Strange ideas find friends in media, and Obama

Related Articles


I don't have much today but I found this...

Tweetpoo for Tuesday January 24 2023

OK ! I'm good! I'm now more than fully...

Justin Trudeau and Canadian “news” media don’t look up.

For years, "Connecting rural Canada" has been a huge...

Chicken Little lives! He works at the White House and his name is John Holden. Officially, he’s the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, but he’s more commonly called the “science czar,” a title given a growing number of advisers personally appointed by Obama, who have massive government powers and answer only to the president. (Obama’s obviously discovered that placing power in the hands of 21 czars is an easy way to bring change to Washington without bothering the Senate and Congress. It’s called an end-run around democracy.)

Holden really believes the sky is falling. He also believes Earth would be better off without people, subscribes to population control policies held by such outstanding citizens as Chairman Mao, and thinks Earth should be run by a global authority called the Planetary Regime. If he’d been appointed by George Bush, they’d be calling for a straight jacket, for both the appointee and the appointer. But they didn’t.

Holden is Obama’s man, so the Senate confirmed him in March without much investigation. His writings are only now coming to the media’s attention and it has responded by labelling him “the science-fiction czar” or “the mad scientist at the White House.”

The concern is his 1977 book, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, that he co-wrote with Paul Ehrlich. Ehrlich is infamous for his 1968 book, The Population Bomb, in which he said growing numbers of people were an uncontrolled cancer and the only solution was to “cut out the cancer.” He also predicted population overgrowth would drain mankind’s food supply and we would all die. Forty years later, we’re still here and Ehrlich’s musings are widely discredited.

The man now in charge of America’s science policies not only concurred with all this, but provided amoral prescriptions for government population control.

He suggests government control population by:

1)  Mass sterilization—governments could add sterilants to water supplies, although it could be problematic since science has yet to produce a “uniformly effective” substance without side effects. Or, governments could mandate implantation of contraceptive capsules at puberty.

2)  Forced abortions—governments should deal with illegitimate births by forcing adoption on all single mothers or “(requiring) pregnant single women to marry or have abortions.”

3) A planetary regime—a global authority that would “be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region…”

This all makes China’s one-child policy appear, as they say, child’s play. Now it’s his job to “implement sound science and technology policies and budgets?”

No wonder the New York Times recently warned of a freaky scientist in the White House. But sadly, it meant Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health. Collins successfully led the worldwide project to decode the human genome, but the Times is alarmed because he has a “very public embrace of religion.” Holden has a very public embrace of killing off humanity but, to the Times, the real threat is Collins.

This should ring a bell for Canadians. Just four months ago, the Globe and Mail publicly questioned the judgment of Gary Goodyear, our federal minister of Science and Technology, simply because he was a Christian.

Two points, then.

First, the media clearly deem some beliefs more acceptable than others, and have no qualms about discriminating against Christians. If the Times or the Globe had questioned the suitability of a Muslim, they would have ignited a public war of words.

Second, every public servant comes to the job with a particular set of beliefs that may or may not influence their policy decisions.

Those concerned about Christian morality or ethics entering the scientific decision-making process should be careful what they wish for. Going to church may not be the worst thing a leader could do while in office.

Latest posts by Susan Martinuk (see all)

You can use this form to give feedback to the editor. Say nice things or say hello. Or criticize if you must. 

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Your Message

    Do you Have a File to Send?

    If so, choose it below

    This is just a question to make sure you're not a robot:

    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    — Normally this would be an ad. It's a doggy. —
    Exit mobile version