“Resistance V’s appeared all over the country….The V campaign meant ordinary people could feel they were doing something, however symbolic, to protest against the Occupation.”

“The British radio has called on people to write V for victory everywhere, and they are all over the place, even on shop fronts. They are also written on blackboards, on tables – everywhere. Even better, there’s a new badge: a V made with two crossed pins and worn on the lapel. Yvette and I counted seventy-five in five minutes!…On the Rue d’Astorg, I scribbled a V on a German car. I heard the sound of boots behind me, and moved off quickly.”

The Resistance, by Matthew Cobb.
America is in peril, the United States is being occupied as Homeland Security launches a total takeover of society and attempts to indoctrinate an army of citizen spies as the country accelerates its slide into banana republic despotism. Americans who can see what is unfolding feel helpless, powerless and overawed by the clear evisceration of their freedoms. The time has come for a massive campaign of powerful, symbolic, peaceful resistance.
The Department of Homeland Security has released a trio of chilling PSA video clips in which ordinary everyday activities are characterized as signs of potential terrorism, with the public being indoctrinated to assume the role of domestic spies reporting on their friends and neighbors as America sinks deeper into a decaying police state.

In wartime France, the victims of the Nazi occupation could see who their oppressors were, in 21st century America we’re not yet being policed 24/7 by black boot wearing stormtroopers, but perhaps something even more insidious – each other. Homeland Security is training Americans to spy on their friends, neighbors and colleagues by making us obsessed with the fear of terror – using the very tactic of terrorists to chill the 1st Amendment, tear up the bill of rights, and intimidate Americans into accepting constant harassment, bag searches, body scans, interrogations, and suffocating security-theatre everywhere they go.
So why the V campaign? What is it and what will it achieve? It’s all about fighting back against the psychological warfare we are now being subjected to by our new would-be slavemasters. They like to remind us that they’re our bosses with their signs – report suspicious activity posters and video messages at Wal-Mart checkouts - terrorism tip line billboards – Homeland Security posters telling Americans where they can and can’t park their car – using symbols, slogans and messages to herd the sheep and elicit their obedience is obviously a very important component of any authoritarian regime – so why not fight back with our own symbols, slogans and messages?
The Obama Joker poster campaign attracted massive attention and was a huge success in creating an underground buzz of resistance. The V for Victory campaign is based on the same basic idea.
We need to tell them who we are and that we’re not their slaves. This in turn will encourage others to feel secure in the knowledge that there are Americans who are working to protect freedom of speech and the right to criticize government without being treated as a terrorist, and that Homeland Security’s constant hyped fearmongering about non-existent terror threats is nothing more than an act of psychological warfare to make Americans shut up, mute their dissent, and follow orders like good little children.

From VIPR teams that now patrol Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor and Los Angeles rail lines; ferries in Washington state; bus stations in Houston; and mass transit systems in Atlanta, Philadelphia, Washington and Baltimore, to invasive pat downs at bus and train terminals and on street corners across the country, to radiation-emitting naked body scanners that roam the highways scanning vehicles and homes, to interrogation checkpoints at sporting and other public events, Big Sis is engaged in a total takeover of society, turning America into a giant prison grid where everyone is guilty until proven innocent and treated as a potential terrorist.
Show me a case in history where the government recruiting the citizens to spy on each other led to a more secure, happy, free and prosperous society and I’ll show you a chicken with teeth. The best possible outcome, as in East Germany, was a despotic society in which free speech was silenced and political dissidents were imprisoned. The usual outcome, as in Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany – was outright tyranny and death camps. Neither have any place in America.
Homeland Security is now trying to mimic the way of all oppressive regimes, by turning the American people against each other. Their agenda is public – DHS’ own documents clearly state that they consider libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, constitutionalists, gun owners and virtually any political activism as extremism and possible terrorism. As we have seen from a myriad of reports put out by the DHS and threat fusion centers across the country – the primary targets of Homeland Security in their campaign to have everyone treated with suspicion are people who know their rights and people who dare to exercise their freedoms.
This has nothing to do with any genuine terror threat. Americans are being coerced into living in constant fear of terror, when in reality they are more likely to die from peanut allergies, lightning strikes, or accident-causing deer than terrorist attacks.
We need to invoke the spirit of the French who were occupied by the Nazis in World War Two. The V for victory campaign in Paris and elsewhere helped the occupied to understand that the resistance against tyranny was legion. It gave the victims hope that they were not isolated and that their community was bonded in freedom, reducing fear that they would be reported to the authorities by collaborators as a subversive or terrorist for expressing dissent against their occupiers.
To encourage more people to participate in this outreach, we are incorporating it into our, “The Answer to 1984 is 1776″ campaign, and offering $7,000 dollars for the winner who posts the best video on You Tube. Second place will win $2,000, 3rd place wins $1,000. Use the V for Victory flyers we have provided to let Big Sis know that we are not her slaves. Use them on banner hangs or as stand alone flyers, post them on message boards or any places where announcements are made in your local community. Anywhere that’s legal and lawful, we want to see the V for victory proudly displayed as a symbolic message of resistance and defiance.
Click here to download all the V for Victory posters in PDF format. Pick your favorite and print them off to use as flyers, or alternatively you are free to adapt the design to your own tastes. This is a campaign that everyone who wants to put on record their opposition to this tyranny can become involved with – the added incentive of cash prizes adds the element of competition and also increases media coverage.
Remember – you are the resistance!

