and dike bishops?

Every New Calendar Jurisdiction is BOUND by one or more of the innovations I just mentioned or struggling to reach it.

Tell me, what difference does it make that the Church calendar will eventually place Christmas in the Spring?  Serious Question Rex? What difference will it make?





Donald Trump frightened the holy crap out of the N. Korean midget boy, causing him to NOT complete a planned Nuclear detonation, and NOT to try to test fire an intercontinental missile, instead he tried to test a medium-range missile and the U.S. destroyed it on the launch pad with a directed particle beam weapon, like we saw demonstrated in Texas at that fertilizer plant a few years back.

Trump COWED the Korean Midget by making him think there was a U.S. Navy armada just off his coast. That was humiliating for him on the most important day in N. Korea's mythology. Now he is being humiliated again, as the news was discovered that the "armada" which IS on the way to Korea, is 3500 miles away. The Deep State Fake News is calling this masterful geopolitical maneuvering by Donald Trump, "a mistake" and "confusion on the part of the administration."


Trump COWED the Korean Midget and it did not cost the U.S. one red cent. Previous administrations from Carter forward, INCLUDING REAGAN, have paid this nasty little country BILLIONS in extortion money, trying to bribe it to a peaceful trajectory. Trump was able to accomplish more with one hazy statement than all those billions accomplished.

Did Trump say the Armada was off Kim's coast? No he did not, in masterful Trump Speak, he said, “We are sending an armada, very powerful. We have submarines, very powerful, far more powerful than the aircraft carrier,” Trump told the FOX Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo. “We have the best military people on Earth. And I will say this: he is doing the wrong thing.”

Then they put out the fake information that the Carrier Group was in the Sea of Japan. This is the Art of the Deal, Trump stopped a Nuclear Test, and the test of an Intercontinental Missile, and caused Kim Jong-un to spend millions, and cost the N. Korean economy millions more, by Kim ordering the evacuation of 600 Thousand of the ruling elite from the capital. His little grand parade on his "special day" was absent a CROWD, who were all evacuated in hiding. Next, U.S. intelligence was able to observe the Koreans "emergency evacuation tactics," so that now they know where all the "shelters" are.

Does any of this sound like "confusion"? or losing? or incompetence?



Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Bible Thumping Ignorance, Lord Have Mercy. Hank Hanegraaff "the Bible Answer Guy" has his work cut out for him.


<Smile> Look what happens when a very famous Fundamentalist, Sola-Scriptura (Bible Scholar and Expert) actually begins to understand what the scriptures are teaching and finds the Church those scriptures were written by, and written for. His friends show up to correct him, they see the scriptures used IN CONTEXT for the first time in their lives and this is the result.

I've never read a more ignorant and unknowing commentary on Ancient and Orthodox Christianity. These people are CLUELESS what the text in Act 13:1-3 means:

"13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
Act 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Act 13:3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away."

That word "ministered" unto the Lord, is "leitourgeō" which means, LITERALLY, Liturgized unto the Lord or in this text "as they were Liturgizing unto the Lord."

These people this "christian fellow" describes with such hubris and self-righteous superiority, were worshipping closer to the worship offered by Saint Paul, Saint Barnabas, and the others, than anything he, himself, had ever witnessed or experienced or understood; it was literally Ancient Christian worship he witnessed and he was CLUELESS and called not just the people present at that service, PAGAN, Occultists, and spiritually dead, but by implication Saint Paul and the other Apostles as well.

Most of the people present for that service has spent weeks fasting and praying, and what he witnessed was the "preparation for the resurrection celebration" had he had the patience to hang around long enough (another few hours.) He would have heard the hymn, "Christ is Risen from the Dead, Trampling down Death by Death, and upon those in the tomb, bestowing LIFE." He would have witnessed the mighty exclamation, "Christ is Risen!" and the Response, "He is Risen INDEED." And chances are he may have heard it repeated in many languages. He would have observed the solemnity, and those "dead faces" downcast as they contemplated Jesus' TRUE and REAL Sacrifice, HIS humiliation and death, allowing the preciousness of that gift weigh on them, turned into joyous celebration, that would have lasted well past the "service" i.e., Liturgy into the Break-Fast meal greeting the Dawn of the FIRST DAY of the NEW CREATION. But of course he had to get home and get some sleep, so he could attend some "real worship." This article is not just SAD, it is comical in its abysmal ignorance.

So the Scripture Answer guy, so famous on the WEB, discovered the meaning and context of the Scriptures he had studied so long. To his arrogant fundamentalist critics, I say, You remind me of the arrogant Pharisees, to whom Jesus said, "You study the scriptures because in them you THINK you have eternal life." The irony of that statement, from the mouth of he who IS the TRUTH, the LIFE, and the WAY, should not be lost on you. Nor should the words, "the letter kills, but the spirit gives LIFE." +++

