But how about someone he’s picked to actually serve in his administration?  It turns out that John Holdren, Obama’s “Science Czar,” once wrote a book supporting things such as mass sterilization and forced abortions.  Things even staunch members of the liberal Democrat base would probably find objectionable and radical.

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.

Click through to read the entire report and see the scans.

It’d be nice if, in the coming days, someone could ask Obama if he agrees with Dr. Holdren on these issues.  The backpedaling and evasions sure to be amusing.

EL PASO—Two gay men kissed at a Chico’s Tacos restaurant, prompting guards to eject them and a police officer to endorse their ouster.

Civil-rights lawyers say the security staff was out of line. Police, though, contend that a business such as a restaurant can refuse service to anybody, any time.

In all, five men were ordered to leave the restaurant. They say they were forced out by homophobic guards.

“It was a simple kiss on the lips,” said Carlos Diaz de Leon, a gay man who was part of the group.

He called police at 12:30 a.m. June 29 because he said the guards and restaurant had discriminated against the group after two of his friends kissed in public.

The five men, all gay, were placing their order at the Chico’s Tacos restaurant on Montwood when the men kissed. All five sat down, but the two guards at the restaurant told them to leave.

First, let me say that if this were my restaurant I wouldn’t have kicked the men out (presuming it was just kissing and not a make-out session).  That being said, is this a civil rights issue?  I really don’t think it is.

Kissing is a voluntary activity.  You can choose to do it or not to do it.  Being black, as an example, is not a choice.  You are born that way.  So getting kicked out of a restaurant because you’re kissing your boyfriend isn’t the same thing as getting kicked out because of the color of your skin.  Though when we’re talking about a privately-owned establishment, I’m not so sure the proprietors shouldn’t be able to decide who they want to serve and who they don’t regardless of what the world at large thinks of their reasoning.  I don’t think discrimination is right by any stretch of the imagination, but individual liberty is something I take very seriously.

Property owners have rights.  This is established in the Constitution.  There is no right, though, to demand that private business owners cater to you as a customer no matter who or what you are.

I believe in freedom for everyone.  That means that while you have free speech, other people are free to ignore you.  Or criticize you.  It also means that while you’re free to kiss whoever you want (presuming they’re of age), but others who disapprove of your choice in kissing partners don’t necessarily have to do business with you.

This is not a civil rights issue.  A stupid decision by the restaurant, it appears, but nothing constitutional.

  Yes, watch Bill and Hillary Clinton and then you’ll know when there is real trouble in the Obama administration.  A lot of people think it will be Vice President Joe Biden who will signal major unrest within the White House, but I don’t necessarily think so.  I think Biden is there to be the big mouth distraction when Obama needs him and to never be a threat to the power hungry young Marxist.  Uncle Joe doesn’t strike me as the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he’ll be the bull in the china closet whenever Barry O needs him.  Biden may have swallowed the ol’ foot when he said Obama was a “clean black man” but he can be counted on to self destruct for the boss at the drop of a dime.  The same can’t be said for Hillary Clinton.

  I think a number of factors went into the decision not to create the Socialist dream ticket in Obama and Clinton and the main reason was that Hillary was not going to be the mind numb drone that Obama wanted her to be.  Oh sure, we heard that Michelle didn’t like Hillary and there were worries she would try to overstep her roll, but I think at the end of the day it was that Hillary didn’t play the weak idiot to someone who is clearly less intelligent than her. 

  Now Obama needed Hillary to go forward and to be honest, the Clintons needed him in order to stay in the limelight.  It must have gnawed at Bill Clinton to have to need Obama after he was accused of being a racist by him.  The lure of the spotlight is so important to the Clintons, they just couldn’t resist.  I kind of liked Obama’s accusations (by the way, I do not think Bill Clinton is a racist.  Liar yes, racist no.) since the Clintons never shied away from using racial tactics whenever it suited them. Got trouble?  Roll out Sharpton and Jackson.  Call everyone a racist, collect some money, and destroy your enemy.  Hillary probably figured that a Secretary of State position would give her something to do, keep her in the limelight, and it would forever take away any accusations that she didn’t have foreign policy knowledge.  Obama probably figured that he would still be seen as the boss and if push came to shove he can always shoot Hillary off to some other country and get her out of his hair.  Bill?  I heard he was made an Ambassador of some kind to Haiti.  Wow.

