Obama’s Science Czar Advocated “Zero Economic Growth” for America
We have learned quite a bit about President Obama science czar, John Holdren, lately– none of it good. From condoning forced abortions (so much for a woman’s right to choose, that decision would be rendered to the state) and forced sterilization to the fact that he doesn’t even consider a living baby a human being until it has “essential early socializing experiences,” (one can only wonder what type of socializing experiences Holdren considers essential), to the absolutely laughable position that trees and other inanimate objects should have equal rights as humans and should be allowed to sue, the man has proved himself to be the very definition of a radical.
All of these positions have an air of anti-Americanism to them and as if there was any doubt about that we have now learned that he also advocates “zero economic growth” for America.
It is by now abundantly clear that the GNP cannot grow forever. Why should it?” Holdren asked in a 1977 college science textbook he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, titled “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment.”
“Why should we not strive for zero economic growth (ZEG) as well as zero population growth?
There is nothing more un-American than trying to limit the amount of economic growth in this country. The goal of all Americans should be to work hard and produce a product that will lead to economic prosperity which will provide for each individualsfamilies. There is nothing wrong with a person being successful, it should be cheered, not railed against. ALthough I do have to say that Obama is doing a hell of a good job promoting “zero economic growth” for America with his policies so far.
During the campaign when a person called then candidate Obama a socialist he was ridiculed and made out as a fringe, radical right winger but just take one look at Holdren’s economic philosophy and tell me that there is not socialism on the president’s agenda.
The question of whether a different economic system might have produced a more equitable distribution of benefits is not one that Western economists like to dwell on
Greed and the desire for power are extraordinarily strong forces against any serious attempts to curb income and wealth,” and, “(t)he real sticky wicket would be direct taxation of wealth, since that would threaten the entrenched power of the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Fords, Kennedys, and countless other beneficiaries of enterprising and acquisitive ancestors.”
“But once some system of further redistribution were established in the United States, it would then be justifiable to implement a transition to a (less productive) economy as quickly as possible
Tell me now that President Obama is not a socialist. You cannot justify Obama’s naming of a blatant socialist– I would say communist– person to his cabinet and still claim that Obama does not hold socialist beliefs.
John Holdren is a radical anti-capitalist, anti-American, pro-population control radical and he is just the type of person that I feared would be in Barack Obama’s cabinet. President Obama has hung around anti-American radicals all of his life; from Reverend Wright, to Bill Ayers, this is what Barack Obama was raised on and now we are learning the ugly truth about John Holdren and by projection Barack Obama.
It is simply astounding that someone as anti-American and radical as John Holdren would ever be appointed to a cabinet of an American president, but then again it is astounding that someone as anti-American and radical as Barack Obama ever managed to rise to be the leader of the country that he hates so much.