“Never has France been engaged in a more noble or beautiful war than in the one that is fought in cellars where her free newspapers are printed, in the nocturnal terrains and secret rocky coves where she receives her free friends and from where her free children swarm out, in the torture chambers where despite the pliers, the needles reddened by fire and the broken bones, the French die as free men.”
Joseph Kessel, French Resistance Leader.

You Are The Resistance Against The DHS Occupation Of America

We urge you to watch the videos below because they might not be around for much longer. Jesse Ventura’s Conspiracy Theory show about the police state and FEMA camps, which TruTV never aired because of constant government harassment and pressure, has already been memory-holed and is now under threat of being removed from You Tube as well.
The show covers the takeover plan and what they don’t want you to see – how martial law is being implemented in America. Get these videos now and share them before they disappear forever.
During his last appearance on the Alex Jones Show, Jesse Ventura confirmed that TruTV was forced to pull the show from their schedule due to government threats.
FLASHBACK: “Police State” episode of hit Ventura show covering FEMA camps pulled from air



—

At one of many real and verified FEMA locations, Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones approach a “Residential Center” run by Homeland Security in central Texas where they find locked doors, double-fences and escape warnings around the entire perimeter. Further inside the facility, they witness a playground complex, swings and slides for children. The crew walks up to the front door and attempts to get some answers. But the officials refuse to either confirm or deny the facility’s purpose, including whether or not American citizens are being held inside. However, our past investigations into this facility reveal that it has confined both children and adults, including immigrants, refugee seekers and American citizens.

Here is a torrent link to download all of season 1 (2.33gigs)

Here is a torrent link to download all of season 2 (2.89gigs)

Censored Jesse Ventura Show On FEMA Camps Survives On You Tube

Afghan Opium Kingpin On CIA Payroll

This is the infamous Henry Kissinger state memorandum 200 report.

NSSM 200 Kissinger Genocide Report 1974  

Henry Kissinger state memorandum 200 population control document

CNN Airs Eyewitness Testimony that ‘Well-Dressed’ Indian accomplice helped Abdulmutallab board without passport and that man on plane filmed entire flight and bombing attempt

Aaron Dykes
Infowars
December 29, 2009

Evidence is emerging that clearly indicates Abdulmutallab was more than just a Nigerian extremist carrying out his anger through an ill-conceived plot to ignite a powdery explosive substance on-board a flight to the United States. Eyewitness testimony pointing to a man helping the accused terrorist board without a passport, along with an unusual cameraman documenting the attempted attack on board the plane raise more than red flags– they point towards an intelligence operation, run as a drill, meant to conjure up public support for a number of fronts in the continuing ‘War on Terror.’
CNN interviewed key flight witnesses during their Dec. 28 program who raised these very points, making clear that the full story is still emerging and that wider-connections to intelligence handlers is evident.