Visiting Hank Hanegraaff’s New Greek Orthodox Church


One of the biggest complaints against Pulpit & Pen we get consistently is that we somehow don’t “have all our facts,” or are “misrepresenting” someone or something. I received countless emails claiming that I “misrepresented” Greek Orthodoxy in my recent posts regarding Hank Hanegraaff and that I should do more research. Well, what better way to research than to go straight to the source in person? Saturday, April 15, known as Holy Saturday in the Orthodox tradition, I along with a couple of friends went to visit St. Nektarios Greek Orthodox Church in Charlotte, NC–the church that Hanegraaff was recently chrismated in. The service began at 11:30 pm, and was still going strong showing no signs of slowing down when we decided to leave at around 2:00 am. While we hoped to have the opportunity to confront Hanegraaff in person, being that we all had to get up early the next morning to worship the living God on Easter morning, we decided to call it a night early. However, there are quite a few things that we can take away from this experience in this church.
1.) I have sat through many Catholic masses. I was married in a Catholic church, and I can definitely say I’ve “been there done that.” But I’ve never sat through anything so long and tedious as the Greek Orthodox mass. Perhaps being a special Saturday night “resurrection service,” this wasn’t the norm, but it was excruciatingly long. 2 1/2 hours in and no sign of slowing down.
2.) The cliche, “bells and smells” is actually a true reality. The burning of incense and ringing of bells was a noxious combination. It reminded me of being in a college dorm smoking weed and blowing the smoke through toilet paper rolls stuffed with dryer sheets.
3.) The liturgy was vain and repetitious. Literally, the same ritualistic prayers and chanting were sung over and over. Every prayer included an invocation of Mary and the Saints.
4.) While there was actually quite a bit of Scripture reading, there was absolutely no teaching. In fact, the vast majority of Scripture reading was sung in the eerie Byzantine chant. You’d really have to pay attention and try to listen really hard to even understand what they were reading or reciting.
5.) The facility was adorned, literally, wall to wall, floor to ceiling in graven images of the saints. The images were painted in such a way that the expressions on their faces were devoid of any emotion. They looked like lifeless figures just floating around in space.
6.) The enthusiasm of the clergy and participants in the service was extremely low. Those participating in the rituals walked around with lifeless expressions on their faces. The entire ritual was empty and dead.
7.) There is obviously little to no pursuit of holiness in this church. Several times during the service, the ushers and deacons could be seen stepping out to take smoke breaks. Many of the women and even some of the younger girls were dressed less than modestly.
8.) Repeatedly, the chanting and liturgy included a summons to God to perform certain acts. It was clear that they believe that God works through and is dependent upon these rituals to activate the work of the Holy Spirit.
9.) The Greek and Eastern Orthodox church is clearly a lifeless church. There was absolutely no gospel in this service. A lost person could not walk into this church and walk out a changed man. It was literally a Pagan practice. Like a seance. Pure witchcraft was going on in this place. In this religion, salvation doesn’t come through Christ’s imputed righteousness and substitutionary atonement on the cross, it comes through these dead rituals that they believe ontologically changes them into divine beings. It was truly one of the most wicked experiences I’ve ever seen.
This is what Hank Hanegraaff has apostatized to. He knows the Bible, he has taught it his entire life. He now rejects it. The bible clearly teaches against the wickedness and error found within the manmade traditions and doctrines of demons in the Orthodox church. It would have been easy for one to let their guard down and become entranced by the production. While in the West it is likely less common for practitioners of the religion to take it that seriously, it’s easy to see how those who do take it seriously could achieve an altered state of mind which would in effect by a spiritual experience for those truly seeking it. After my experience at this church, not only do I fully stand by what I have written, but it is even more clear now that this religion is not of God and should be avoided.
[Contributed by Jeff Maples]

+++
BTW, the first time I visited an Orthodox Church, I was in College and 14 years of age. It was part of my "comparative religion" requirement. I watched an old woman talk to the priest in quiet almost whispers, but with such intensity and tears. When she finished talking he spoke with her for a moment equally as quietly (as this happened a deacon or reader and choir were chanting) then he covered her with his Chasuble, as she bowed her head, and placed his "blessing cross" on top of her head, and quietly prayed. I thought that is the most comforting sight I have ever seen. When the woman stood and turn, her face glowed as she wiped tears. I knew I had not read it wrongly. The Liturgy was all foreign to me, and in Arabic, confusing even, but I thought, "were I to suddenly travel through time and see New Testament Christians celebrating the "Thanksgiving" would I recognize it? If they were to come to my church, with the one hundred and twenty member choir, small orchestra, the Hammond B5 organ and blaring Leslie Speakers, all coordinated to soulful rhythms, would THEY recognize it as Christian and not mistake it for a pagan circus? It is not just a matter of culture, you know. I was raised in the Church of Corinth, with all the wonderful and horrible things that imply. The peace I experienced in that liturgy, that did not need "electricity" or "microphones" or instruments, except the human voice, the "respect" shown the presence of God in that place, left a permanent memory, and my "experience" and thus my opinion was so very different than Jeff Maples'. - Archpriest Symeon Elias

Lest we forget, this is America's Second Civil War and it is REAL:

I am posting this excellent article (mirror) from Zombietime dot com, as a reminder to all of us, as we observe Donald Trump's successes and failures, the realtiy of what we dodged in the NAZI Genocidal Agenda of the New World Order Psychopaths.  Those who do not dig deeply do not realize there has been a real change, or maybe there hasn't and the War Still Rages just the same.


Guess what?  Whether nor not Donald Trump is real or false, the war still rages, between LIFE and Death, all thing LIFE Engendering vs all things Death Engendering.



Lord Jesus Christ, do not allow us to get COMFORTABLE.