  I would imagine a deal of some kind was struck.  In exchange for the Clintons being good little soldiers, Comrade Obama could never embarrass her or fire her.  Now it seems to me he is trying to diminish her and it also seems to me that she is aware of this and is not happy, but a deal is a deal and while liberals always eventually break them, she is only going to do it when it makes her come off smelling like a rose.  It is my estimation that a Cold War exists in the White House and it could go hot in the very near future. Unfortunately we will probably never get to see the actual blow up but we will know when it is happening and I’ll tell you what clues to watch out for. 

  Clue number one will be a total bottoming out of Obama’s approval ratings.  MSNBC and CNN will keep reporting that he is popular, but the reality will be that America will finally say enough is enough.  Stimulus I, Stimulus II, Global Warming taxes, Universal Health Care, shaking hands with dictators, and undermining Israel among other things have been and will sink Obama to lows never before seen.  Throw in the fact that his top allies are the extremely unpopular little feller’ Harry Reid, the Queen Bee Nancy Pelosi, and Mr. Spittle Barney Frank and you can see that it’s only a matter of time until the vast majority of America see’s through Mr. Obama.  The Clintons will not want to be associated any longer with what amounts to the cast of the X-Men or the Jim Rose Circus Sideshow and will use their extreme unpopularity to make their move.

  Clue number two will be when the comedians and news agencies begin to find Obama stale and finally look at their horrible ratings and decide to go after Obama.  Obama leering at an underage girl has given them some free material and between his and Biden’s foot in the mouth syndrome, more material can’t be far behind.  CNN will turn on Obama before MSNBC.  The peacock network is on the verge of extinction.  It’s that bad.  Now I’m not saying they will 100% turn on the messiah they helped put in the White House, but they will turn enough that the Clintons will be emboldened and feel justified in their rebellions.  Watch for a few Clinton loyalists to lay the ground work.  Maybe James Carville will go on television and say something like, “Well the President handled it OK, but I think Hillary would have done it this way or President Clinton would have changed a few things.”  Few will understand Carville’s mangled English, but he’ll be putting the worm in the water and hope that some Democrats bite.

  Clue number three is to stand by for a comment or two from Bill Clinton.  This will be the first sign that the alliance between the Clintons and Obama is close to being over.  It’ll be something like “I don’t agree with the President on a second stimulus” or “Well it’s not for me to say, but I think we should have tweaked a few things with the health care debate.”  It’ll seem innocent and most journalists will ignore it, but the political junkies will not.  People like Dick Morris will hit the airwaves and start micro analyzing every word.  Clinton loyalists will feel that the light turned green and it’s OK to drive forward.  Not all of them will whisper things at their little DC parties, but enough of them will.  Something will be wrong in Camelot.  If the Clintons miscalculate and speak to soon, they’ll laugh it off as “Bill being Bill” or another slander from “the vast right wing conspiracy.”  They always have an out clause.

  Finally, it will come out in the open.  Hillary Clinton will resign from her job citing the “accomplishment of her goals” or “the need for a break”.  It could be that Bill has been ill and she wants to stand by his side or Chelsea is having a baby and she wants to be there for her.  Whatever it is, it will be an excuse, a lie, or a wink-wink.  Hillary will resign, the media will praise her service (the anti-Palin of course), and Obama will start to sweat a little bit.  It’ll be game on.
Conservative radio will break that a Hillary left because she was tired of being marginalized by Obama and while liberal TV will try to be careful with their words, they will basically say the same thing.  Hillary will have officially divorced Obama without actually saying it.  The media will beg Obama to find a tactful way to dismiss Biden and make Hillary VP, but that could do more damage than good for the messiah.

  So what will happen next?  I’m not convinced that she would ever mount a primary challenge against a sitting President, but I can’t rule it out.  If the economy is still in the toilet, a majority of Democrats discover that Obama isn’t the second coming, and a nasty event like a terrorist attack or military blunder has happened, Hillary might just be tempted to give it a go.  A loss in a primary against a sitting President could be her “Reagan moment” and a victory would give the liberals the illusion of a fresh start.  I’m thinking she will probably just lie low, laugh off Presidential type questions, and bide her time until 2016.  Yes, unfortunately she would still be young enough to run.  I have personally met a lot of “Well I voted for Obama, but I would have preferred Hillary” type Democrats.  She still has a base folks.  I don’t like her at all, but I can’t deny she’s still viable.  The Clintons can still raise money and at the end of the day that’s really what matters in politics.