THE SHARP-DRESSED MAN
Kurt Haskell and his wife, who were witnesses on board Northwest Airlines Flight 253 saw Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab receiving assistance from a well-dressed, wealthy-looking Indian man at the boarding gate in Amsterdam. Haskell told CNN that the accused bomber appeared strikingly ‘poor’ next to the well-dressed man. According to Haskell, that man did the talking for him, explaining to the flight personnel at the gate that Abdulmutallab needed to board without a passport, claiming that he was a Sudanese refugee. Haskell told CNN:

“Laurie and I were sitting near the boarding gate, sitting on the floor, there weren’t any seats to sit in. And I saw two men. They caught my eye because they seemed to be an odd pair. One was what I would describe as a poor-looking black teenager around 16 or 17, and the other man, age 50-ish, wealthy looking Indian man. And I was just wondering why they were together– kinda strange. And I watched them approach what I would call the ticket agent, the final person that checks your boarding pass before you get on the plane. And I could hear the entire conversation. The only person that spoke was the Indian man, and what he said was: ‘This man needs to board the plane, but he doesn’t have a passport.’ And the ticket agent responded, ‘Well, if he doesn’t have a passport, he can’t get on the plane.’ To which the Indian man responded back, ‘He’s from Sudan. We do this all the time.’ And the ticket agent said, ‘Well, then you’ll have to go and talk to my manager.’ And she directed them down a hallway. And that was the last time I saw the Indian man, and the black man I didn’t see again until he tried to blow up our plane hours later.”

The gate attendee referred the odd-couple to the manager. Haskell said that was the last he saw of the wealthy man, but later recognized Abdulmutallab after the incident occurred on the plane. That’s when he says he put two and two together about the unusual connection.
His wife, Laurie, said she found it ‘odd’ that authorities have not yet followed up on their witness account, as they were the only ones known to have witnessed Abdulmutallab with the ‘Indian’ man prior to boarding the flight.
THE CAMERAMAN
If he had help getting on the flight with no passport after having been reported to U.S. authorities by his own father, what is the true explanation for the man seen filming the entire flight? Another witness on board the flight, Richelle Keepman, said she noticed the mysterious cameraman at the beginning of the flight, believing the man might have been simply excited about a first flight, or etc. Later when the ‘bombing’ incident took place, she says the cameraman was the only one standing up, and intently filming the entire incident.
ADDULMUTALLAB AND THE WIDER WAR ON TERROR
Put this together with new focus on Yemen ‘in the fight against Al Qaeda’, including calls from Sen. Lieberman to pre-emptively attack, the media’s immediate hype of the event, and the ready-made Body Scanners and other ‘enhanced’ Airport security, it is clear that this is a contrived incident intentionally unleashed to goad renewed support for ever-expanding terrorism-related warfare in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan and now Yemen.

