Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on July 21, 2009, 04:12:10 PM
-
:o
Obama's Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions
John Holdren, director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, considered compulsory abortions and other Draconian measures to shrink the human population in a 1977 science textbook.
By Joseph Abrams
FOXNews.com
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
President Obama's "science czar," Paul Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, "compulsory sterilization," and the creation of a "Planetary Regime" that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet --controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings.
Holdren, who has degrees from MIT and Stanford and headed a science policy program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government for the past 13 years, won the unanimous approval of the Senate as the president's chief science adviser.
He was confirmed with little fanfare on March 19 as director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, a 50-person directorate that advises the president on scientific affairs, focusing on energy independence and global warming.
But many of Holdren's radical ideas on population control were not brought up at his confirmation hearings; it appears that the senators who scrutinized him had no knowledge of the contents of a textbook he co-authored in 1977, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," a copy of which was obtained by FOXNews.com.
The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe.
The three authors summarize their guiding principle in a single sentence: "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people."
As first reported by FrontPage Magazine, Holdren and his co-authors spend a portion of the book discussing possible government programs that could be used to lower birth rates.
Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile.
To help achieve those goals, they formulate a "world government scheme" they call the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world's resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an "armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force" to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty.
Holdren's office issued a statement to FOXNews.com denying that the ecologist has ever backed any of the measures discussed in his book, and suggested reading more recent works authored solely by Holdren for a view to his beliefs.
"Dr. Holdren has stated flatly that he does not now support and has never supported compulsory abortions, compulsory sterilization, or other coercive approaches to limiting population growth," the statement said.
"Straining to conclude otherwise from passages treating controversies of the day in a three-author, 30-year-old textbook is a mistake."
But the textbook itself appears to contradict that claim.
Holdren and the Ehrlichs offer ideas for "coercive," "involuntary fertility control," including "a program of sterilizing women after their second or third child," which doctors would be expected to do right after a woman gives birth.
"Unfortunately," they write, "such a program therefore is not practical for most less developed countries," where doctors are not often present when a woman is in labor.
While Holdren and his co-authors don't openly endorse such measures on other topics, in this case they announce their disappointment -- "unfortunately" -- that women in the third world cannot be sterilized against their will, a procedure the International Criminal Court considers a crime against humanity.
Click here to see the passage on sterilizing women | Click here for the full section on "Involuntary Fertility Control"
"It's very problematic that he said these things," said Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Lieberman faulted Holdren for using government as a solution to every problem and advocating heavy-handed and invasive laws.
But other members of the scientific community said accusations against Holdren are wholly misplaced.
"John Holdren has been one of the most well-respected and prominent scientific voices urging the federal government to address global warming," wrote Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement.
Holdren's co-authors, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, said in a statement that they were "shocked at the serious mischaracterization of our views and those of John Holdren," caused by what they called misreadings of the book.
"We were not then, never have been, and are not now 'advocates' of the Draconian measures for population limitation described -- but not recommended" in the book, they wrote.
Still, William Yeatman, an energy policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, faulted the Senate for not screening Holdren more strenuously during his hearings before confirming his nomination by unanimous consent both in committee and in the full Senate.
Despite "the litany of apocalyptic warnings that turned out to be incorrect, no one was willing to stick his neck out" and vote no, Yeatman said.
Some of Holdren's views on population came under fire during the otherwise quiet confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, where Sen. David Vitter, R-La., asked him to revisit his past statements about environmental catastrophes that have never come to pass.
"I was and continue to be very critical of Dr. Holdren's positions -- specifically his countless doomsday science publications and predictions that have been near universally wrong," Vitter told FOXNews.com.
"I wish that the Commerce Committee had taken more time to evaluate his record during his nomination hearing, but like with everything else in this new Washington environment, the Democratic majority and the White House were pushing to speed his nomination along," Vitter said.
Vitter grilled Holdren during the hearing, asking him to clear up his 1986 prediction that global warming was going to kill about 1 billion people by 2020.
"You would still say," Vitter asked, "that 1 billion people lost by 2020 is still a possibility?"
"It is a possibility, and one we should work energetically to avoid," Holdren replied.
