Media Ignores Extreme Views of Obama Science Czar

<p>For the past week the news media have ran stories on the what the blogosphere has dubbed &quot;birthers&quot;, a group focusing on the controversy of Obama's citizenship and lack of providing a long form birth certificate to the public.  This group, while a minority in the conservative circle, are making themselves heard and the media are asking every Republican figure they can to weigh in on the issue.  It is obvious what their agenda is, and it is to embarrass Conservatives.</p><p> Meanwhile, they ignore conspiracy theories and <a href="http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/07/29/obamas-science-czar-babies-arent-h... viewpoints</a> espoused by one of Obama's top advisors and science czar, John Holdren.  <span>A large part of the horror of abortion lies in the monstrous presumption of liberals declaring that human life begins not at conception, but whenever they say it does. Maybe that’s six weeks, maybe six months.  Maybe it’s years. Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren (the guy who wanted to put a <a href="http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/07/obamas_totalita.html" target="_blank"><font color="#8c6900">sterilizing agent in our drinking water</font></a>) gives us an idea of how slippery this slope can get.  From his book <i><span>Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions:</span></i></span></p><blockquote><span><!--break--><p>The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.</p><p><a href="http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/29/more-on-the-whackjob-science-czar-t... Malkin asks about the media:</a> </p><blockquote><p>If they cared about wackjobs espousing conspiracy theories, they’d be grilling every liberal commentator or Republican politician who appeared on TV about the wackjob science czar, John Holdren. There would be a Holdren litmus test:</p><p>Are you comfortable with a science czar whose intellectual mentor is a renowned eugenicist? </p><p>Do you agree that musing about forced abortions, mass sterilizations, and poisoning the water supply to control the population is in the mainstream? </p><p>Do you think the president should employ a man who pays homage to a population control zealot who views the global population as a “pulsating mass of maggots?”</p></blockquote><p>CNS News does the <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51702">job the media won't do:</a></p><blockquote><p>President Obama’s top science adviser, John P. Holdren, advocated the “de-development” of the United States in books he published in the 1970s.</p><p>“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. “De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.”</p><p>In the vision expressed by Holdren and his co-authors, the Ehrlichs, the need for “de-development” of the United States demanded a redistribtuion of wealth.</p><p>“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being.”</p><p>Holdren, who is director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, made these comments in the 1973 book “Human Ecology,” which he co-authored with the Ehrlichs, long-time advocates of curtailing population growth. </p></blockquote><p>Here is more of John Holdren's views reported by <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=51676">Terry Jeffrey:</a></p><blockquote><p>President Obama’s top science adviser said in a book he co-authored in 1973 that a newborn child “will ultimately develop into a human being” if he or she is properly fed and socialized.</p><p>“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.”</p><p>…“Human values and institutions have set mankind on a collision course with the laws of nature,” wrote the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “Human beings cling jealously to their prerogative to reproduce as they please—and they please to make each new generation larger than the last—yet endless multiplication on a finite planet is impossible. Most humans aspire to greater material prosperity, but the number of people that can be supported on Earth if everyone is rich is even smaller than if everyone is poor.”</p><p>The specific passage expressing the authors’ view that a baby “will ultimately develop into a human being” is on page 235 in chapter 8 of the book, which is titled “Population Limitation.” </p></blockquote><p>Van Helsing of <a href="http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/07/obamas_science.html">Moonbat... asks:</a></p><blockquote><p><span>If they can kill babies, who wouldn't they kill? Their only restraint is their squeamishness, which they overcome with bogus euphemisms (CHOICE!) and by yelling inane bumper sticker slogans  (SAFE LEGAL AND RARE!) loudly enough to drown out thought. Once you turn against God, conscience isn't a factor.</span></p></blockquote><p><span>Don't expect the media to ask these questions or even take notice to what Obama's friends said in their books.  They'll dismiss this as a view he had over 30 years ago.  That is a valid excuse, but I think the American people deserve to have Mr. Holdren assure them he no longer holds these views.  They are extreme enough to merit at least questioning.  Don't expect the media to do it though.  </span></p></span></blockquote>