Butch Robinson

January 28, 2012 at 12:19pm ·


This nation is most certainly uncomfortable and unhappy. It is a birthing process, and we are shortly to be reborn a nation newly dedicated to the God Given rights of LIFE, LIBERTY and the Pursuit of Happiness, or we are going to be reborn a Marxist/Muslim Sharia compliant non-state, merely a cog in the wheel of the international government. It is time NOW. Today, We have to choose.
 
"The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." ~ M. Scott Peck
+++

Butch Robinson January 28, 2016:
Trump's election has not changed the basic equation of this Civil War, it has merely taken a new battlefield, with the Mainstream Media being exposed as the Globalist/Psyops mechanism it is and the Marxist putting their dogs in the streets, as the Psyops media hypes them, making it appear that the world is coming to an end because there is a man in the White House now they cannot control. It is the same method they use to hype America tiny Muslim population to make you think there are muslims everywhere, and hype the tiny gay population to make you think that half the country at least is gay. These two populations together would not reflect in REALITY 3 percent of the American population. They are FRINGE, and that is what you are seeing demonstrated in the streets, radical Marxist FRINGE. THEY are no more representative of America than the American Communist Party of the 1930, and their boss Joseph Stalin. Today the boss is George Soros, instead of “governing a state” he “OWNS” an empire, that until Trump was sworn in included the power of the CIA.  - +++


Butch Robinson April 18, 2017:
As we have seen following the inauguration Donald Trump and his administration has managed to take power over only over PART, of the SHALLOW STATE, which includes a goodly part of Military Command. The DEEP STATE remains in the control of the Globalists and they are battling Trump with every weapon they have. Since DEATH is their “Lingua franca” and they are not afraid to speak it, Trump has to be as ruthless. Chills, excitement, fear, and confusion reigned in the Globalist Death Cult and their Fake Stream Media, when Trump lobbed a few dozen missiles at an air strip in Syria, just wait until he takes out a few of them.





John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet


Book he authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population



Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology -- informally known as the United States' Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things.

Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no exaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and this report contains the proof. Below you will find photographs, scans, and transcriptions of pages in the book Ecoscience, co-authored in 1977 by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. The scans and photos are provided to supply conclusive evidence that the words attributed to Holdren are unaltered and accurately transcribed.

[UPDATE: Make sure to read the new statements issued by the White House and by John Holdren's office in response to the controversy raised by this essay -- you can see them below following the Ecoscience excerpts, or you can jump directly to the statements by clicking here.]

This report was originally inspired by this article in FrontPage magazine, which covers some of the same information given here. But that article, although it contained many shocking quotes from John Holdren, failed to make much of an impact on public opinion. Why not? Because, as I discovered when discussing the article with various friends, there was no proof that the quotes were accurate -- so most folks (even those opposed to Obama's policies) doubted their veracity, because the statements seemed too inflammatory to be true. In the modern era, it seems, journalists have lost all credibility, and so are presumed to be lying or exaggerating unless solid evidence is offered to back up the claims. Well, this report contains that evidence.

Of course, Holdren wrote these things in the framework of a book he co-authored about what he imagined at the time (late 1970s) was an apocalyptic crisis facing mankind: overpopulation. He felt extreme measures would be required to combat an extreme problem. Whether or not you think this provides him a valid "excuse" for having descended into a totalitarian fantasy is up to you: personally, I don't think it's a valid excuse at all, since the crisis he was in a panic over was mostly in his imagination. Totalitarian regimes and unhinged people almost always have what seems internally like a reasonable justification for actions which to the outside world seem incomprehensible.

Direct quotes from John Holdren's Ecoscience

Below you will find a series of ten short passages from Ecoscience. On the left in each case is a scanned image taken directly from the pages of the book itself; on the right is an exact transcription of each passage, with noteworthy sections highlighted. Below each quote is a short analysis by me.

Following these short quotes, I take a "step back" and provide the full extended passages from which each of the shorter quotes were excerpted, to provide the full context.

And at the bottom of this report, I provide untouched scans (and photos) of the full pages from which all of these passages were taken, to quash any doubts anyone might have that these are absolutely real, and to forestall any claims that the quotes were taken "out of context."

Ready? Brace yourself. And prepare to be shocked.



Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal
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.
As noted in the FrontPage article cited above, Holdren "hides behind the passive voice" in this passage, by saying "it has been concluded." Really? By whom? By the authors of the book, that's whom. What Holdren's really saying here is, "I have determined that there's nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force women to abort their babies." And as we will see later, although Holdren bemoans the fact that most people think there's no need for such laws, he and his co-authors believe that the population crisis is so severe that the time has indeed come for "compulsory population-control laws." In fact, they spend the entire book arguing that "the population crisis" has already become "sufficiently severe to endanger the society."


Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions
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.
Holdren and his co-authors once again speculate about unbelievably draconian solutions to what they feel is an overpopulation crisis. But what's especially disturbing is not that Holdren has merely made these proposals -- wrenching babies from their mothers' arms and giving them away; compelling single mothers to prove in court that they would be good parents; and forcing women to have abortions, whether they wanted to or not -- but that he does so in such a dispassionate, bureaucratic way. Don't be fooled by the innocuous and "level-headed" tone he takes: the proposals are nightmarish, however euphemistically they are expressed.

Holdren seems to have no grasp of the emotional bond between mother and child, and the soul-crushing trauma many women have felt throughout history when their babies were taken away from them involuntarily.

This kind of clinical, almost robotic discussion of laws that would affect millions of people at the most personal possible level is deeply unsettling, and the kind of attitude that gives scientists a bad name. I'm reminded of the phrase "banality of evil."

