Your statement, “The problem most right wing people have is that he doed (sic) not use his intellect to enrich himself and run peoples lives the way right wing people.” is nonsensical. “Right wing people” are interested in freedom. Certainly not the freedom to murder one’s own children, generally, but right wing people ARE for freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution. It is the left wing, the Progressives, who think they know better than the rest of us “morons” and who think they should have control over our assets to redistribute as makes them feel better about the inherent unfairness of life. They are for slavery of the general population, they are for control for themselves so that they can “right the wrongs” of capitalism. It is pathetic fantasy to think that the progressive ideology would increase peace, freedom, and prosperity. They suck the life out of those who they promise the world to get their votes. Then they suck the life out of the rest of us. These people had to lie to get power, and now they have to lie, manipulate, and diminish in order to get their policies passed. The reality is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. The reality is that the abuse the American economy can take is not limitless. I hope you don’t count yourself among those evil, selfish, power-hungry socialists.

The problem most right wing people have is that he doed not use his intellect to enrich himself and run peoples lives the way right wing people.

for my part I do not know “W” so i can not make a personal statement about him- but I dislike his policies and attitude- but for all know he could be the nicest person I ever met. peace

Holdren, Emanuel, E., and Sunstein all have scary philosophies that should have made them UNQUALIFIED to serve in public office.

We know that it’s about control, taxation and world government.

These people are just nutty scumbags — just like Podesta who runs this far left nutjob group.

Mark is absolutely right. What is your response to the rhetorical question from Ecoscience that Mark pastes?

Further, you incorrectly cite that Holdren asserts his “obvious moral objections” to government-mandated implantation of sterilization capsules. He does not do this; rather, he simply states in a parenthetical that there would be moral objections–he is silent on whether he holds them.

You can’t on one hand dismiss the pages and pages of radical ideas presented as simply dispassionate “discussion” of ideas “suggested by other writers” and then on the other hand argue that the one mention of moral objections in the text is somehow Holdren’s personal commentary.

Good effort but you are defending the indefensible.

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

ALL the coverage you cite was derived from this essay. Best to refer to the source rather than second-hand rewrites.

Quoting from Ecoscience, “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?”

In case Science Progress is unfamiliar with writing styles, this is what is known as a “rhetorical question.”

The authors are effectively asserting, “The law should be able to prevent a person from having more than two children.”

“Here’s one suggestion for an important and contemporary science policy issue in OSTP’s portfolio: the recently released administration report on how climate change is already threatening the health and livelihoods of Americans across the country.”

Let’s ask John Holdren whether he thinks this report supports his assertion in 1986 that CO2-induced climate-change famines could kill as many as a billion people by 2020.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/02/022847.php

From his Senate testimony (under oath, presumably) he still thinks that CO2-induced climate change could cause a billion deaths by 2020. (For those of you not counting, that’s 11 years from now. So climate change will need to kill on average about 90 million people every year for the next 11 years for John Holdren’s prediction to come true.)

Of course, if Holdren was a Republican, Chris Mooney would use that statement to support how Republicans are engaging in a “war on science.” But of course, Holdren is not a Republican, so none of Holdren’s statements–no matter how ridiculously unscientific–will ever receive any critical analysis by Mooney (or likely anyone else at the Center for American Progress).