Holdren: Another Questionable Obama Appointment - And Frightening!

I'm a bit alarmed at what I've been reading lately regarding one of Obama's appointments to his cabinet: John P. Holdren will be Science Advisor. Holdren has very impressive credentials, having a bachelor's degree from MIT and a PhD from in plasma physics from Stanford. Wikipedia lists many notable committees and studies he has participated in, as well as listing many of his writings.

It is Holdren's writings that are causing some to wonder if he isn't a "ecopalyptic" eugenicist. Here's a brief section from Wikipedia about Holdren (emphasis added):

Various positions

In 1969, writing with Paul R. Ehrlich, Holdren claimed that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come."^[9] In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many"^[10]. Currently, the U.S. population is 306,892,000^[11].

Holdren has written and lectured extensively on the topic of climate change. In 1969 he advocated (with Paul R Ehrlich) substantial spending for expansion of nuclear power on the grounds that nuclear plants generate electricity without greenhouse gas emissions.^[9]He co-authored a 1977 book in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children. In 2006, Holdren reportedly suggested that global sea levels could rise by 13 feet by the end of this century^[12]. (The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) suggests a potential sea level rise over the same interval on the order 13 inches^{[citation needed]}).

Now, we all know that Wikipedia is not to be considered a reliable source for such "official" writings as a paper for school. However, similar information is being reported lately on the Net, echoing the same ideals in Holdren's writings. So, I've gone fishing, because this is too spooky not to want to check it out for yourself. Here's what I've found so far ...

The above image is the cover of one of his books, co-authored by the above-mentioned Paul Ehrlich along with Anne Ehrlich. FrontPage Magazine reported on the book back in February with is article "Obama's Biggest Radical:"

...
The Neo-Malthusians

Holdren gave a clear indication of his philosophical views in the 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich. [1] In its pages, the authors noted, "The neo-Malthusiasn view proposes...population limitation and redistribution of wealth." They concluded, "On these points, we find ourselves firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp" (p. 954).

Economist Thomas Malthus is one of the most literally anti-human theorists in human history. He viewed overpopulation as the fount of all woe, but one which could be staunched with enough blood. In "An Essay on the Principle of Population" Malthus wrote, "All the children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons...if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use...and court the return of the plague." Like their intellectual forebear, Holdren and the Ehrlichs proposed their own acceptable sacrifice to the environment.

Compulsory Abortion for American Women

The trio prescribed a rigidly enforced, government-imposed limit of two children per family. Holdren and the Ehrlichs maintained "there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated." Hiding behind the passive voice, they note, "it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing constitutionif the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." (Emphasis added.) To underscore they mean business, they conclude, "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" (pp. 837-838). Moreover, if the United States government refuses to take proper measures, they authorize the United Nations to take compelling force.

"A Comprehensive Planetary Regime"

Holdren believed a world government might play a moderate role in the future: setting and enforcing appopriate population levels, taxing and redistributing the world's wealth, controlling the world's resources, and operating a standing World Army.

Such a comprehensive Plenetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable...not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes...The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade...The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits...the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. (p. 943.)

Part of the power wielded by this "Regime" would be in the form of a World Army. The trio wrote that the United States must destroy all its nuclear arsenal. But this would not render us defenseless against Communist aggression. "Security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force...The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization" (p. 917, emphasis added).

Far from distancing himself from this wooly-headed notion as he matured, Holdren explicitly reaffirmed it in his 1995 Nobel Prize acceptance speech on behalf of Pugwash, declaiming, "The post-Cold-War world needs a more powerful United Nations, probably with a standing volunteer force -- owing loyalty directly to the UN rather than to contingents from individual nations." As recently as last January, he told the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) the world needs "a universal prohibition on nuclear weapons, coupled with means to ensure confidence in compliance." (Emphasis added.)
...

Zombietime and Michelle Malkin are both reporting on Holdren's radical, eugenist ideas. Zombietime makes direct quotes from the above-pictured book of Holdren's, citing pages and showing excerpts. You can find the book online at Questia. (You will have limited access, unless you're willing to pay an "introductory offer" fee. But, you could look at Zombie's report and use the page references to see for yourself.)

Now, of course there is the question of which of the authors actually composed those thought? But, wouldn't YOU want to be sure your co-authors ideas were in keep with yours, and you would clearly separate yourself from conflicting ideals ... or even pull away from the book?