  The Clintons are opportunists and extremely gifted politicians.  They’re not going to sit back and go down with the SS Obama.  The former President and their old cronies will clear the beach and then the wicked witch will exit and start plotting.  As a conservative I kind of like the idea that these two will resume their war and start the bleeding within the liberal ranks.  History has proven that party strife can be devastating to a sitting President.  President George HW Bush faced a conservative backlash from Pat Buchanan and Washington DC dunce and anti-Semite Jimmy Carter faced a liberal backlash when the Massachusetts wino Ted Kennedy took him on.  So for all of you conservatives out there, let’s sit back and laugh when Hillary does the same to Comrade Obama.  If he doesn’t take a break from killing the American economy, emboldening our enemies, and leering at 16 year old girls, he might just let the Clintons sneak up on him.

  I know they aren’t easy to look at, but for now I recommend that all political analysts watch the Clintons.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Most Americans say that President Barack Obama’s struggle to quit smoking doesn’t change their views of him, according to a new national poll.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday also indicates that only a third say that they would like to see Obama give up cigarettes completely.

“Obama has admitted that he still smokes on occasion, but nearly nine in 10 Americans say that doesn’t affect their view of him and only 12 percent think that indicates something negative about Obama himself,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Eighty-five percent believe that shows how hard it is to quit cigarettes.”

Frankly, I don’t really care if Obama smokes either.  He’s a grown up.  He can make his own decisions.  What I’m much more concerned about is Obama and the rest of the liberals worrying about whether or not I smoke.

I don’t smoke, of course.  I never have.  But I don’t think it’s the government’s job to tell me whether I should smoke or not.  Or even attempt to manipulate me one way or the other with taxes and regulations.  Unfortunately, Obama and his fellow Democrats think that sort of nonsense is appropriate.

So as far as I’m concerned, Obama the big fat hypocrite can smoke like a chimney.  Unlike him, I believe in individual freedom.

This money is likely going to be spent on more homeless shelters.  More case workers.  More counselors.  More soup and sandwich meals.  Now, we can perhaps argue about whether or not government spending on these things is really an effective way to diminish homelessness, but can we at least admit that this sort of social spending does very little in the way of actually creating jobs?  Something our economy desperately needs right now?

If anything, it actually makes things worse by creating more government (shelters, case workers, etc.) that the taxpayers in these states must continue to fund going forward.  That puts more strain on already stretched (and in most cases broken) state budgets.

In short, Obama is making things worse.  Not better.

There’s nothing those of you writing on the reader blogs need to do differently.  Just write excellent posts, and if myself or Whistler feel they’re good enough we’ll promote them to the front page.  Any comments existing on the post will come along with it.

If you want to start posting on the reader blog, click here.

For those concerned about stimulus spending, the General Services Administration sends word tonight that $18 million in additional funds are being spent to redesign the Recovery.gov Web site. The new Web site promises to give taxpayers more information about where their money is going than the current version of the site.

$18 million.  To design a website.  As someone who hosts a website of his own (on a shoestring budget, I might add) I know a thing or two about what it costs to keep a site on the internet, and it’s nowhere in the ballpark of $18 million.

The Republican Study Committee actually made some phone calls and asked what a top-of-the-line website design quote would be.  And what they found wasn’t in the ballpark of $18 million either.

While GoDaddy.com offers a deal for premium web-building at $10 a month, it’s understandable that the administration would want the best of the best for American taxpayers. So let’s get a professional quote.
A quick cost estimate from http://www.DesignQuote.net offers us a curious calculation. According to the site, the top-end estimate for a premium web design from a professional firm flush with all the bells and whistles, flash pages, search functions, digital graphics, and 500 pages of content comes in at a whopping….$192,740.
Interesting. That would leave some $17.8 million left for the web team to play with. So what will information-seeking taxpayers get for all the rest of their cash?

That’s a good question.  The RSC thinks maybe they’re going to use the rest to hire Bruce Springsteen to write a song about economic recovery to play on the website.

Regardless, it’s a sad commentary that Obama can’t even manage a website properly.  And he expects us to believe he can manage the economy?

Give me a break.