Sen. John Kerry, a leading Democrat on the committee, said the renewed scrutiny was essentially a Republican smear on Holdren's good record. Kerry told FOXNews.com that senators already had "ample opportunity" to question Holdren, who "made clear that he does not and never has supported coercive approaches, end of story.
"The Commerce Committee and the Senate then unanimously concluded what I have long known -- that John Holdren is a leading voice in the scientific community and we are fortunate to have him lead the fight to restore the foundation of science to government and policymaking that has been lacking for almost a decade."
Holdren has confronted a number of challenges during his four-decade scientific career, including nuclear arms reduction, and was part of a group that shared the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to diminish the part played by nuclear arms in international politics," as the Nobel Committee said.
Now his greatest focus is global warming, which he said in a recent interview poses a threat akin to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."
Holdren told the Associated Press in April that the U.S. will consider all options to veer away from that cliff, including an experimental scheme to shoot pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays and cool the earth, a last resort he hoped could be averted.
"Dr. Holdren is working day and night for the Obama Administration and the American people, helping to develop science and technology policies to make the country stronger, more secure, and more energy independent, and to make Americans healthier and better educated," his office told FOXNews.com.
Four months after Holdren's confirmation, his critics are keeping a wary eye on his work in the White House, where they assert that he has the president's ear on scientific issues.
"It is interesting that this 30-year-old book is finally coming to light," said Lieberman, of the Heritage Foundation.
"The people who are concerned about Holdren, quite frankly we didn't do enough homework."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obamas-science-czar-considered-forced-abortions-sterilization-population-growth/
-
bump for insanity
-
Holdren told the Associated Press in April that the U.S. will consider all options to veer away from that cliff, including an experimental scheme to shoot pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays and cool the earth, a last resort he hoped could be averted.
oh shit that's this guy?
-
who cares
one passages out of 1000 pages, written 33 years ago and the collective work of 3 people.
unless he's supported this on his own and recently I couldn't give less of a shit
-
bump for insanity
Absolute insanity. Judge Obama by the company he keeps. :-\
-
who cares
one passages out of 1000 pages, written 33 years ago and the collective work of 3 people.
unless he's supported this on his own and recently I couldn't give less of a shit
one passage?
which one of these do you dismiss in addition to his assertion that live babies are not considered human beings until after proper socialization and nutrition?
• 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
-
one passage?
which one of these do you dismiss in addition to his assertion that live babies are not considered human beings until after proper socialization and nutrition?
• 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
feel free to be outraged if you'd like
personally I don't care.
Holdren's office issued a statement to FOXNews.com denying that the ecologist has ever backed any of the measures discussed in his book, and suggested reading more recent works authored solely by Holdren for a view to his beliefs.
-
feel free to be outraged if you'd like
personally I don't care.
everyone's entitled to their opinion.
what do you think of the guy that wants rats to be able to be plantiffs in lawsuits?
-
everyone's entitled to their opinion.
what do you think of the guy that wants rats to be able to be plantiffs in lawsuits?
who wants that?
-
who wants that?
Cass Sunstein, regulatory czar and Harvard law professor, believes that animals should have the right to legal representation. If you try to get rid of rats in your home, a 'concerned citizen' could bring a lawsuit, with the rat as the plaintiff, to sue you for endangering a species. He also believes that if bloggers post something that turns out to be false, they should be prosecuted. In short, Sunstein is a Leftwing moonbat with Fascist leanings. Remember, Obama said to judge him by the people around him.
[
-
If think if animals need protection then humans can make laws to protect them.
I'd be fine with having bloggers held accountable for lies (not for opinions but for intentional factual errors that are not retracted when proven false)
-
Forced sterilization is a fantastic idea if applied to the areas that need it.
How can any of you be opposed to slowing down the breeding of 'people who contribute to social deterioration'?
-
Forced sterilization is a fantastic idea if applied to the areas that need it.
How can any of you be opposed to slowing down the breeding of 'people who contribute to social deterioration'?
believe me i understand your point
but problems come with who are the ones that decide who gets sterilized and are in control of the program
-
believe me i understand your point
but problems come with who are the ones that decide who gets sterilized and are in control of the program
you understand his point?
If only we could resolve that pesky problem of who gets to decide who get's sterilized and who get's to run the program?
-
you understand his point?
