Election 2016: Huckabee inching closer to 2016 run
Media Watch: US Labor Board Orders CNN to Rehire Fired Workers
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?