"I know what you're thinking, 'cause right now I'm thinking the same thing. Actually, I've been thinking it ever since I got here: Why oh why didn't I take the BLUE pill? "

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Read It and Weep

This, according to many sources, was written by John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, in 1977. I assure you it's one of the scariest things you've read in a while. And here's the thing. I don't believe this kind of thinking is an aberration in the Obama administration:

Individual rights. Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the “right responsibly to choose” the number and spacing of children (our emphasis). In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy and it has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But the right is not unlimited. Where the society has a “compelling, subordinating interest” in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. If society’s survival depended on having more children, women could he required to bear children, just as men can constitutionally be required to serve in the armed forces. Similarly, given a crisis caused by overpopulation, reasonably necessary laws to control excessive reproduction could be enacted.
It is often argued that the right to have children is so personal that the government should not regulate it. In an ideal society, no doubt the state should leave family size and composition solely to the desires of the parents. 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?
I would say this guy needs to resign his post as Obama's Science Czar right now but I believe his thoughts mirror the thoughts of many on the left and I'm not sure the good it would do. However, I would like to see these quotes publicized and argued over in public.

HT Red State

And to go see the original work, check out Zombietime.

Your Ad Here

20 comments:

John Hetman said...

There is a large number number of private foundation nearly tripping over themselves for the opportunity to support Orwellian and Stalinistic thinking like John Holdren, et al. Mr. Holdren's quotes, however totalitarian, come from the 1970s when Paul Erlich, et al were promoting famine within a decade because of so-called overpopulation.

Since most of the world's population is now stabilizing and much of it actually shrinking (white America, Europe, Japan, Iran, etc), Mr. Holdren's nightmarish schemes are beyond worthless...they, like Erlich's predictions are delusional. And another reason that Holdren belongs on a street corner with his putative boss and nowhere near government.

Anonymous said...

I didn't think that would be "the scariest thing I've read for some time" - until I read it. I do not want anyone who could even think such thoughts any where near a position of influence in our country. Even the Chinese seem to be rethinking this one, although probably not on moral grounds.
My favorite part is how neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce: as though the founders of this country would ever have dreamed of anyone denying that having children is a basic right. And then he invokes the U.N. Charter on what appears to be an equal (or superior) basis to our founding documents. Just when I think things can't get more outrageous and absurd, they do. Heaven help us. Kit.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Obama seems to have a habit of pickin' the odd ones....
guys that don't support basic human freedoms for humans, guys who support the right to sue for animals....

Athos said...

Jeff Hendrix here. This is why I will stand with Hilaire Belloc, Fr Vincent McNabb, and GKC regarding The Servile State till my dying day.

Anonymous said...

Of course such schemes are worthless. But that is not the issue. So long as there are forces around that spread panic over the environment, food shortage, over population, carbon footprints, etc. so long will we have such worthless schemes spread like wildfire. These panicky ideas appeal to one of the lowest instincts in us: greed. And in our "me-first" culture spreading such panic is very successful.

It is the idea - once it is out, it will gain momentum and circle around forever.

I like that Savage calls liberalism a mental disease.

Mercy!
Mum26

Tate said...

I thinks he needs to re-read the ninth amendment.

Gutterball Master said...

This rhetoric sounds familiar. Have you heard of the World Youth Alliance? This is part of their history:
"In 2000, the United Nations hosted Beijing +5, a follow up conference to the global conference on women. At one point during the conference, the USA delegation offered a short oral proposal. The proposal was this: “Human rights grant human dignity”. This proposal would have reversed the human rights tradition that the United Nations and all human rights are based on. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes it clear that the dignity of the person is the basis for human rights. Reversing this language threatened the whole human rights project since it placed the definition of the person in the hands of the state. The proposal was rejected, but in that moment it was clear that the debate at the UN was fundamentally a debate about the human person. Do we, as a global community, see the human person as an object which can be used and discarded at will, or do we see the human person as a being with inviolable dignity, which stands at the center of everything that we do?" (This was from the Pres. Clinton delegation at the UN.)

People with Holdren's ideology think that governments give rights, not that people have inherent rights (or duties and responsibilities, see Dr. Glendon).

Sebastian S. said...

Horrible but somehow predictable.

What really made me curious was this line: "women could he required to bear children" - so what, all that feminism, all that 'my body' rhethoric, now gone to wast?. The state can force you to bear children!?

I recommend we all publicise this statement far and wide and let the left fight amongst themsleves for once.

FamilyMan said...

Couldn't tweet this fast enough... http://ow.ly/h3Os

The only possible bright light is that this was a blathering of youthfulness 30+ years ago.

Anything more current?

FamilyMan said...