If only we could resolve that pesky problem of who gets to decide who get's sterilized and who get's to run the program?
of course i understand what he is saying he is obviously joking. most of you people have no sense of humor on this board
something like that should never be implemented - but you seem like you do care, don't you ;)
-
of course i understand what he is saying he is obviously joking. most of you people have no sense of humor on this board
something like that should never be implemented - but you seem like you do care, don't you ;)
hard to tell who's joking on this board
glad to hear you're both just joking with each other
-
hard to tell who's joking on this board
glad to hear you're both just joking with each other
and i'm glad to hear you really do care
it is hard to tell who's joking or being sarcastic on this board. you have to read it for a few months to realize who's doing what
-
and i'm glad to hear you really do care
it is hard to tell who's joking or being sarcastic on this board. you have to read it for a few months to realize who's doing what
you're suprised to find I'm not in favor of forced abortions and sterilization?
-
you're suprised to find I'm not in favor of forced abortions and sterilization?
feel free to be outraged if you'd like
personally I don't care.
i'm confused.
do you care or do you not care?
-
This guy is next...I hope his bags are packed. If Beck and others force enough of these douchbags to go..the czar thing will go away as currently set up.
-
i'm confused.
do you care or do you not care?
what do you think?
you just included my quote from from a previous post
did you read the quote from Holdren that immediately followed it?
I don't believe he his in favor of forced abortions etc...
-
what do you think?
you just included my quote from from a previous post
did you read the quote from Holdren that immediately followed it?
I don't believe he his in favor of forced abortions etc...
i see, so you think he's changed his views. i hope so because his book makes him come across as a complete nut.
do you know if he now believes that an infant is a human being or does he still believe it may take a year or so of life *acceptable to him* before that determination can be made?
-
i see, so you think he's changed his views. i hope so because his book makes him come across as a complete nut.
do you know if he now believes that an infant is a human being or does he still believe it may take a year or so of life *acceptable to him* before that determination can be made?
what did you think about the rest of the book?
I assume you're read it all or at least part before saying a few lines out of a 1000 page book written by 3 three people ( I wonder if they all held one pen at the same time) makes him a complete nut
-
Hugo - what are your thoughts on this Czar?
-
what did you think about the rest of the book?
I assume you're read it all or at least part before saying a few lines out of a 1000 page book written by 3 three people ( I wonder if they all held one pen at the same time) makes him a complete nut
no i've only read excerpts of it. the excerpts from his book that his name is on as an author. and so his book makes him come across as a nut.
even if the rest of the text was only 'all work and no play makes jack a dull boy' these excerpts from his book on which he has placed his name as author make him look like a nut.
did you see the thread hugo just bumped? even more juicy stuff for you to read about this guy.
do you know if he now believes that an infant is a human being or does he still believe it may take a year or so of life *acceptable to him* before that determination can be made?
-
no i've only read excerpts of it. the excerpts from his book that his name is on as an author. and so his book makes him come across as a nut.
even if the rest of the text was only 'all work and no play makes jack a dull boy' these excerpts from his book on which he has placed his name as author make him look like a nut.
did you see the thread hugo just bumped? even more juicy stuff for you to read about this guy.
do you know if he now believes that an infant is a human being or does he still believe it may take a year or so of life *acceptable to him* before that determination can be made?
yeah - I've read excerpts from the bible too but I have feeling Christians (not referring to you) would say I'm taking things out of context or misinterpretting them too.
You've got to admit for a guy who is supposed to be in favor of forced sterilzations and abortions it's pretty strange that he concerned about mass human death by global warming.
Vitter grilled Holdren during the hearing, asking him to clear up his 1986 prediction that global warming was going to kill about 1 billion people by 2020.
"You would still say," Vitter asked, "that 1 billion people lost by 2020 is still a possibility?"
"It is a possibility, and one we should work energetically to avoid," Holdren replied.
-
:o
Obama's Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions
John Holdren, director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, considered compulsory abortions and other Draconian measures to shrink the human population in a 1977 science textbook.
By Joseph Abrams
FOXNews.com
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
President Obama's "science czar," Paul Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, "compulsory sterilization," and the creation of a "Planetary Regime" that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet --controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings.
