Obama's "science czar" is a dangerous man

by intern Andy M.

holdren.jpgIn his weekly address late in December 2008, President Obama announced that he had chosen Dr. John Holdren to be his assistant for Science and Technology, and Dr. Holdren was instated to the position in March.

Unsurprisingly, Obama neglected to make reference to Holdren's extremist views on population control and instead focused on his expertise in relation to "the growing threat of climate change."

FrontPageMag.com sums up the key concerns that many are raising about Holdren...

Holdren is a globalist who has endorsed "surrender of sovereignty" to "a comprehensive Planetary Regime" that would control all the world's resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee the "de-development" of the West, control a World Army and taxation regime, and enforce world population limits.

He has castigated the US as "the meanest of wealthy countries," written a justification of compulsory abortion for American women, advocated drastically lowering the US standard of living, and left the door open to trying global warming "deniers" for crimes against humanity.

Let's take a closer look at this. Obama was the only senator who voted against and spoke against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in the IL State Senate. He is without doubt the most anti-life president in history, so is it any surprise that he should select a science advisor who is known to have extreme pro-abortion views?

In the 1977 book, Ecoscience, which he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, they referred to themselves as "neo-Malthusian" in respect to what they considered to be the population-crisis. Malthusianism derives its name from Thomas Malthus who was a minister in the Church of England and widely decried for his most famous publication, "An Essay on the Principle of Population".

In this work Malthus states, "All the children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons."

So let's summarize. Obama has appointed a man who claimed in 1977 to be a neo-Malthusian - an ideology which embraces the practice of forced infanticide as a necessity to stem population growth.

One recommendation in Ecoscience is a variation of the Chinese one-child policy, where the government would restrict families from having more than two children (p. 838). The authors also recommend that single women with child should be either forced to give up their babies for adoption or forced to be married. Compulsory abortions (such as are currently happening in China) were also advocated in this section of the work. An excerpt reads:

holdrendetail.jpg

Just as disconcerting is Holdren's endorsement of mass-sterilization of women from puberty (p. 786-7):

A program of sterilizing women after their 2nd or 3rd 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.

At his confirmation, Holdren stated that he did not believe that it was the government's job to determine an optimal population, which was essentially an attempt to brush aside the plethora of his previous extremist and alarmist views and statements.

Though he now presents himself as a much more level-headed, reasonable man, Holdren appears to be advocating for a draconian response to population growth - but under the guise of a concern about climate change. It is clear that Holdren is still a dangerous man and it is imperative that those who value the family and the life of the unborn draw attention to his extremist, anti-American views, and call for his removal as the President's science czar.

[Photo/image attributions: zombietime.com]


Comments:

What a surprise...someone Obama appointed is "dangerous." It's almost becoming a cliche on this site isn't it?

Posted by: Kat at July 24, 2009 1:38 PM


Thank you for shedding light on this evil man, Jill. Michelle Malkin also wrote a piece about him here:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/10/the-ghoulish-spirit-of-margaret-sanger-lives/

Posted by: Bethany at July 24, 2009 1:49 PM


this man is not only scary, he's crazy.

The "de-development of the West"?

Well Mr. Holden (no doctor for me!) might be interested to know that Chinese officials are now asking couples in Shanghai to "please" have more children - because guess what, Shanghai is a city of old people!

Of course in Mr. Holden's mind, room for babies will be made by euthanizing old people.

What have American's unleashed on the world?

Posted by: angel at July 24, 2009 1:50 PM


Everyone who is concerned with population crisis is always so willing to kill others- amazingly, none of them want to offer themselves on the altar to provide room for the planet.

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at July 24, 2009 1:55 PM


yes, tis true Bethany. They are all for the death of others.
How did Obama get elected and how does he keep putting all these crazy people into positions of power?
Are the American people completely at the mercy of these nutbars?

Posted by: angel at July 24, 2009 1:58 PM


Are the American people completely at the mercy of these nutbars?

Posted by: angel at July 24, 2009 1:58 PM
------

Only if they keep sucking down the MSM kool-aid.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault Author Profile Page at July 24, 2009 2:11 PM


Sounds like a Male Margaret Sanger... *shudders*

*looks up one way tickets to Malta*........