Just like after 9/11, airport travelers are again prepared to accept greater violations of their liberties and privacy for supposed security. Yet patsies and watchlist-subjects alike have repeatedly been allowed to bypass security clearance and been proven to have ties to the intelligence community.
The latest accused ‘terrorist’ Abdulmutallab was very likely the fall-guy in a pattern-drill– handled by wealthy, mismatched associates, allowed to board without required credentials, and videotaped by a cameraman with an unknown connection. Was Abdulmutallab involved with these figures through a drill which ended with an intentionally-failed bombing meant to incite great fear of terrorism?
PREVIOUSLY-STAGED TERROR
This would fit closely with other elements of CIA-concocted “terrorism.” Many of the 9/11 hijackers and other known extremists were revealed to have participated in ‘dry run’ drills, shared addresses with intelligence handlers or lived on military bases, were allowed to pass through the border despite being on one or more watchlists, and were given VISAS/Passports through execptions and/or special clearance.
Similarly, David Headly, named in the Mumbai attack, has been exposed as a CIA-double agent.
FBI/CIA provocateurs and exaggerated accounts of extremists groups have continued to emerge from the phony stories given to the public in the cases of many would-be plots, such as in Toronto, the ‘plot’ to bomb the Sears Tower, the Transatlantic liquid bomb plot, alleged plans to ‘blow up a Jewish temple and shoot down military planes’ in New York and more.
We see a similar pattern here, the emerging evidence strongly suggests. How long will we allow deliberately-provoked terror incidents to frighten us to death, invade our privacy, erode our liberties, restrict our travel and perpetuate an ever-expanding string of wars?
COMMENTARY: BODY-SCANNERS AND THE SECURITY-SWINDLE
Benjamin Franklin long ago warned us that “If we restrict liberty to attain security, we will lose both.” And that those willing to make that bargain deserve neither their liberty nor security.
On the most basic level, government is established only for the common security of its people. Thus, it is no surprise that government tends to test the line between the government and the governed on grounds of “security.” It is no coincidence that Franklin and fellow compatriots like Thomas Paine laid down principled reasons for an individuals’ rights in respect to government.
Today’s advances in technology do not diminish the principled reasons for keeping government’s power in check with the people’s essential, as per Franklin– freedom. The ‘War on Terror’ is a shining example of Franklin’s principle gone awry. You cannot fight against an existential, shadowy “enemy”, on a fishing expedition for evidence, avoiding certainties, and employing such unprincipled tactics as torture, rendition, widespread wire-tapping– going against the very spirit of the law established by the Constitution, while hoping to maintain that opposing spirit in the nation.
The people, for reasons of “security” are stripped and searched– preemptively, without warrant, probable cause or specific things being searched for– in ever-expanding screenings– losing privacy, dignity and basic freedom of travel. But even this is not the point.
All the while, the rare, real perpetrator, identified as a terrorist, never goes through the database checks, security screening or passenger tracking schemes set-up by Homeland Security. The people do. Mothers with breastmilk. Business men with laptops. Shoes, belts, nail clippers, tooth paste, underwear, but not terrorists.
They evidently are whisked through by contacts who may or may not work directly for the FBI, CIA or etc. Databases make exceptions for its most-important targets while people with commonly-confused names are kept from flying or subject to secondary screening. Any ordinary person without proper documentation is subject, at the least, to alternate verification and likely quite a few intense questions. For this would-be bomber, however, it is apparently the matter of a handshake with the manager, and a high-level contact to vouch as sponsor.
It’s a bait and switch. It’s not security, Constitutionally-sound or not. It’s a scheme to tightly-control the travel of ordinary Americans while co-opting that fear through staged-attacks to generate support for various overseas operations. It is textbook problem-reaction-solution.
Though the Body Scanners have already been phased in throughout the U.S., they along with newly hailed restrictions, such as banning blankets, electronics and on-board bathroom use during the final 60 minutes of flight, are heavy-handed measures set up by Homeland Security that have been waiting for the right excuse to introduce them to the public.
But it’s a misapplication of security by an inept arm of government stumbling in the dark. The TSA offers neither security nor freedom– it’s Franklin’s monster.
The heroic, but also practical actions of the passengers in thwarting this attempted-attack is a sane reminder in the fog of the ‘War on Terror’ that people can actually fend for themselves in many situations, particularly in the face of danger. Though real, big scale dangers do exist for which governments clearly play a role, we cannot shriek in the face of danger, handing over to government all that we hold in the balance. There are ways of detecting crimes, preventing attacks and ’saving lives, for the children’ that don’t involve enslaving and indicting the whole of the population.
The game is surely rigged if the criminal it was meant to catch walks right through the proverbial back-door, which was held open for him by the archetypal inside man. The trading of liberty for so-called security does not balance favorably, but transfers power duly held by the people to the government, the more dangerous by the loosened-chains of the Constitution.
Supporting links and further info:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/man-videotaped-underwear-bomber-on-flight-253.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bomber-had-no-passport-helped-to-board-plane-by-sharp-dressed-man.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/28/terror.suspect.father/index.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/terrorist-or-cia-agent-maybe-both.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/080606militaryconnections.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-york-terror-plot-another-government-provocateured-set-up.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/cia-and-mi6-links-to-rauf-and-liquid-bomb-plot.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/230606searstower.htm

BOMBSHELL: Evidence Clearly Indicates Staged Attack on Detroit Flight

 ADRIAN LEVY and CATHY SCOTT-CLARK
Mail Online
October 28, 2009

The Finchley Road is one of the busiest thoroughfares heading out of London. It leads traffic north past Lord’s Cricket Ground and the multimillion-pound houses of some of the country’s richest hedge-fund managers all the way to the M1. At three in the afternoon it’s always pretty slow going, but on this particular summer Monday the traffic was almost at a standstill.
This was partly because the normal three lanes going north had been cut down to one. But it was also because of drivers slowing down to a crawl so they could gawp at the massive police operation unfolding on a busy corner of the road.
Police vehicles – both cars and menacing armoured trucks – jammed up two lanes. Dozens of armed officers in bulletproof vests were standing ready, waiting to be called inside an anonymous-looking building. From the sheer manpower and weapons on display it looked like the capital was under another terrorist attack.
Read entire article

Brit Cops Raid Thousands of Safety Deposit Boxes

After watching the television coverage of the Roman Polanski arrest in Switzerland, I have been amazed by the tolerance the mainline media has shown for the director’s conviction for raping a 13-year-old girl in the U.S. in 1977. It is as if the act and conviction of the ‘great’ director was not really that big of a deal. After all, isn’t it more important that he produced many highly acclaimed films and that he is among the high society elite? Surely these facts make up for this despicable act which was indeed heinous and at that time deserved the stiffest of punishments. And, although the victim has now nobly forgiven her aggressor, nothing can ever replace her innocence, which once lost can never be regained.