Not that it matters, but I myself am "pro-choice" -- i.e. I think that abortion should not be illegal. But that doesn't mean I'm pro-abortion -- I don't particularly like abortions, but I do believe women should be allowed the choice to have them. But John Holdren here proposes to take away that choice -- to force women to have abortions. One doesn't need to be a "pro-life" activist to see the horror of this proposal -- people on all sides of the political spectrum should be outraged. My objection to forced abortion is not so much to protect the embryo, but rather to protect the mother from undergoing a medical procedure against her will. And not just any medical procedure, but one which she herself (regardless of my views) may find particularly immoral or traumatic.

There's a bumper sticker that's popular in liberal areas which says: "Against abortion? Then don't have one." Well, John Holdren wants to MAKE you have one, whether you're against it or not.


Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn't harm livestock
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.
OK, John, now you're really starting to scare me. Putting sterilants in the water supply? While you correctly surmise that this suggestion "seems to horrify people more than most proposals," you apparently are not among those people it horrifies. Because in your extensive list of problems with this possible scheme, there is no mention whatsoever of any ethical concerns or moral issues. In your view, the only impediment to involuntary mass sterlization of the population is that it ought to affect everyone equally and not have any unintended side effects or hurt animals. But hey, if we could sterilize all the humans safely without hurting the livestock, that'd be peachy! The fact that Holdren has no moral qualms about such a deeply invasive and unethical scheme (aside from the fact that it would be difficult to implement) is extremely unsettling and in a sane world all by itself would disqualify him from holding a position of power in the government.


Page 786-7: The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control
Involuntary fertility control
...
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 removed 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.
Note well the phrase "with official permission" in the above quote. Johh Holdren envisions a society in which the government implants a long-term sterilization capsule in all girls as soon as they reach puberty, who then must apply for official permission to temporarily remove the capsule and be allowed to get pregnant at some later date. Alternately, he wants a society that sterilizes all women once they have two children. Do you want to live in such a society? Because I sure as hell don't.


Page 838: The kind of people who cause "social deterioration" can be compelled to not have children
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.
To me, this is in some ways the most horrifying sentence in the entire book -- and it had a lot of competition. Because here Holdren reveals that moral judgments would be involved in determining who gets sterilized or is forced to abort their babies. Proper, decent people will be left alone -- but those who "contribute to social deterioration" could be "forced to exercise reproductive responsibility" which could only mean one thing -- compulsory abortion or involuntary sterilization. What other alternative would there be to "force" people to not have children? Will government monitors be stationed in irresponsible people's bedrooms to ensure they use condoms? Will we bring back the chastity belt? No -- the only way to "force" people to not become or remain pregnant is to sterilize them or make them have abortions.

But what manner of insanity is this? "Social deterioration"? Is Holdren seriously suggesting that "some" people contribute to social deterioriation more than others, and thus should be sterilized or forced to have abortions, to prevent them from propagating their kind? Isn't that eugenics, plain and simple? And isn't eugenics universally condemned as a grotesquely evil practice?

We've already been down this road before. In one of the most shameful episodes in the history of U.S. jurisprudence, the Supreme Court ruled in the infamous 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the State of Virginia had had the right to sterilize a woman named Carrie Buck against her will, based solely on the (spurious) criteria that she was "feeble-minded" and promiscuous, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluding, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Nowadays, of course, we look back on that ruling in horror, as eugenics as a concept has been forever discredited. In fact, the United Nations now regards forced sterilization as a crime against humanity.

The italicized phrase at the end ("providing they are not denied equal protection"), which Holdren seems to think gets him off the eugenics hook, refers to the 14th Amendment (as you will see in the more complete version of this passage quoted below), meaning that the eugenics program wouldn't be racially based or discriminatory -- merely based on the whim and assessments of government bureaucrats deciding who and who is not an undesirable. If some civil servant in Holdren's America determines that you are "contributing to social deterioration" by being promiscuous or pregnant or both, will government agents break down your door and and haul you off kicking and screaming to the abortion clinic? In fact, the Supreme Court case Skinner v. Oklahoma already determined that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment distinctly prohibits state-sanctioned sterilization being applied unequally to only certain types of people.

No no, you say, Holdren isn't claiming that some kind of people contribute to social deterioration more than others; rather, he's stating that anyone who overproduces children thereby contributes to social deterioration and needs to be stopped from having more. If so -- how is that more palatable? It seems Holdren and his co-authors have not really thought this through, because what they are suggesting is a nightmarish totalitarian society. What does he envision: All women who commit the crime of having more than two children be dragged away by police to the government-run sterilization centers? Or -- most disturbingly of all -- perhaps Holdren has thought it through, and is perfectly OK with the kind of dystopian society he envisions in this book.

Sure, I could imagine a bunch of drunken guys sitting around shooting the breeze, expressing these kinds of forbidden thoughts; who among us hasn't looked in exasperation at a harried mother buying candy bars and soda for her immense brood of unruly children and thought: Lady, why don't you just get your tubes tied already? But it's a different matter when the Science Czar of the United States suggests the very same thing officially in print. It ceases being a harmless fantasy, and suddenly the possibility looms that it could become government policy. And then it's not so funny anymore.


Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size
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?
Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

Why?