Holdren, who has degrees from MIT and Stanford and headed a science policy program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government for the past 13 years, won the unanimous approval of the Senate as the president's chief science adviser.
He was confirmed with little fanfare on March 19 as director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, a 50-person directorate that advises the president on scientific affairs, focusing on energy independence and global warming.
But many of Holdren's radical ideas on population control were not brought up at his confirmation hearings; it appears that the senators who scrutinized him had no knowledge of the contents of a textbook he co-authored in 1977, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," a copy of which was obtained by FOXNews.com.
The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe.
The three authors summarize their guiding principle in a single sentence: "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people."
As first reported by FrontPage Magazine, Holdren and his co-authors spend a portion of the book discussing possible government programs that could be used to lower birth rates.
Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile.
To help achieve those goals, they formulate a "world government scheme" they call the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world's resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an "armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force" to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty.
Holdren's office issued a statement to FOXNews.com denying that the ecologist has ever backed any of the measures discussed in his book, and suggested reading more recent works authored solely by Holdren for a view to his beliefs.
"Dr. Holdren has stated flatly that he does not now support and has never supported compulsory abortions, compulsory sterilization, or other coercive approaches to limiting population growth," the statement said.
"Straining to conclude otherwise from passages treating controversies of the day in a three-author, 30-year-old textbook is a mistake."
But the textbook itself appears to contradict that claim.
Holdren and the Ehrlichs offer ideas for "coercive," "involuntary fertility control," including "a program of sterilizing women after their second or third child," which doctors would be expected to do right after a woman gives birth.
"Unfortunately," they write, "such a program therefore is not practical for most less developed countries," where doctors are not often present when a woman is in labor.
While Holdren and his co-authors don't openly endorse such measures on other topics, in this case they announce their disappointment -- "unfortunately" -- that women in the third world cannot be sterilized against their will, a procedure the International Criminal Court considers a crime against humanity.
Click here to see the passage on sterilizing women | Click here for the full section on "Involuntary Fertility Control"
"It's very problematic that he said these things," said Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Lieberman faulted Holdren for using government as a solution to every problem and advocating heavy-handed and invasive laws.
But other members of the scientific community said accusations against Holdren are wholly misplaced.
"John Holdren has been one of the most well-respected and prominent scientific voices urging the federal government to address global warming," wrote Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement.
Holdren's co-authors, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, said in a statement that they were "shocked at the serious mischaracterization of our views and those of John Holdren," caused by what they called misreadings of the book.
"We were not then, never have been, and are not now 'advocates' of the Draconian measures for population limitation described -- but not recommended" in the book, they wrote.
Still, William Yeatman, an energy policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, faulted the Senate for not screening Holdren more strenuously during his hearings before confirming his nomination by unanimous consent both in committee and in the full Senate.
Despite "the litany of apocalyptic warnings that turned out to be incorrect, no one was willing to stick his neck out" and vote no, Yeatman said.
Some of Holdren's views on population came under fire during the otherwise quiet confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, where Sen. David Vitter, R-La., asked him to revisit his past statements about environmental catastrophes that have never come to pass.
"I was and continue to be very critical of Dr. Holdren's positions -- specifically his countless doomsday science publications and predictions that have been near universally wrong," Vitter told FOXNews.com.
"I wish that the Commerce Committee had taken more time to evaluate his record during his nomination hearing, but like with everything else in this new Washington environment, the Democratic majority and the White House were pushing to speed his nomination along," Vitter said.
Vitter grilled Holdren during the hearing, asking him to clear up his 1986 prediction that global warming was going to kill about 1 billion people by 2020.
"You would still say," Vitter asked, "that 1 billion people lost by 2020 is still a possibility?"
"It is a possibility, and one we should work energetically to avoid," Holdren replied.
Sen. John Kerry, a leading Democrat on the committee, said the renewed scrutiny was essentially a Republican smear on Holdren's good record. Kerry told FOXNews.com that senators already had "ample opportunity" to question Holdren, who "made clear that he does not and never has supported coercive approaches, end of story.
"The Commerce Committee and the Senate then unanimously concluded what I have long known -- that John Holdren is a leading voice in the scientific community and we are fortunate to have him lead the fight to restore the foundation of science to government and policymaking that has been lacking for almost a decade."