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at July 24, 2009 2:41 PM


Holdren is a globalist who has endorsed "surrender of sovereignty" to "a comprehensive Planetary Regime" that would control all the world's resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee the "de-development" of the West, control a World Army and taxation regime, and enforce world population limits.

He has castigated the US as "the meanest of wealthy countries," written a justification of compulsory abortion for American women, advocated drastically lowering the US standard of living, and left the door open to trying global warming "deniers" for crimes against humanity.


If that wasn't so scary it would be funny.

Posted by: Kristen at July 24, 2009 4:09 PM


Rasmussen now has PBHO down to a 49% approval rating...

Posted by: bmmg39 at July 24, 2009 4:41 PM


Here is a grand idea.

If mr. holden really believes the earth is already overpopulated, and that these extaneous humans are not just contributing to global warming, but actually causing it, then he should require his own children and grand children to be rendered incapabable of reproduction.

mr. holden might even give some serious consideration to recycling his own biomass immediately. I am sure there is some flora or fauna somewhere that would benefit from some organic fertilizer.

Every additional breath he takes emits more carbon dioxide into the already dangerously overloaded atmosphere.

Maybe mr. holden just hold his breath until he turns blue and passes out. At least that would show that he has at least a minimal sacrificial investment in cleaning up the ecosphere.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at July 24, 2009 7:31 PM


As Lucy from Charles Schultze's 'Peanuts' fame would say,

"Walk on the the sidewalk [mr. Holden], you're wearing down the earth."

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at July 24, 2009 7:35 PM


Bethany & Ken have hit the nail on the head. None of the over-population myth adherents really believe what they spout, but want control over others' destinies. As Kent Hovind has said in response to Ted Turner's statement that we must reduce the Earth's population by 100,000 people daily: "Ok, Ted, you first!"

*sputter* *choke* Oh, you didn't mean wealthy people? Just "populations that we don't want too many of", as Justice Ginsburg so succinctly put it.

If proaborts can ask prolifers, "How many children have you adopted?" in a not-very-clever attempt to question our sincerity, why can't we ask the OPM people why they have families? Why they've not given all for their cause?

Posted by: klynn73 at July 24, 2009 9:06 PM


I find that most of the writing on this blog is so black and white, you are either pro-life or pro-abortion, no in betweens. What favors do we do ourselves by making these labels? We only stamp out solutions. Surely this is a case by case issue. I mean the following comment just baffles me, has this person no regard for reality? What planet is this person from?

"If proaborts can ask prolifers, "How many children have you adopted?" in a not-very-clever attempt to question our sincerity, why can't we ask the OPM people why they have families? Why they've not given all for their cause?"

Pro-aborts don't want any chances of children of growing up unloved and discarded. That is why most pro-aborts have solid families and have probably not practiced abortion themselves. They are concerned for their children's sexual future and the options and menaces that lurk out there.

I've always been interested in finding out what you pro-lifers think about cases of unwanted pregnancy due to rape? Is abortion then OK, what about uneducated teens getting pregnant and dumping their babies on the street or even murdering their babies over stress, or killing themselves or their partners over the "mistake"? What IS prolife exactly when unwanted births can ruin the mothers life, and then what are the consequences that play out on that "unwanted" child?
I'd love to understand your views, but it baffles me and sometimes offends me as to how it seems as though prolife takes no notice of the backgrounds leading to abortions.
My girlfriend had an abortion because the pregnancy was going to kill her due to an anomaly in her womb. It was a choice between her life, or a premature baby that had little chance of survival.
I am glad abortion was an option, and I think Obama speaks for those situations and has considered both options and seen the only logical way.
I also wouldn't believe all the propaganda you hear about Holden. I mean you paint the man as some kind of monster imposing mass genocide on the human race. I think the main point Obama and he wish to convey is that sex education and education in general needs to be improved in order to avoid unwanted early pregnancies. Parents also need more support in their own education and in turn educating their own children. How many unwanted children are out there in the world today, and I mean in OUR country on OUR doorstep? Those poor souls could have been spared before birth and their parents could of had a better chance of getting ahead in life. How many of those unwanted children do you think will truly enjoy life and grow up to be balanced people? Look at the connections, in general unloved people bring misery, violence, suicide and death. We let them be born and discarded only to have them kill others or kill themselves. Is that really pro-life, is that really the will of GOD? That's what I sense this all boils down to, the word of GOD. Well may I tear down your house of cards, the Bible teaches many great things, and the original ten commandments are ones of great valor and merit but the Bible has been manipulated and mis-translated over centuries so the words and laws you stand on are not set in stone and I think such fanatical thinking and stubborn adherence to dogma is what is really causing so many wars.
So if you really are pro-life stand by that, don't get your feelings caught up in religion, indeed don't let your life be led by religion because by doing so you are only fueling more wars. There is no right or wrong, there are only choices, and those choices should be respected with regard to circumstance.