I'll tell you why, John. Because the the principle of habeas corpus upon which our nation rests automatically renders any compulsory abortion scheme to be unconstitutional, since it guarantees the freedom of each individual's body from detention or interference, until that person has been convicted of a crime. Or are you seriously suggesting that, should bureaucrats decide that the country is overpopulated, the mere act of pregnancy be made a crime?

I am no legal scholar, but it seems that John Holgren is even less of a legal scholar than I am. Many of the bizarre schemes suggested in Ecoscience rely on seriously flawed legal reasoning. The book is not so much about science, but instead is about reinterpreting the Constitution to allow totalitarian population-control measures.


Page 942-3: A "Planetary Regime" should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born
Toward a Planetary Regime
...
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency 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.
In case you were wondering exactly who would enforce these forced abortion and mass sterilization laws: Why, it'll be the "Planetary Regime"! Of course! I should have seen that one coming.

The rest of this passage speaks for itself. Once you add up all the things the Planetary Regime (which has a nice science-fiction ring to it, doesn't it?) will control, it becomes quite clear that it will have total power over the global economy, since according to Holdren this Planetary Regime will control "all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable" (which basically means all goods) as well as all food, and commerce on the oceans and any rivers "that discharge into the oceans" (i.e. 99% of all navigable rivers). What's left? Not much.


Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force
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.
The other shoe drops. So: We are expected to voluntarily surrender national sovereignty to an international organization (the "Planetary Regime," presumably), which will be armed and have the ability to act as a police force. And we saw in the previous quote exactly which rules this armed international police force will be enforcing: compulsory birth control, and all economic activity.

It would be laughable if Holdren weren't so deadly serious. Do you want this man to be in charge of science and technology in the United States? Because he already is in charge.


Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism
Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the "tragedy of the commons," wherein the "commons" is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.
This passage is not particularly noteworthy except for the inclusion of the odd phrase "pronatalist attitude," which Holdren spends much of the book trying to undermine. And what exactly is a "pronatalist attitude"? Basically it means the urge to have children, and to like babies. If only we could suppress people's natural urge to want children and start families, we could solve all our problems!

What's disturbing to me is the incredibly patronizing and culturally imperialist attitude he displays here, basically acting like he has the right to tell every ethnic group in the world that they should allow themselves to go extinct or at least not increase their populations any more. How would we feel if Andaman Islanders showed up on the steps of the Capitol in Washington D.C. and announced that there were simply too many Americans, and we therefore are commanded to stop breeding immediately? One imagines that the attitude of every ethnic group in the world to John Holdren's proposal would be: Cram it, John. Stop telling us what to do.


Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000
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.
This is the final paragraph of the book, which I include here only to show how embarrassingly inaccurate his "scientific" projections were. In 1977, Holdren thought we were teetering on the brink of global catastrophe, and he proposed implementing fascistic rules and laws to stave off the impending disaster. Luckily, we ignored his warnings, yet the world managed to survive anyway without the need to punish ourselves with the oppressive society which Holdren proposed. Yes, there still is overpopulation, but the problems it causes are not as morally repugnant as the "solutions" which John Holdren wanted us to adopt.




I actually don't disagree with everything Holdren says. I agree with him that overpopulation is a problem, and that much of the environmental degradation that has happened is due in large part to overpopulation (mostly in the developing world). Where we disagree is in the solution. While Holdren does occasionally advocate for milder solutions elsewhere in the book, his basic premise is that the population explosion has gotten so out of control that only the most oppressive and totalitarian measures can possibly stop humanity from stripping the planet bare and causing a catastrophe beyond our imagining. Holdren has (apparently) no problem saying we should force people to not have children, by any means necessary. And that is where we part ways. I draw the line at even the hint of compulsory compliance to draconian laws about pregnancy and abortion; Holdren does not hesitate to cross that line without a second thought.

My solution would be to adopt social policies that are known to lead to voluntary and non-coercive trends toward a lower birth rate: increased education for girls in poor countries, better access to (voluntarily adopted) birth control, higher standards of living. In fact, population trends since 1977 have started to level off in the crisis areas of Asia and Latin America, primarily due to better standards of living and better education, which are known to decrease population growth. These non-oppressive policies appear to be sufficient to control the population -- and Holdren's decades-long panic attack seems to be unfounded.

Now, consider all the recommendations by Holdren given above, and then note that at his Senate confirmation hearing he said he would "keep policy free from politics" if confirmed. In fact Holdren has repeatedly said that science should not be be tainted by politics, telling the BBC just a few days ago that "he wanted to take the politics out of scientific advice." But have you ever seen more politicized science-policy recommendations than those given in Ecoscience?




For the doubters and the naysayers...

There are five possible counter-claims which you might make against this report:

1. I'm lying, Holdren wrote no such thing, and this whole page is one big hoax.
2. He may have said those things, but I'm taking them out of context.
3. He was just the co-author -- he probably didn't write these particular passages, nor did he agree with them.
4. What he said really isn't that egregious: in fact, it seems pretty reasonable.
5. He wrote all this a long time ago -- he's probably changed his views by now.

I'll address each in turn:

1. I'm lying, Holdren wrote no such thing, and this whole page is one big hoax.
Scroll to the bottom of this page, and look at the photos of the book -- especially the last two photos, showing the book opened to pages quoted in this report. Then look at the full-page scans directly above those photos, showing each page mentioned here in full, unaltered. What more proof do you need? If you're still not convinced, go to any large library and check out the book yourself, and you'll see: everything I claim here is true.