Holdren has confronted a number of challenges during his four-decade scientific career, including nuclear arms reduction, and was part of a group that shared the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to diminish the part played by nuclear arms in international politics," as the Nobel Committee said.
Now his greatest focus is global warming, which he said in a recent interview poses a threat akin to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."
Holdren told the Associated Press in April that the U.S. will consider all options to veer away from that cliff, including an experimental scheme to shoot pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays and cool the earth, a last resort he hoped could be averted.
"Dr. Holdren is working day and night for the Obama Administration and the American people, helping to develop science and technology policies to make the country stronger, more secure, and more energy independent, and to make Americans healthier and better educated," his office told FOXNews.com.
Four months after Holdren's confirmation, his critics are keeping a wary eye on his work in the White House, where they assert that he has the president's ear on scientific issues.
"It is interesting that this 30-year-old book is finally coming to light," said Lieberman, of the Heritage Foundation.
"The people who are concerned about Holdren, quite frankly we didn't do enough homework."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obamas-science-czar-considered-forced-abortions-sterilization-population-growth/
Death panels,,,,,,forced abortions,,,,,,sterlization,,,,,socialization,,,,,,,elderly euthenasia.
Whats next,,,,,,,brain transplants?
-
yeah - I've read excerpts from the bible too but I have feeling Christians (not referring to you) would say I'm taking things out of context or misinterpretting them too.
i see your point here but i think the excerpts are in context - i could be mistaken though - but that shit hugo posted seems to cover ideas with suggestions. bizzarre shit.
You've got to admit for a guy who is supposed to be in favor of forced sterilzations and abortions it's pretty strange that he concerned about mass human death by global warming.
yeah you're right, that is strange. llooks like for the most part he wants to control the population before it starts - at least in his point of view as when life starts or should end.
-
i see your point here but i think the excerpts are in context - i could be mistaken though - but that shit hugo posted seems to cover ideas with suggestions. bizzarre shit.
yeah you're right, that is strange. llooks like for the most part he wants to control the population before it starts - at least in his point of view as when life starts or should end.
Its hysterical that ever obama friend / appointee / czar / cabinet pick, etc always has to worry about "being taken out of context" for insane crap they advocate.
-
Death panels,,,,,,forced abortions,,,,,,sterilization,,,,,socialization,,,,,,,elderly euthanasia.
Whats next,,,,,,,brain transplants?
Barry plans to kill off all Americans,,,,,,,,,,,, then implement his healthcare scheme.
-
Barry plans to kill off all Americans,,,,,,,,,,,, then implement his healthcare scheme.
You have it backwards.
Barry wants to implement his health care plan in order to kill off all americans. ;D
-
You have it backwards.
Barry wants to implement his health care plan in order to kill off all americans. ;D
don't you think he probably just wants to kill those who aren't going to vote for him next time around
what politician would want to kill his own supporters?
You seem to see things more clearly than the rest of us
How do you think Obama will manage to kill his enemies and not his supporters?
-
The youth vote, black and hispanic vote is what got barry in there.
-
The youth vote, black and hispanic vote is what got barry in there.
White suburbia put Barry over the top. >:(
-
White suburbia put Barry over the top. >:(
Soccer Sluts, their whore daughters, and metrosexual fag husbands favored barry..
-
The youth vote, black and hispanic vote is what got barry in there.
really, so he's going to kill the white, middle class, non-youths who voted for him?
OMG - thanks for warning me!
-
Soccer Sluts, their whore daughters, and metrosexual fag husbands favored barry..
it's always fun when you take off the mask and show your real face
just wondering where do people like Colin Powell and Chris Buckley and other former consevative Republicans fit in
-
it's always fun when you take off the mask and show your real face
just wondering where do people like Colin Powell and Chris Buckley and other former consevative Republicans fit in
Please jackass, I live in westchester county, NY and know these types all too well. Liberal whites are worst lot of the bunch.
-
Please jackass, I live in westchester county, NY and know these types all too well. Liberal whites are worst lot of the bunch.
do tell us more
besides soccer sluts, their whore daughters (when did kids get to vote again?), metro sexual fags, the youth, hispanics and latinos......who else voted for Obama. How about all the older people who voted for him. What's your derogatory category for them?