Posted by: devils_advocate at July 25, 2009 10:19 AM


"Pro-aborts don't want any chances of children of growing up unloved and discarded."

Hmm. Well, they take care of that by offing the children before they are born. And btw, there are no guarantees that every child who was conceived on purpose by his parents will somehow grow up feeling loved and secure.

"I've always been interested in finding out what you pro-lifers think about cases of unwanted pregnancy due to rape? Is abortion then OK..."

No, it isn't OK. Abortion is the deliberate taking of a human life. The method of conception has no bearing upon the value of that human life.

"...what about uneducated teens getting pregnant and dumping their babies on the street or even murdering their babies over stress, or killing themselves or their partners over the "mistake"?"

Oh, yes, it's pro-lifers' faults that these girls chose not to place their kids for adoption (having all of their childbirth expenses totally paid for) and made other unwise decisions in their lives. I guess everyone who commits suicide or murder can blame it on someone else?

What IS pro-life exactly when unwanted births can ruin the mothers life, and then what are the consequences that play out on that "unwanted" child?

Was the mother thinking of the consequence when she decided to have sex without birth control, or whatever the case may have been? You completely exempt the mother from responsibility, and that is the problem here. They've been fed the lie that there are some actions in this life (i.e. sex) which can be consequence-free. Nothing is consequence-free. And the child is "wanted" by someone. 1.5 million waiting to adopt every year in this country.

My girlfriend had an abortion because the pregnancy was going to kill her due to an anomaly in her womb. It was a choice between her life, or a premature baby that had little chance of survival.
I am glad abortion was an option, and I think Obama speaks for those situations and has considered both options and seen the only logical way.

If indeed it is as you say, and your girlfriend's life was in immediate danger, a hospital would have done the procedure to save her life. Case closed. Things such as tubal pregnancies, etc, in which both mother and child's life are in immediate danger are NOT the same as elective abortion and do not require trips to an abortion mill to accomplish.

BTW, it's interesting that you think all pro-life people are pro-life because of "God" and "religion." This is false, and we have commenters on this blog who can testify to that fact. It's also a little nuts the way you jumped around from the murder of innocent children in the womb by their mothers to religion, to war... sounds like you've got some issues, but I have to tell you that pro-lifers are not the cause of your issues.

And it seems you believe you are "right" when you say "there is no right or wrong." Right? ;)

Posted by: Kel at July 25, 2009 1:51 PM


Well said, Kel.

Posted by: Bethany at July 25, 2009 3:50 PM


"Advocate," many people are pro-life simply because they oppose the killing of human beings, not for any religious reason.

Posted by: bmmg39 at July 25, 2009 5:52 PM


Points taken with gratitude, but we seem to skirt around the issue of education here. There are many cases where teen pregnancies are due to lack of education not only from schooling systems but also from their own parents. And is 1.5 million people are up for adoption why do we still have so many unwanted? Maybe that does not outweigh the number of "mistakes".

Maybe we are a blessed few who have an education and have enough parental support to be responsible and know how to give love. My point is it is not an issue of abortion or not, it is an issue of avoiding unwanted pregnancies, which boils down to education.

BTW. I am glad to hear that this is not an entirely religious issue for all:)

This is most interesting to me, and yes I do have issues because of experience in the past, but those of course are not personal issues with any of you. Thanks for answering some of my questions.


Posted by: devils_advocate at July 25, 2009 7:17 PM


And is 1.5 million people are up for adoption why do we still have so many unwanted? Maybe that does not outweigh the number of "mistakes".

