Know Your Czars: John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar

[rambone]

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar


​

Born 1944
Bachelors from MIT in 1965
PhD from Stanford in 1970
Authored 300+ books and papers


Extensive publications and lectured on global warming.
Wrote books about population control and forced sterilization.
Little regard for humanity or human life.
Strong supporter of abortion and sterilzation.
Favors replacing Capitalism.
Favors strong Government control over personal decisions.
Favors international agencies that all countries surrender sovereignty to.
Certified Eco-Nut

CNSNews.com - Obamas Science Czar Said a Born Baby "Will Ultimately Develop Into a Human Being"

President Obama’s top science adviser said in a book he co-authored in 1973 that a newborn child “will ultimately develop into a human being” if he or she is properly fed and socialized.

From the book, "Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions."

“To a biologist the question of when life begins for a human child is almost meaningless, since life is continuous and has been since it first began on Earth several billion years ago.”

“The precursors of the egg and sperm cells that create the next generation have been present in the parents from the time they were embryos themselves. To most biologists, an embryo (unborn child during the first two or three months of development) or a fetus is no more a complete human being than a blueprint is a building. The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in some respect.”

So you can begin to see this man's disdain for human life. It doesn't matter to him when it begins. And it will "eventually develop into a human being" after a few crucial years of socializing. Wow.

“The third approach to population control is that of involuntary fertility control,” write the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “Several coercive proposals deserve discussion mainly because societies may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means.”

“Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying” the authors state at the end of the subsection. “As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1970s, we may well find them demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”

Aside from being completely unconstitutional, Heir Holdren, it is more than a little unpalatable.

Moonbattery: Obama's Science Czar John Holdren Considered Putting Sterilants in Our Drinking Water

To undermine the balance of powers that guards against tyranny, Comrade Obama has been appointing "Czars" who do not have to answer to Congress. To get an idea of the brand of apparatchik that gets appointed Czar by our Community Activist in Chief, let's review the opinions of the new Science Czar, John Holdren. Below are a few quotations from Ecoscience, which he coauthored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich,


On forced abortions:

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.​

On government confiscation of babies:

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. … 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.​

On targeted involuntary sterilization:

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.​

On mass involuntary sterilization:

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.​

We wouldn't want livestock to be affected while we're snuffing out the human race. What would PETA say?

On 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?​

Don't want to kill your baby? Then you're a racist:

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. … Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all.​

On the ultimate liberal dream — a planetary totalitarian state:

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…​

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.​

On surrendering national sovereignty to the international Gestapo:

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.​

Other progressives brought hell to earth in Germany, Russia, and China. But radical environmentalism has laid the groundwork for nightmarish extremes of totalitarianism undreamt of by Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.

Not extreme enough for you yet?

'Science Czar' John P. Holdren's disturbing beliefs about America, capitalism and humanity

Viewing capitalism as an economic system that is inherently harmful to the natural environment, Holdren and Ehrlich in 1973 called for “a massive campaign … to de-develop the United States” and other Western nations in order to conserve energy and facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries.

“De-development,” they said, “means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” “By de-development,” they elaborated, “we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.”

De-Develop our country? De-Develop our economic system? So, we should topple capitalism and freedom and become a third-world country. Presumably to adopt communism? All in the name of eco-friendliness.

Science Czar Wants Us to be Sued By Trees


Giving "natural objects" — like trees — standing to sue in a court of law would have a "most salubrious" effect on the environment, Holdren wrote the 1970s. "One change in (legal) notions that would have a most salubrious effect on the quality of the environment has been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, 'Should Trees Have Standing?'" Holdren said in a 1977 book that he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich.

"In that tightly reasoned essay, Stone points out the obvious advantages of giving natural objects standing, just as such inanimate objects as corporations, trusts, and ships are now held to have legal rights and duties," Holdren added.

Stone's article John Holdren "Should Trees Have Standing?" John Holdren which Holdren called a "tightly reasoned essay," was published in the Southern California Law Review in 1972. In that article, Stone plainly states: "I am quite seriously proposing that we give legal rights to forests, oceans, rivers and other so-called 'natural objects' in the environment — indeed, to the natural environment as a whole."
Stone admits in the article that it may seem improbable to give legal rights to nonhuman objects, but likened it to finally giving rights to black Americans.

This guy is insane!! You can't tell me Obama knew nothing of his controversial writings. The guy is so extreme I think even average liberals cringe at some of the things he writes.

 

[jim b]

Great Post! Good Information!

This is just the tip of the iceburg with these guys. Most of these Czars aren't just a little on the crazy, they are complete RADICALS!

 

[wtfd661]

1 more turd in the toliet bowl of turds they call Washington DC

 

[Bill of Rights]

In no way do I agree with this nutball, however, I can see part of what he's addressing. Even from the limited context provided, on the subject of, for example, population control/forced abortion/etc., given that the world can only sustain a certain total population and that the same is true on a smaller scale of our country as a portion of that world, we have the choices of actively decreasing our present population, actively limiting it's future growth (attrition), or having insufficient resources to allow for people to provide for themselves (in other words, no matter how hard you work, if there's not enough food for you to buy, your family will not be eating.) The latter would be expected to lead to passive population decrease by starvation and subsequent passive limitation of future growth because people, knowing they themselves are eating on such an infrequent basis, would not wish to subject their children to growing up in hunger. (vs. sterility because of malnutrition)

Given those options and only those options, yes, I can acknowledge that what he was promoting was the least harmful approach in that, even presuming that life begins at conception, those who suffer would not be of an age to be self-aware and realize the fact.

Again, I do not agree with him, but he's said enough other that this point is not needed to discredit him, and to attack a statement out of context is disingenuous, IMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar​

​

Born 1944
Bachelors from MIT in 1965
PhD from Stanford in 1970
Authored 300+ books and papers
Confirmed unanimously (!) by the Senate 3/19/2009

Extensive publications and lectured on global warming.
Wrote books about population control and forced sterilization.
Little regard for humanity or human life.
Strong supporter of abortion and sterilzation.
Favors replacing Capitalism.
Favors strong Government control over personal decisions.
Favors international agencies that all countries surrender sovereignty to.
Certified Eco-Nut


So you can begin to see this man's disdain for human life. It doesn't matter to him when it begins. And it will "eventually develop into a human being" after a few crucial years of socializing. Wow.


Aside from being completely unconstitutional, Heir Holdren, it is more than a little unpalatable.



Not extreme enough for you yet?


De-Develop our country? De-Develop our economic system? So, we should topple capitalism and freedom and become a third-world country. Presumably to adopt communism? All in the name of eco-friendliness.



This guy is insane!! You can't tell me Obama knew nothing of his controversial writings. The guy is so extreme I think even average liberals cringe at some of the things he writes.

 

[Leadeye]

Fits right in there with Cass Sunstien. It's scary how many loons there are in high places.

 

[dwagner3701]

Where do they keep finding these pieces of garbage?

 

[Dryden]

Where do they keep finding these pieces of garbage?

There are huge outposts of them scattered across New York, Boston, New Jersey, and spread all the way out to California. They gather and reproduce in the Ivey League universities. Debate and discussion with them is impossible. Their main reason for living is to force their ideology down everyone's throats. It's working very well, don't you think?

 

[rambone]

How does Obama retain any credibility with anyone?? While he surrounds himself with buffoons like this guy??