-
:o
Obama's Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions
John Holdren, director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, considered compulsory abortions and other Draconian measures to shrink the human population in a 1977 science textbook.
By Joseph Abrams
FOXNews.com
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
President Obama's "science czar," Paul Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, "compulsory sterilization," and the creation of a "Planetary Regime" that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet --controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings.
Holdren, who has degrees from MIT and Stanford and headed a science policy program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government for the past 13 years, won the unanimous approval of the Senate as the president's chief science adviser.
He was confirmed with little fanfare on March 19 as director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, a 50-person directorate that advises the president on scientific affairs, focusing on energy independence and global warming.
But many of Holdren's radical ideas on population control were not brought up at his confirmation hearings; it appears that the senators who scrutinized him had no knowledge of the contents of a textbook he co-authored in 1977, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," a copy of which was obtained by FOXNews.com.
The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe.
The three authors summarize their guiding principle in a single sentence: "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people."
As first reported by FrontPage Magazine, Holdren and his co-authors spend a portion of the book discussing possible government programs that could be used to lower birth rates.
Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile.
To help achieve those goals, they formulate a "world government scheme" they call the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world's resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an "armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force" to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty.
Holdren's office issued a statement to FOXNews.com denying that the ecologist has ever backed any of the measures discussed in his book, and suggested reading more recent works authored solely by Holdren for a view to his beliefs.
"Dr. Holdren has stated flatly that he does not now support and has never supported compulsory abortions, compulsory sterilization, or other coercive approaches to limiting population growth," the statement said.
"Straining to conclude otherwise from passages treating controversies of the day in a three-author, 30-year-old textbook is a mistake."
But the textbook itself appears to contradict that claim.
Holdren and the Ehrlichs offer ideas for "coercive," "involuntary fertility control," including "a program of sterilizing women after their second or third child," which doctors would be expected to do right after a woman gives birth.
"Unfortunately," they write, "such a program therefore is not practical for most less developed countries," where doctors are not often present when a woman is in labor.
While Holdren and his co-authors don't openly endorse such measures on other topics, in this case they announce their disappointment -- "unfortunately" -- that women in the third world cannot be sterilized against their will, a procedure the International Criminal Court considers a crime against humanity.
Click here to see the passage on sterilizing women | Click here for the full section on "Involuntary Fertility Control"
"It's very problematic that he said these things," said Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Lieberman faulted Holdren for using government as a solution to every problem and advocating heavy-handed and invasive laws.
But other members of the scientific community said accusations against Holdren are wholly misplaced.
"John Holdren has been one of the most well-respected and prominent scientific voices urging the federal government to address global warming," wrote Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement.
Holdren's co-authors, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, said in a statement that they were "shocked at the serious mischaracterization of our views and those of John Holdren," caused by what they called misreadings of the book.
"We were not then, never have been, and are not now 'advocates' of the Draconian measures for population limitation described -- but not recommended" in the book, they wrote.
Still, William Yeatman, an energy policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, faulted the Senate for not screening Holdren more strenuously during his hearings before confirming his nomination by unanimous consent both in committee and in the full Senate.
Despite "the litany of apocalyptic warnings that turned out to be incorrect, no one was willing to stick his neck out" and vote no, Yeatman said.
Some of Holdren's views on population came under fire during the otherwise quiet confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, where Sen. David Vitter, R-La., asked him to revisit his past statements about environmental catastrophes that have never come to pass.
"I was and continue to be very critical of Dr. Holdren's positions -- specifically his countless doomsday science publications and predictions that have been near universally wrong," Vitter told FOXNews.com.
"I wish that the Commerce Committee had taken more time to evaluate his record during his nomination hearing, but like with everything else in this new Washington environment, the Democratic majority and the White House were pushing to speed his nomination along," Vitter said.
Vitter grilled Holdren during the hearing, asking him to clear up his 1986 prediction that global warming was going to kill about 1 billion people by 2020.
"You would still say," Vitter asked, "that 1 billion people lost by 2020 is still a possibility?"
"It is a possibility, and one we should work energetically to avoid," Holdren replied.