I am perplexed about how France could have degraded to such an extent that the protection of innocent children is no longer viewed as sacrosanct. Indeed, the most important responsibility of any government should be to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. What more important and defenseless minority do we have than our children? It is their right to freedom from coercion and manipulation, especially into sexual acts by an adult majority, which should be guarded most vociferously.
Source: InfoWars.com

The Real Sicko Movie

Cindy Sheehan
October 10, 2009
I had just walked back into my hotel room yesterday after chaining myself to the White House fence and being arrested, when I saw White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, say that removing troops from Afghanistan was “not an option.”
Hundreds of us were out in front of the White House as this nation is heading into the 9th year of what is the longest overt military misadventure, next to Vietnam.
Sixty-one other people were arrested with me. Organizations calling for the end to torture and for single-payer Medicare for all were in attendance, along with Vet groups and other pro-peace organizations and leaders.
When I saw such a quick response to our protest, I was angry, of course, but I was also excited. First of all, when Obama said that we had to “make him do it,” I knew Obama was just blowing smoke out of his hind end, like he blows cigarette smoke out of his mouth. Secondly, I know we are being heard and I have complete realistic hope that this is the time for US in the USA to make a difference.
The anti-war, peace movement must step our efforts up and take it to the next level of severe militant resistance.

Peace of the Action

Sheeple of America-Payday Monsanto

According to the watchdog overseeing the federal government’s financial bailout program, the full exposure since 2007 amounts to a whopping $23.7 trillion dollars, or $80,000 for every American citizen.




What the F?... This figure would pay off every mortgage, credit card, and a whole lot more.

Bailout cost 24 trillion?

Ron Paul 7/16/09 “Federal Reserve Inflation Wipes Out The Middle Class, Protects The Wealthy”

Join downsize DC, send your letters to congress with your "freedom mouse" and give the congress critters a piece you your mind. Time is short, and the idea of freedom needs to be heard. These are just some of the campaigns we are working on right now:

Downsize DC!

Original article here

In 1977 book, John Holdren advocated forced abortions, mass sterilization through food and water supply and mandatory bodily implants to prevent pregnancies

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Saturday, July 11, 2009

President Obama’s top science and technology advisor John P. Holdren co-authored a 1977 book in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.

The concepts outlined in Holdren’s 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, were so shocking that a February 2009 Front Page Magazine story on the subject was largely dismissed as being outlandish because people couldn’t bring themselves to believe that it could be true.

It was only when another Internet blog obtained the book and posted screenshots that the awful truth about what Holdren had actually committed to paper actually began to sink in.

This issue is more prescient than ever because Holdren and his colleagues are now at the forefront of efforts to combat “climate change” through similarly insane programs focused around geoengineering the planet. As we reported in April, Holdren recently advocated “Large-scale geoengineering projects designed to cool the Earth,” such as “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays,” which many have pointed out is already occurring via chemtrails.

Ecoscience discusses a number of ways in which the global population could be reduced to combat what the authors see as mankind’s greatest threat – overpopulation. In each case, the proposals are couched in sober academic rhetoric, but the horrifying foundation of what Holdren and his co-authors are advocating is clear. These proposals include;

- Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply.

- Legalizing “compulsory abortions,” ie forced abortions carried out against the will of the pregnant women, as is common place in Communist China where women who have already had one child and refuse to abort the second are kidnapped off the street by the authorities before a procedure is carried out to forcibly abort the baby.

- Babies who are born out of wedlock or to teenage mothers to be forcibly taken away from their mother by the government and put up for adoption. Another proposed measure would force single mothers to demonstrate to the government that they can care for the child, effectively introducing licensing to have children.

- Implementing a system of “involuntary birth control,” where both men and women would be mandated to have an infertility device implanted into their body at puberty and only have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.

- Permanently sterilizing people who the authorities deem have already had too many children or who have contributed to “general social deterioration”.

- Formally passing a law that criminalizes having more than two children, similar to the one child policy in Communist China.

- This would all be overseen by a transnational and centralized “planetary regime” that would utilize a “global police force” to enforce the measures outlined above. The “planetary regime” would also have the power to determine population levels for every country in the world.

