Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.
The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?
These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology -- informally known as the United States' Science Czar. In this book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:
* 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.
Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things. [...]
It staggers me how people can be apologists for this filthy peice of scum Holdren, and his best pal Obama. There is no overpopulation problem you idiot commenters! In most nations the reproductive rate is well below what is nessicary to sustain a population. If you truly believe we have an overpopulation problem, do us a favor and start with removing yourselves from the equation. That shouldn't be a problem right, I mean if it's such a big issue? This agenda is well under way, with GMO's, fluoride in the water, vaccines (watch Bill Gate's "innovating to zero" he says, "if we do a really good job" then references abortions and vaccines). And you idiots, like the commenter talking about how Holdren was a "young acidemic" when he wrote this love letter to Mengele. Do you actually believe when Holdren references poor gene pools he isn't talking about you as well? We're all in this together you're not part of the 0.1%, Ted Turner says "95% of people should be killed" that's you, and everyone you know and ever will know. The truth of the matter is that people like Gates, Holdren, Turner, Sanger, Royal family, Rothchild's aren't only degenerate but have been inbred for many generations. When a horribly inbred immoral individual such as Holdren observes the tenacity and will to thrive that exists in us "low born individuals" they conflagrate with evny. As a result if that envy, we get to read treatises on criminal insanity such as the Democratic party's seminal "Eco Science". Believe what you will, I always recomend one to always follow your instincts as I do. If you continue to believe Obama loves you and cares about your well being you need only read the writing of the man who's "Council he looks forward to".
Here in Brazil, I tried to read online this trash-book. This book support not just abortion, but its imposition to women with undesirable characters; mainly poverty. Beyond doubt this is a Eugenics' book, book but Eugenics has new names in this book: malthusianism and ecology. In this trash-book, "Inferior race" is called "over population" and Eugenics is called malthusianism and ecology.
This is from a World Net Daily article written by Jerome S. Corsi,
Holdren co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich's wife, Anne. The authors argued involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by "climate change."
On page 786, the authors wrote that one way to discourage illegitimate childbearing "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."
Alternatively, the authors suggested unwed mothers might place their babies up for adoption, writing: "If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it."
While observing that government-imposed coercive measures should be considered "only if milder measures fail completely," the authors acknowledged extreme ecological situations could justify governmental intervention with coercive population control measures.
"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," they write.
The authors' wish to control births to unwed and teenage mothers appears to derive from their concern that overpopulation leads to "general social deterioration.Read more ›