I have a question of my own: what gives us value - the fact that we are "wanted" by someone, or the fact that we are human? I personally do not base my own intrinsic value upon the perceptions of what others think, say, or feel about me. I have value because I am. I feel it should be no different with preborn human beings.

We can agree that more education is needed to prevent unplanned pregnancies. There are varying ways to go about this. More education is also needed in the way of human development. The abortion industry thrives on human ignorance of the facts, and preys upon women and girls by promising an "easy way out." However, for many, nothing about it is easy. They continue down the same self-destructive roads they've traveled, never changing, never growing, never learning. How is that "reproductive freedom?" To me, it seems more like bondage...an endless downward spiral.

Maybe we are a blessed few who have an education and have enough parental support to be responsible and know how to give love.

Where there is little education or parental support, there are pro-life pregnancy resource centers. They offer everything for free: parenting classes, clothing and diapers, counseling and support, and connections to other helpful resources in the community which help families in need. Learning how to love and be a good parent rarely comes easy, and we all need support. Women are not helpless; they are not victims. They are strong, and they are capable, and they need someone to believe in their abilities to parent their own children and to empower them to do so.

Posted by: Kel at July 25, 2009 9:43 PM


Any parents who say that their child is an "unwanted" child reveal much more about themselves than they do the child.

Posted by: bmmg39 at July 26, 2009 10:46 AM


Posted by: devils_advocate at July 25, 2009 10:19 AM

----------------------------------------------------

Dear mr/mrs/ms 'advocate',

Are you just a 'poser', are you just 'playing', or are you the real deal?

I hope you are just a pro-lifer illustrating absurdity with hyper-absurdity.

I shudder to think that any human being can be so devoid of intellect and compasssion.

If are legititmately a spokesweasel for the bent one, then your parents have my deepest sympathies.

I am praying and believing that you will hear the 'pop' soon and regain congtrol of your mental faculties.

The 'horns and forked tale' are just a disguise.

satan is an abhorent, pathetic creature, who rejected goodness and embraced wickedness, hated the truth and loved the lie, shunned the light and choice darkness which resulted in his/her/it's hideous appearance.

You should compare some before and now pictures of your 'self'. You will see what I mean.

This 'misery' embodied loves your your company, but hates you at the same time because you are the only way he/she/it can grieve the ONE who created abd loves you.

There is veil covering your understanding that only HIS love can lift.

HE is so confident in HIS ability to restore and heal that HE is willing to let you go your own way even if it means a lot of pain and discomfort to you and the ones who love you.

It really pisses your chosen sadistic friend off to know that GOD loves you, but GOD really does not care one way the other about how your cruel companion thinks or feels.

Your heavenly FATHER just loves you because HE chooses to do so.

So go ahead, knock yourself out, both figuratively and literally, when you come to your senses (after you have heard the 'pop'), then HE will begin to make everything right.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at July 26, 2009 5:34 PM


Posted by: devils_advocate at July 25, 2009 10:19 AM

"I also wouldn't believe all the propaganda you hear about Holden. I mean you paint the man as some kind of monster imposing mass genocide on the human race."

------------------------------------------------------

genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

'Genocide' is not an accurate term to describe mr. Holden's self prosessed preferences about 'population contro.

If mr. Holden said or wrote something and we quote him accurately and in context then that is not propaganda, that is 'truth'.

But being the 'devil's advocate' then you are, by definition, not interested in truth and may even be incapable of recognizing it when it confronts you.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at July 26, 2009 5:45 PM


DA July 25, 2009 10:19 AM

If you're going to respond to something, you might take care to read the entire post, and those that came before for something called context. I assume that if you read the third paragraph of my 9:06 p.m. post on the 24th, you'd read the first. OPM means OVER POPULATION MYTH. I was not referencing proaborts, though many grasp feebly at the myth to justify murdering millions of innocents. And every prolifer on here who's every put the walk to the talk has had the adoption accusation leveled at them. Go ahead, scroll up and try it one more time.

As far as your rape question, let me pose another to you: if your father commits a violent crime, are you punished for it? Dismembered, even? Many women who have experienced both rape and abortion find them startingly similar, because they are. Violence + violence ≠ peace. An abortion does not unrape the mother.