If you don't have the patience to go to a library, you can always view the actual contents of the book online for free for a brief trial period.

2. He may have said those things, but I'm taking them out of context.
Some have argued that the FrontPage article "takes quotes out of context," which is the very reason why I went and investigated the original book itself. Turns out that not only are the quotes not out of context, but the additional paragraphs on either side of each passage only serve to make Holdren's ideas appear even more sinister. You want context? Be careful what you ask for, because the context makes things worse.

But yes, to satisfy the curious and the doubters, the "extended passages" and full-page scans given below provide more than sufficient context for the quotes.

In truth, I weary of the "context game" in which every controversial statement is always claimed to be "out of context," and no matter how much context is then given, it's never enough, until one must present every single word someone has ever written -- at which point the reader becomes overwhelmed and loses interest. Which is the whole point of the context game to begin with.

3. He was just the co-author -- he probably didn't write these particular passages, nor did he agree with them.
First of all: If you are a co-author of a book, you are signing your name to it, and you must take responsibility for everything that is in that book. This is true for John Holdren and every other author.

But there's plenty more evidence than that. Most significantly, Holdren has held similar views for years and frequently wrote about them under his own name. It's not like these quotes are unexpected and came out of the blue -- they fit into a pattern of other Holdren writings and viewpoints.

Lastly, below I present full-page scans of the "Acknowledgments" pages in Ecoscience, and in those Acknowledgments pages are dozens of thank-yous to people at U.C. Berkeley -- where Holdren was a professor at the time. In fact, there are more acknowledgments involving Berkeley than anywhere else, and since Holdren was the only one of the three authors with a connection to Berkeley, they must be his thank-yous -- indicating that he wrote a substantial portion of the book. Even his wife is thanked.

I have no way of knowing if Holdren himself typed the exact words quoted on this page, but he certainly at a minimum edited them and gave them his stamp of approval.

4. What he said really isn't that egregious: in fact, it seems pretty reasonable.
Well, if you believe that, then I guess this page holds no interest for you, and you are thereby free to ignore it. But I have a suspicion that the vast majority of Americans find the views expressed by Holdren to be alarming and abhorrent.

5. He wrote all this a long time ago -- he's probably changed his views by now.
You might argue that this book was written in a different era, during which time a certain clique of radical scientists (including Holdren) were in a frenzy over what they thought was a crisis so severe it threatened the whole planet: overpopulation. But, you could say, all that is in the past, an embarrassing episode which Holdren might wish everyone would now forget. I mean, people change their opinions all the time. Senator Robert Byrd was once in the KKK, after all, but by now he has renounced those views. Perhaps in a similar vein John Holdren no longer believes any of the things he wrote in Ecoscience, so we can't hold them against him any more.
.
The White House gets involved: Recent statements by Holdren and the Ehrlichs in response to this controversy

When I originally wrote and published this essay on July 10, I said:

"Unfortunately, as far as I've been able to discover, Holdren has never disavowed the views he held in the 1970s and spelled out in Ecoscience and other books."

However, that is no longer entirely true. On July 15, both the White House and John Holdren's office issued statements on this controversy after prodding from reporters at both the Washington Times and the Catholic News Agency.

According to this article by Amanda Carpenter in the Washington Times, Holdren and his co-authors have now distanced themselves from the words published in Ecoscience 32 years ago. From the article:
When asked whether Mr. Holdren's thoughts on population control have changed over the years, his staff gave The Washington Times a statement that said, "This material is from 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."
...
The White House also passed along a statement from the Ehrlichs that said, in part, "anybody who actually wants to know what we and/or Professor Holdren believe and recommend about these matters would presumably read some of the dozens of publications that we and he separately have produced in more recent times, rather than going back a third of a century to find some formulations in an encyclopedic textbook where description can be misrepresented as endorsement."
(The second quote above is from page 2 of the article.)

The Catholic News Agency also reported on July 15,
In Tuesday e-mails to CNA, 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."

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."

Weiss also provided CNA with a statement from the book's other two authors, Paul and Anne Ehrlich.

The Ehrlichs said they had been "shocked" at what they called the "serious misrepresentation" of their and Holdren's views.

"We were not then, never have been, and are not now 'advocates' of the Draconian measures for population limitation described -- but not recommended -- in the book's 60-plus small-type pages cataloging the full spectrum of population policies that, at the time, had either been tried in some country or analyzed by some commentator."

Describing "Ecoscience" as a "textbook," they said its descriptions can be "misrepresented as endorsement."
In my original report, I challenged Holdren "to publicly renounce and disavow the opinions and recommendations he made in the book Ecoscience."

I ask my readers: Do you think these two articles count as the renunciation and disavowal I requested?

I'm not so sure. First of all, the disavowals were made by a spokesman and by his co-authors -- as of this writing, Holdren himself has never renounced and disavowed the contents of Ecoscience. Unless you want to count the one-sentence answer he gave during the confirmation hearing.

Under questioning from Senator David Vitter, Holdren did backpedal a bit concerning a different statement he made in the '70s about government-controlled population levels. Does this single sentence count as an across-the-board disavowal of every single specific recommendation he made in Ecoscience as well as in many other books and articles? My opinion is Not really, but as usual I'll provide the full evidence and the full context and I'll let you decide for yourself. You can view the video of the confirmation hearings here (introductory page here), but be warned that it is an extremely long streaming video that doesn't work in all browsers, and the answer in question doesn't come until the 120th minute.