Not to imply for a second that he doesn't mean it now...just curious if he still feels this way and has expressed it.

None of us want to be held to standards we may have had that long ago--at least I sure don't. I prefer being Catholic now. ;-)

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

It'd take a pretty big "I REALLY REALLY REALLY don't believe this stuff anymore, here's why" for me to give a pass to *writing a book* basically advising that we take up that frakin' horrible book "The Giver" as public policy.

Jacob Torbeck said...

JH posted: "Mr. Holdren's quotes, however totalitarian, come from the 1970s when Paul Erlich, et al were promoting famine within a decade because of so-called overpopulation."

It is perfectly appropriate to be on guard, but a quote from 1977 is hardly frightening. As JH noted, there were contributing world factors that were shaping Holdren's views then, and I add that it is certain that his views have been revised several times since then.

Should this be found to be an accurate articulation of his current belief system? Be afraid, be very afraid. But before we decide to worry, we must investigate.

matthew archbold said...

Jacob,
How are you "certain" of this?

I'm sorry. I'm not sure I understand the complacency with which you approach this.

The White House Czar of science endorsed forced abortion and mass sterilizations and you chalk it up to "Hey, it was the 70's man."

And to be clear, it is not this one man that worries me. I believe that this is how many on the left view these issues. The moment you advocate legalization of murder of the unborn, murder of the born isn't that much of a leap.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

*cough* Guys, it's not a quote-- *he wrote an entire book.* It takes a lot more thought and dedication to a belief system to write nearly a thousand pages than it does to say a few things!
Given that he's held nearly the same job since that time--he was the Assistant Professor of Energy and Resources at Berkley, he's now the Prof.

Also, he's still citing the '70s work, so I think we have to rule out that he quietly changed his mind.
Driving forces Excessive population growth Where excessive means growth that closes more options than it opens (Holdren 1973), a condition now prevailing almost everywhere from '95. (only one I could read since Adobe isn't working yet)

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

*cough* Guys, it's not a quote-- *he wrote an entire book.* It takes a lot more thought and dedication to a belief system to write nearly a thousand pages than it does to say a few things!
Given that he's held nearly the same job since that time--he was the Assistant Professor of Energy and Resources at Berkley, he's now the Prof.

Also, he's still citing the '70s work, so I think we have to rule out that he quietly changed his mind.
Driving forces Excessive population growth Where excessive means growth that closes more options than it opens (Holdren 1973), a condition now prevailing almost everywhere from '95. (only one I could read since Adobe isn't working yet)

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Huh...and here I was going to wail because bloody blogger ate my post with one of their dang errors. Sorry for the double post!

Dymphna said...

Thank you SO much for writing this article and drawing attention to this! I posted yesterday about this very topic.

The people surrounding Obama, especially John Holdren are scary, scary!!

JT said...

MA:

It's not complacency, but neither is it fear. It's wariness. You have a hyperbolic means of writing: just as it's not about complacency, it's not about, "it was the 70s, man." The times infuence our personal worldviews, and our personal worldviews change over time.

Three decades of scientific advances couldn't not affect Holdren's views. I do not mean to imply that they have made him pro-life, merely that they have in some fashion caused him to amend, update, or evolve his thinking.

According to your recent link, 86% of America would severely restrict abortion... however, you also state that "many on the left" view things in the manner that Holdren did in 1977. How many?

My advice and opinion of a proper approach to this news is: Let's find out what Holdren is actually saying and doing now and fight against that, rather than taking 30-year old source material and raising a crusade around it.

Foxfier's link is 100% spot on to what I'm getting at, and proves a better example of something to be worried about.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

He's slightly changed his focus from "we're all going to die because of you breeders, so we need a totalitarian government" to "we're all going to die from climate change, so we need a totalitarian government."

It's possible that science really doesn't have much to do with the conclusion he comes to, just how he justifies it.... (like that's unusual?)

I sure wouldn't bet fifty cents on him not including mandatory population control in there, given that he even mentioned uncontrolled population growth in his Nobel speech....

nightfly said...

These statists are so predictable.

Why the blazes does John Holdren suddenly care two cents for what the Constitution says or does not say? He and his ilk can't ignore the thing fast enough when it comes to rights they find inconvenient or uncomfortable, or when they take and then spend our money on items the Constitution never authorized, to say nothing of their little pet projects. Alas, like Clifford the Big Red Dog, how those pets quickly grow...

Besides which, he's lying about the Constitution - the Tenth Amendment states that whatever is not specifically mentioned is reserved to the states or the people. He's simply too ignorant to make a simple mistake like that - it takes someone smart and well-educated take something so plain and gussy it up so that it appears not to exist.

Post a Comment