What about her well-being? A nine-year study* on pregnancy outcomes of sexual assault victims found that abortion, already associated with substantially increased risks of depression, suicidal thoughts, eating disorders and other self-destructive behaviors, was further amplified with rape and incest victims. If one's concern is for the mother's immediate and long-term well-being, abortion is clearly contraindicated in these cases.

One rape victim named Pat, in The Hard Cases of Abortion (Family Research Council, 2000), said her choice to abort an innocent child lowered her to the level of the rapist, and that the consequences of the abortion were much more far-reaching in her life than that of the rape.

*see afterabortion orgReardon, Makimaa and Sobie. Victims and Victors, 2000

Posted by: klynn73 at July 26, 2009 9:45 PM


*every = ever

Posted by: klynn73 at July 26, 2009 9:47 PM


klynn73, We are killing 100,000 people every day. More than 100,000. 120,000 people in fact.

Posted by: Andy Moore at July 27, 2009 7:14 AM


Andy, I know. The figure I've seen for abortions worldwide is 115,000 daily. One thing I always detest about abortion statistics is that what is rounded are human lives, and every one matters. I guess that is true for every holocaust, only God knows exactly. But the Ted Turner proposal (Jaques Cousteau was another who believed this) focuses on reducing much further. The Georgia Guidestones monument proposes a world population cap at 500,000,000. Learn what other "philanthropists" embrace such a distorted world view by searching 'Hal Lindsey billionaires' on youtube.

Posted by: klynn73 at July 27, 2009 1:41 PM


I'd bet Jacques Cousteau would not be in favor of selective reduction of sea animals. Why are humans different?

Posted by: Janet at July 27, 2009 2:31 PM


It's a case of worshipping creation instead of Creator. Viewing humans as polluters and destroyers of Mother Earth is politically correct these days. A staff member at the abortuary picking up some litter scolded us sidewalk counselors, "If you're going to be out here, you could at least pick up some garbage," before going in to spend her day helping kill babies. She no doubt thinks she is helping by reducing the carbon footprint all those potential polluters would leave.

Posted by: klynn73 at July 27, 2009 3:24 PM


Janet, in most cases animal species don't face accusations of overpopulation, probably because they aren't amazingly successful at improving their own lifespans, like humans have been -- so someone like Cousteau would probably see no reason to selectively reduce a given population. When a species is considered overpopulated (ie deer in some areas), all but the wackiest PETA-type people generally support reducing the population. NYC recently gassed a couple thousand geese, and not too many people had a problem with it, though it did make a lot of people sad on an emotional level.

Of course, humans are not the same as animals.

Posted by: Alexandra at July 27, 2009 8:22 PM


From Popular Science:

"A lot of the problems are occurring in urban areas, but people don't necessarily want the animals shot, so we're trying to be responsive to those kinds of issues," said Dr. Kathleen Fagerstone, research program manager at the National Wildlife Research Center in Fort Collins, Colo., where the contraception programs were developed.

A once-a-day birth control pill is now available for geese and pigeons, and wildlife researchers just submitted an application with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to market a one-time injectable immunocontraceptive for white-tailed deer.

Now, if that isn't ridiculous, I don't know what is. I know more than a few people (myself included) who would be more than happy to relieve these people of their problem food source. But no, instead of say...teaching the homeless or hungry to hunt and licensing them so they can feed themselves or just hunting the food (because that's what deer and other such animals are: food for other animals) and giving it directly to soup kitchens...they inject the poor creatures with artificial birth control with no inkling of the side effects or environmental ramifications of doing so. And all just to spare the feelings of a few pretentious townies.

Posted by: xalisae at July 28, 2009 11:25 AM


xalisae,
I couldn't agree more. Wild horses are so rampant in the West that our tax dollars are being spent to keep them "penned in" little horse hotels. It's not kosher in our culture to eat horsemeat but it is certainly done in other parts of the world, so why not export it? The same libs who want to save the horses are complaining that we have a food shortage in the world that must be solved by Lord knows what horrible means.... (abortion is one).
Makes no sense to me at all.

Posted by: Janet at July 28, 2009 1:56 PM