You are here: Home » Government » The Mad Scientist And The White House

The Mad Scientist And The White House

Guest | July 20, 2009 | 0 Comments

By Larry Miller
During his inaugural address, Barack Hussein Obama promised “We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost,” This was in part, to counter what he perceived to be excessive deference to religious influences by the previous administration. At the time it was difficult to tell if he was embracing one and or simply rejecting the other.

The selection of John Holdren as the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy helps put the purpose into much sharper focus. If Holdren were simply a wild eyed academic, the damage he could inflict would be limited to the destruction of a relatively few impressionable minds behind ivy covered walls. But he is not… and the damage is incalculable if he is permitted to inflict his thinking on our whole country.

What is this thinking? How can we know what is going on in the demented mind of John Holdren. He has over the years had published hundreds of papers and articles and co-authored twenty books. These give a pretty clear picture of a man who appears to have watched far too many science fiction movies as a child.

These were the wonderful old black and white movies we saw on Saturday afternoons, such as The Monolith Monsters and Day of the Triffids. In these B movies… maybe even C movies, the problems facing humanity were almost as awful as their special effects. It was only through the lone, virtuous scientist that the earth was saved every time. I enjoyed those films myself but they could produce a warped vision of science versus the unwashed masses.

In 2006 he predicted that ocean levels would rise by thirteen inches by the end of the century. Not quite up to Algore standards, but sufficiently frightening to those who accept global warming, make that climate change, dogma.

Even more destructive though, are his views on population control… as if this were under the purview of human governments. In his book, Ecoscience (ISBN 0716705672), written with Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich he expounds his views on excessive human population and what to do about it. He apparently saw no problem with someone in his exalted ivory tower setting deciding who should live, who should be permitted to have children and how many of us there should be.

If these passages don’t give you pause, perhaps you are reading the wrong material or do not comprehend the implications of this man’s thinking.

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” (page 837)

On single mothers: “One way to carry out this disapproval 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.” (page 786)

On mass sterilization: “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems” (page 787)

“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility-just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns.” (page 838)

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime-sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist.” (page 942)

Some reasonable good political types would say that all this is a cause for concern. A cause for concern! Then they may even wring there hands a little. The correct response is to tell anyone who will listen that someone like this has the ear of a president who has already demonstrated contempt for constitutional limits on his authority and the bounds of common sense. It would scare the living daylights out of anyone who was paying attention.

We have our answer on the position of the president who is willing to use science, in it’s proper place, of course, as a bludgeon to control even more aspects of our lives and commit unspeakable crimes against nature. The man he appointed as his science guru belongs more in the east wing of an asylum rather than the west wing of the White House. We have already heard of some pretty outrageous schemes coming out of this administration but ideas coming from Holdren top them all. What we need to do is get past the false security that “It can’t happen here.” Then we have to do something about it.