Because most people won't or can't view the entire video, here's a transcript of the relevant part, and you can decide for yourself whether his statement counts as a disavowal of his quotes cited in this report:

[Starting at 120:30]
Senator David Vitter: In 1973, you encouraged "a decline in fertility well below replacement" in the United States because "280 million in 2040 is likely to be too many." What would your number for the right population in the US be today?

John Holdren: I no longer think it's productive, Senator, to focus on the optimum population of the United States. I don't think any of us know what the right answer is. When I wrote those lines in 1973, uh, I was preoccupied with the fact that many problems the United States faced appeared to be being made more difficult by the greater population growth that then prevailed. I think everyone who studies these matters understands that population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities; it's a tough question to determine which will prevail in a given time period.
Vitter then asked, "You think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?" To which Holdren replied, "No, Senator, I do not."

(If you want the full context of this exchange between Vitter and Holdren, a complete transcript of their entire question-and-answer session can be found posted here.)

I'm not sure just how seriously we should take a statement made by someone during what is essentially a job interview. A few words spent reassuring the interviewer that you don't really believe all those things you spent thirty years elaborating in detail -- what else should we expect? That Holdren would say, Yes, I think the government should lower the U.S. population down to 280 million? Of course he wouldn't say that during the interview, despite what he may or may not really believe internally.

But let's spend a moment looking at these answers more closely. Both of them referred to determining a specific number of people that should be allowed as the population of the United States. First he said it was "no longer productive" to set a hard-and-fast exact number for the population of the U.S., and then said he doesn't think we should "determine the optimal population." But that still leaves the door open for the notion that the population should be lowered by whatever means in general without a specific numerical goal in mind. Holdren still did not say that he's against population control as a concept -- only that he thinks we shouldn't set specific numeric targets.

And more importantly in the context of this essay, he did not disavow any of the specific proposals quoted here -- forced abortion, "Planetary Regime," etc.

Rather than a fairly vague blanket disavowal given in response to a question on a slightly different topic during the confirmation hearings, and rather than a statement given by someone in his office, and rather than a statement issued by his co-authors, I still would like to see a specific disavowal by Holdren himself. And so I repeat,
I challenge John Holdren himself to publicly renounce and disavow the opinions and specific recommendations he made in the book Ecoscience; and until he does so, I will hold him responsible for those statements.
Columnist David Harsanyi, who received a similar semi-disavowal from Holdren's office, dismantles it quite effectively in an excellent piece he published on July 15 in the Denver Post, Reason Online and elsewhere.

And who wants to take up the challenge from the Ehrlichs issued by the White House to look into "some of the dozens of publications that we and he separately have produced in more recent times" to uncover "what we and/or Professor Holdren believe"? Seems like territory ripe for exploration. Post any research you uncover either here in the comments section at zomblog, or on your own blog. Anything that John Holdren or the Ehrlichs have written since 1977 is fair game -- according to the Ehrlichs themselves.



Before you read any further...

If you accept the self-evident veracity of these quotations, and are outraged enough already, then you can stop reading here. Very little new information is presented below.

(And if you'd like to comment on this report, you can do so HERE at zomblog.)

But if you still harbor doubts that the United States Science Czar could possibly harbor such views, and want more proof, then read on for longer and fuller citations, and full-page scans of the pages in the book, as well as photographs of the book itself. And if by chance you are a Holdren or Obama supporter, and want to falsely claim that I have taken Holdren's statements out of context, then you'd better stop reading here too, because if you go any further then you'll see that I have given full context for the quotes and conclusive evidence that they're Holdren's -- removing any basis by which you could have questioned this report.



More Context: Complete extended passages from which the quotes above were taken

For most of these, I will present the following extended passages without further commentary -- judge for yourself if you think the context mitigates Holdren's intent, or only worsens the impression that he's completely serious about all this.


Page 837 full-length extended quote:
To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.
Let it be noted that John Holdren himself is among the few who "consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion" -- in fact, that's the entire thrust of Ecoscience, to convince everyone that overpopulation is a catastrophic crisis which requires immediate and extreme solutions. So although the final sentence of the extended passage seems at first to mollify the extreme nature of his speculation, in reality Holdren is only speaking of all the unaware masses who don't see things his way.


Page 786 full-length extended quote:
Social pressures on both men and women to marry and have children must be removed. As former Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall observed, "All lives are not enhanced by marital union; parenthood is not necessarily a fulfillment for every married couple." If society were convinced of the need for low birth rates, no doubt the stigma that has customarily been assigned to bachelors, spinsters, and childless couples would soon disappear. But alternative lifestyles should be open to single people, and perhaps the institution of an informal, easily dissolved "marriage" for the childless is one possibility. Indeed, many DC societies now seem to be evolving in this direction as women's liberation gains momentum. It is possible that fully developed societies may produce such arrangements naturally, and their association with lower fertility is becoming increasingly clear. In LDCs a childless or single lifestyle might be encouraged deliberately as the status of women approaches parity with that of men.

Although free and easy association of the sexes might be tolerated in such a society, responsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged. 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 he possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Somewhat more repressive measures for discouraging large families have also been proposed, such as assigning public housing without regard for family size and removing dependency allowances from student grants or military pay. Some of these have been implemented in crowded Singapore, whose population program has been counted as one of the most successful.
In the final sentence of this passage, Holdren speaks approvingly of Singapore's infamous totalitarian micromanaging of people's daily lives.

