David Freddoso reports:
Internet reports are now circulating that Obama’s Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren, penned a 1977 book that approved of and recommended compulsory sterilization and even abortion in some cases, as part of a government population control regime.
Given the general unreliability of Internet quotations, I wanted to go straight to this now-rare text and make sure the reports were both accurate and kept Holdren’s writings in context. Generally speaking, they are, and they do.
The Holdren book, titled Ecoscience and co-authored with Malthus enthusiasts Paul and Anne Ehrlich, weighs in at more than 1,000 pages. Of greatest importance to its discussion of how to limit the human population is its disregard for any ethical considerations.
Holdren (with the Ehrlichs) notes the existence of “moral objections to some proposals…especially to any kind of compulsion.” But his approach is completely amoral. He implies that compulsory population control is less preferable, because of some people’s objections, but he argues repeatedly that it is sometimes necessary, and necessity trumps all ethical objections.
Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. Some involuntary measures could be less repressive or discriminatory, in fact, than some of the socioeconomic measures suggested.
Holdren refers approvingly, for example, to Indira Gandhi’s government for its then-recent attempt at a compulsory sterilization program:
India in the mid-1970s not only entertained the idea of compulsory sterilization, but moved toward implementing it…This decision was greeted with dismay abroad, but Indira Gandhi’s government felt it had little other choice. There is too little time left to experiment further with educational programs and hope that social change will generate a spontaneous fertility decline, and most of the Indian population is too poor for direct economic pressures (especially penalties) to be effective.
Read the whole thing. Better yet, once you’re done reading Freddoso’s article, check out Zombie’s extensive reporting, as that is where this disturbing story first broke.
The radical anti-life-as-a-way-of-saving-the-planet attitude is not a new one. Several months ago I was exposed to this shocking, extremist belief system after getting into a very heated debate online with a fantatical greenie who actually believes that human life is less important than a “rare marsupial” or “Golden Spruces” and who in fact advocated abortion for population control purposes. Scary stuff. In any event, in spite of the fact that this belief is not a new one, I think this is probably the first time in our nation’s history that we’ve had someone who held those views (and, to date, he has not repudiated them) anywhere close to the WH (on second thought – what’s Al Gore’s position on forced sterilization?). What’s worse? He’s a “czar,” which means Holdren didn’t have to answer to any questions from any bipartisan committee, and didn’t have to be confirmed or denied by the Senate.
It’s becoming quite clear that this administration is going the extreme radical route in the science and climate departments with the respective selections of Holdren and his Socialist “climate czar” Carol Browner. In fact, it’s becoming more apparent by the minute that President Obama, for all his talk of “bipartisanship” is saving his most radical choices for the position of “czar” so – in most cases – they don’t have to answer to anyone but him.
In fact, Fox News reported today that yet another czar may be added soon to the Obama’s already overflowing stable of them: A healthcare czar. How radical will this one be? Maybe we have someone who thinks like Pete Singer to look forward to?
Nice to know that someone at the AP is paying attention to the Sotomayor hearings-for-show:
WASHINGTON (AP) – In endorsing Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy did some creative rewriting of history. And he put quote marks around it.
Trying to head off criticism of a controversial comment, Leahy misquoted Sotomayor’s own words in kicking off the second day of her confirmation hearings.
LEAHY SAID: “You said that, quote, you ‘would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions.'”
THE FACTS: If that’s all Sotomayor said, the quote would barely have mattered to opponents of her nomination. The actual quote, delivered in a 2001 speech to law students at the University of California at Berkeley, was: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Leahy’s revision dropped the controversial part of the phrase, the part that has attracted charges of reverse racism.
Sotomayor said her words have been misunderstood. She said she intended to tell students that their experiences would enrich the legal system. But she softened her language Tuesday, say that no ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in judging.
Unfortunately for the AP, they didn’t go far enough in their factchecking. As we talked about last night on BlogTalkRadio, conservative bloggers, chiefly John Hinderaker at Power Line, caught Sotomayor blatantly lying by completely revising the context of the controversial remark. Read John’s full post here in which he quotes Sotomayor’s statement at the hearings this week, versus what she actually said in her speech in 2001 speech about “wise Latinas.”
In a follow-up today, John notes Byron York’s report that Republican aides don’t believe Sotomayor was telling the truth about her wise Latina comments and are “preparing a follow-up today.” Should be interesting. York also talked to Pat Leahy about his misquote of Sotomayor. Predictably, he gave a lame – and not believeable – excuse.
Related: Ed Morrissey writes about Sotomayor’s “so-so reviews so far.”