Sen. John Kerry, a leading Democrat on the committee, said the renewed scrutiny was essentially a Republican smear on Holdren's good record. Kerry told FOXNews.com that senators already had "ample opportunity" to question Holdren, who "made clear that he does not and never has supported coercive approaches, end of story.
"The Commerce Committee and the Senate then unanimously concluded what I have long known -- that John Holdren is a leading voice in the scientific community and we are fortunate to have him lead the fight to restore the foundation of science to government and policymaking that has been lacking for almost a decade."
Holdren has confronted a number of challenges during his four-decade scientific career, including nuclear arms reduction, and was part of a group that shared the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to diminish the part played by nuclear arms in international politics," as the Nobel Committee said.
Now his greatest focus is global warming, which he said in a recent interview poses a threat akin to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."
Holdren told the Associated Press in April that the U.S. will consider all options to veer away from that cliff, including an experimental scheme to shoot pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays and cool the earth, a last resort he hoped could be averted.
"Dr. Holdren is working day and night for the Obama Administration and the American people, helping to develop science and technology policies to make the country stronger, more secure, and more energy independent, and to make Americans healthier and better educated," his office told FOXNews.com.
Four months after Holdren's confirmation, his critics are keeping a wary eye on his work in the White House, where they assert that he has the president's ear on scientific issues.
"It is interesting that this 30-year-old book is finally coming to light," said Lieberman, of the Heritage Foundation.
"The people who are concerned about Holdren, quite frankly we didn't do enough homework."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obamas-science-czar-considered-forced-abortions-sterilization-population-growth/
So what? Some comment made in a book written 33 years ago? BFD.
-
So what? Some comment made in a book written 33 years ago? BFD.
Some comment? Forced abortions and compulsory sterilization. That's far more than "some comment."
-
Soccer Sluts, their whore daughters, and metrosexual fag husbands favored barry..
That is some statement.
What is a soccer slut exactly?
Are their daughters walking the mean streets of Weschester county?
When did metrosexual and fags decide to become fags instead of just a guy who cares about his apperance?
Just curious.
Sandra
-
That is some statement.
What is a soccer slut exactly?
Are their daughters walking the mean streets of Weschester county?
When did metrosexual and fags decide to become fags instead of just a guy who cares about his apperance?
Just curious.
Sandra
Ok, I live in Westchester County on the border of NYC. We have the heights of wealth and depths of poverty no more than 10 minutes between each other. Westchester County is home to far too many, over-primped, spoiled, done up, nasty, gold digging "soccer moms". Most of the ones I see are vile whores who cheat on their husbands, suck up the cash, demand big houses, wont work, wont clean, wont do shit. Hence, they are "Soccer Sluts". Most drive Range Rovers, Suburbans, Tahoes, or Mercedes SUV's. Remember, this is Bill Clinton territory. He chose to come to Westchester for a reason.
If you see their daughters, they look like little prostitutes running around the mall, usually with shopping bags filled with crap being paid by the stupid schmuck getting cheated on. These 14-22 y/o slobs are also over-done, lazy, fat, wont work, are nasty, have a terrible attitude, and run around Westchester in BMW's, TSX's, TL's, and ususally are banging guys at 15-16 y/o.
Now, their husbands are just usually door mats who get rolled and told what to do. Most are skinny little panzies who walk around with penny loafers, a sweater tied around the neck, and usually with a dorky cell phone attachment to thier hip. Most of these jerks work in manhattan and come home to get abused and told WTF to do. Its truly embarassing to see these "men".
Most of these people are flaming liberals and always vote party line RAT every time. We now have the highest taxes in the nation. That's right, these losers vote in the do-gooders, tree huggers, etc, and we now have THE HIGHEST TAXES IN THE NATION.
Here are just a few of these people and you get the picture: RFK Jr., Martha Stewart, Richard Gere, Soros, Clintons, etc.
-
Ok, I live in Westchester County on the border of NYC. We have the heights of wealth and depths of poverty no more than 10 minutes between each other. Westchester County is home to far too many, over-primped, spoiled, done up, nasty, gold digging "soccer moms". Most of the ones I see are vile whores who cheat on their husbands, suck up the cash, demand big houses, wont work, wont clean, wont do shit. Hence, they are "Soccer Sluts". Most drive Range Rovers, Suburbans, Tahoes, or Mercedes SUV's. Remember, this is Bill Clinton territory. He chose to come to Westchester for a reason.