But to me, the most bizarre and disturbing aspect of the quote given here is that Holgren seems to think that economic disincentives to have large families are more repressive and extreme than taking away basic bodily rights. To Holdren, "removing dependency allowances from student grants" is more repressive than compelling women to have abortions against their will. A very peculiar and twisted view of the world, I must say.


Page 787-8 full-length extended quote:
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.

Physiologist Melvin Ketchel, of the Tufts University School of Medicine, suggested that a sterilant could be developed that had a very specific action—for example, preventing implantation of the fertilized ovum. He proposed that it be used to reduce fertility levels by adjustable amounts, anywhere from five to 75 percent, rather than to sterilize the whole population completely. In this way, fertility could be adjusted from time to time to meet a society's changing needs, and there would be no need to provide an antidote. Contraceptives would still be needed for couples who were highly motivated to have small families. Subfertile and functionally sterile couples who strongly desired children would be medically assisted, as they are now, or encouraged to adopt. Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children.

Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies (although, of course, the potential effectiveness of those least acceptable measures may be great).

Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly against population growth, perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries.



Page 786-7 full-length extended quote:
Involuntary fertility control

The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birthrates are rapidly reversed by other means. Some involuntary measures could be less repressive or discriminatory, in fact, than some of the socioeconomic measure suggested.

...

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. This of course would be feasible only in countries where the majority of births are medically assisted. Unfortunately, such a program therefore is not practical for most less developed countries (although in China, mothers of three children are commonly "expected" to undergo sterilization).

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed 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. No capsule that would last that long (30 years or more) has yet been developed, but it is technically within the realm of possibility.



Page 838 full-length extended quote:
It is accepted that the law has as its proper function the protection of each person and each group of people. A legal restriction on the right to have more than a given number of children could easily be based on the needs of the first children. Studies have indicated that the larger the family, the less healthy the children are likely to be and the less likely they are to realize their potential levels of achievement. Certainly there is no question that children of a small family can be cared for better and can be educated better than children of a large family, income and other things being equal. The law could properly say to a mother that, in order to protect the children she already has, she could have no more. (Presumably, regulations on the sizes of adopted families would have to be the same.)

A legal restriction on the right to have children could also be based on the right not to be disadvantaged by excessive numbers of children produced by others. Differing rates of reproduction among groups can give rise to serious social problems. For example, differential rates of reproduction between ethnic, racial, religious, or economic groups might result in increased competition for resources and political power and thereby undermine social order. 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.
Study this whole extended passage carefully for an extremely unsettling view into the legal brain of John Holdren. Some of the sentiments he expresses here are beyond the pale, and his legal reasoning boggles the mind.


Page 838 full-length extended quote:
Individual rights. Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the "right responsibly to choose" the number and spacing of children (our emphasis). In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy and it has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But the right is not unlimited. Where the society has a "compelling, subordinating interest" in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. If society's survival depended on having more children, women could he required to bear children, just as men can constitutionally be required to serve in the armed forces. Similarly, given a crisis caused by overpopulation, reasonably necessary laws to control excessive reproduction could be enacted.

It is often argued that the right to have children is so personal that the government should not regulate it. In an ideal society, no doubt the state should leave family size and composition solely to the desires of the parents. In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
This extended passage is a perfect example of how the "full context" of a short quote only makes it worse; once you see Holdren's complete elaboration on the idea, you realize it's not some flippant notion he tossed off, but something he feels deeply about.


Page 942-3 full-length extended quote:
Toward a Planetary Regime
...
Should a Law of the Sea be successfully established, it could serve as a model for a future Law of the Atmosphere to regulate the use of airspace, to monitor climate change, and to control atmospheric pollution. Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency 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 the 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 should have some power to enforce the agreed limits. As with the Law of the Sea an other international agreements, all agreements for regulating population sizes, resource development, and pollution should be subject to revision and modification in accordance with changing conditions.

The Planetary Regime might have the advantage over earlier proposed world government schemes in not being primarily political in its emphasis—even though politics would inevitably be a part of all discussions, implicitly or explicitly. Since most of the areas the Regime would control are not now being regulated or controlled by nations or anyone else, establishment of the Regime would involve far less surrendering of national power. Nevertheless it might function powerfully to suppress international conflict simply because the interrelated global resource-environment structure would not permit such an outdated luxury.



Page 917 full-length extended quote:
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. But it seems probable that, as long as most people fail to comprehend the magnitude of the danger, that step will be impossible.





Full Context: High-res scans of all pages cited in this report

Click on each of the images below to see the full-size scans of the pages mentioned in this report:

Front cover
Back cover
Title page


Page 749
Page 786
Page 787


Page 788
Page 789
Page 837


Page 838
Page 839
Page 917


Page 942
Page 943
Page 944




Page 1001
Page 1002
Page 1003













Photographs of Ecoscience, inside and out

Any finally, for the final proof that this is a real book co-authored by John Holdren -- and that these are real quotes from that book -- and not some elaborate hoax, here are some photographs (as opposed to scans) of the book itself:










How successful have these Malthusian Monsters been?  60 Million abortions in the U.S., ONE BILLION SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION Abortions world wide just since 1990.