The quotes from the book are included below. We also include comments by the author of the blog who provided the screenshots of the relevant passages. Screenshots of the relevant pages and the quotes in their full context are provided at the end of the excerpts. The quotes from the book appear as text indents and in bold. The quotes from the author of the blog are italicized.

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 sterilization 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. John 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 deterioration 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 Holdren 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.

SCREENSHOTS OF PAGES FROM ECOSCIENCE (CLICK FOR ENLARGEMENTS)

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

Obama Science Advisor Called For “Planetary Regime” To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures

The cap and trade bill will be another nail in the coffin of independent free humanity. If USA goes down, which is certainly the agenda, there will be nothing to stop the world's decent into a global totalitarian dictatorship. This next article portends the death of the already dead housing market. Just another star in the constellation of tyranny.

Democrats’ Cap-and-Trade Bill Creates ‘Retrofit’ Policy for Homes and Businesses
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
By Matt Cover
original article here

(CNSNews.com) – The 1,400-page cap-and-trade legislation pushed through by House Democrats contains a new federal policy that residential, commercial, and government buildings be retrofitted to increase energy efficiency, leaving it up to the states to figure out exactly how to do that.

This means that homeowners, for example, could be required to retrofit their homes to meet federal “green” guidelines in order to sell their homes, if the cap-and-trade bill becomes law.

The bill, which now goes to the Senate, directs the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and implement a national policy for residential and commercial buildings. The purpose of such a strategy – known as the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) – would be to “facilitate” the retrofitting of existing buildings nationwide.

“The Administrator shall develop and implement, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy for single-family and multi-family residences,” the bill reads.

It continues: “The purpose of the REEP program is to facilitate the retrofitting of existing buildings across the United States.”

The bill leaves the definition of a retrofit and the details of the REEP program up to the EPA. However, states are responsible for ensuring that the government’s plans are carried out, whatever the final details may entail.

“States shall maintain responsibility for meeting the standards and requirements of the REEP program,” the bill says.

States may contract with private agencies to oversee the retrofitting and measuring of improved efficiency and environmental friendliness of houses and other buildings, making sure that private citizens have a variety of choices for retrofitting their homes.

“States and local government entities may administer a REEP program in a manner that authorizes public or regulated investor-owned utilities, building auditors and inspectors, contractors, nonprofit organizations, for-profit companies, and other entities to perform audits and retrofit services,” reads the bill.

It further says, “A State or local administrator of a REEP program shall seek to ensure that sufficient qualified entities are available to support retrofit activities so that building owners have a competitive choice among qualified auditors, raters, contractors, and providers of services related to retrofits.”

In fact, individual homeowners are even allowed to retrofit buildings themselves. The bill gives specific protection to individual owners’ rights to choose who inspects and retrofits their property.

“Nothing in this section is intended to deny the right of a building owner to choose the specific providers of retrofit services to engage for a retrofit project in that owner’s building.”

Even though Congress says the states are responsible for carrying out the retrofits, the EPA and the Department of Energy will establish the guidelines and rules for doing so.

“The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall establish goals, guidelines, practices, and standards for accomplishing the purpose stated in subsection (c) [the retrofits],” the bill says.

The program would involve a system of certified auditors, inspectors, and raters who inspect homes and businesses using devices such as infrared cameras (which measure how much heat a building is giving off) to measure their energy efficiency.

The results of these energy audits would then be used to determine what retrofits need to be performed. The audits would examine things like water usage, infrared photography, and pressurized testing to determine the efficiency of door and window seals, and indoor air quality.

Those retrofits would be performed by licensed retrofit contractors using government-approved methods and resources including roofing materials that reflect solar energy.

“[B]uilding retrofits conducted pursuant to a REEP program utilize, especially in all air-conditioned buildings, roofing materials with high solar energy reflectance,” the legislation states.

After the retrofitting is complete, the government – state, local, or federal – will come back and re-inspect the house to determine how much energy has been saved and whether the retrofit is up to federal government standards.

“Determination of energy savings in a performance-based building retrofit program through — (A) for residential buildings, comparison of before and after retrofit scores,” the proposal states.

To help pay for the cost of these retrofits, states and localities may provide loans, utility rate rebates, tax rebates, or implement retrofit programs on their own. In fact, the government will even pay up to 50 percent of the cost of a retrofit through financial awards to individual home and building owners.

Another nail in the coffin

Banksters Love Cap-and-Trade: Economic collapse about to accelerate