If you see their daughters, they look like little prostitutes running around the mall, usually with shopping bags filled with crap being paid by the stupid schmuck getting cheated on. These 14-22 y/o slobs are also over-done, lazy, fat, wont work, are nasty, have a terrible attitude, and run around Westchester in BMW's, TSX's, TL's, and ususally are banging guys at 15-16 y/o.
Now, their husbands are just usually door mats who get rolled and told what to do. Most are skinny little panzies who walk around with penny loafers, a sweater tied around the neck, and usually with a dorky cell phone attachment to thier hip. Most of these jerks work in manhattan and come home to get abused and told WTF to do. Its truly embarassing to see these "men".
Most of these people are flaming liberals and always vote party line RAT every time. We now have the highest taxes in the nation. That's right, these losers vote in the do-gooders, tree huggers, etc, and we now have THE HIGHEST TAXES IN THE NATION.
Here are just a few of these people and you get the picture: RFK Jr., Martha Stewart, Richard Gere, Soros, Clintons, etc.
so you're mad and bitter because you see other people having things that maybe you don't have and you feel, if nothing else, that they should be voting Republican (I assume even if they did you would still hate them for having nicer cars, homes, etc... and because of your percpetion that the men don't live up to your manly standard)
If they're wealthy won't the higher taxes effet them even more than they effect you?
You seem to be both jealous of them while at the same time suggesting they are traitors to their class.
-
so you're mad and bitter because you see other people having things that maybe you don't have and you feel, if nothing else, that they should be voting Republican (I assume even if they did you would still hate them for having nicer cars, homes, etc... and because of your percpetion that the men don't live up to your manly standard)
If they're wealthy won't the higher taxes effet them even more than they effect you?
You seem to be both jealous of them while at the same time suggesting they are traitors to their class.
I have more assets than most of these people but I dont flaunt it. I live a modest lifystyle and have a better balance sheet than most of these gaudy jerks. I live well under my means. Jealous? WTF are you talking about?
If anything, these idiots are jealous of me. I have great savings, I own my business free and clear of debt, I own my office space, and have a tiny mortgage and low overhead, cash flow, and freedom. I do whatever the hell I want, when I want, how I want, and dont answer to some corporate ruler or answer to some greedy gold digger.
Most of these people have debt and massive mortgages up the yin yang and drive around in leased cars trying to show their "wealth" and show off to everyone. This is the same crew who hangs out in Whole Foods and drives around in either a prius, saab, or volvo.
Traitors to their class? WTF are you talking about?? The only people who talk about class warfare are marxists who seem to think everything is a class struggle.
-
I have more assets than most of these people but I dont flaunt it. I live a modest lifystyle and have a better balance sheet than most of these gaudy jerks. I live well under my means. Jealous? WTF are you talking about?
If anything, these idiots are jealous of me. I have great savings, I own my business free and clear of debt, I own my office space, and have a tiny mortgage and low overhead, cash flow, and freedom. I do whatever the hell I want, when I want, how I want, and dont answer to some corporate ruler or answer to some greedy gold digger.
Most of these people have debt and massive mortgages up the yin yang and drive around in leased cars trying to show their "wealth" and show off to everyone. This is the same crew who hangs out in Whole Foods and drives around in either a prius, saab, or volvo.
Traitors to their class? WTF are you talking about?? The only people who talk about class warfare are marxists who seem to think everything is a class struggle.
let's review: the women you see around you are all "vile whores" who are all cheating on their husbands, their female children are look like prostitutes, are fat/lazy and have terrible attitudes (btw - that's fucking HILARIOUS coming from you) and their husbands are all skinny jerks who work in Manhattan........but your real beef is that you blame them for higher taxes (which presumably they must also pay).
Dude - you've got some serious mental/emotional problems
no joke
you really need some help
-
Hugo - what are your thoughts on this Czar?
Do you support Obama's continuance of the war in Afghanistan?
-
Do you support Obama's continuance of the war in Afghanistan?
not unless we have a coherent plan to win and leave. If not, than no.
-
he believes that a child becomes a human being only after it can speak. hasn't the news reached West Bum Fuck yet?
apparently not. link?