Ghoulish science + Obamacare = health hazard
My syndicated column today presses again on the freaky-deaky science czar John Holdren and the implications for Obamacare. Related read: Stacy McCain sheds light on Big Money and the Culture of Death. And Matt Barber wonders: Will there be a co-pay for forced abortion under Obamacare?
Ghoulish science + Obamacare = health hazard
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius tried to reassure citizens in New Orleans this week that Obamacare bureaucrats will make sound medical decisions for all Americans. She failed. Under the government-run plan, she promised, a team of health care experts will recommend what should be covered: “I think it would be wise to let science guide what the best health care package is.”
Gulp. It’s precisely the Obama administration’s view of sound “science” that should send chills down patients’ spines. Case in point: The president’s prestigious science czar John Holdren refuses to answer questions about his radical, published work on population control over the last 30 years.
Last week, I called the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to press Holdren on his views about forced abortions and mass sterilizations; his purported disavowal of Ecoscience, the 1977 book he co-authored with population control zealots Paul and Anne Ehrlich; and his continued embrace of forced-abortion advocate and eugenics guru Harrison Brown, whom he credits with inspiring him to become a scientist.
After investigative bloggers and this column reprinted extensive excerpts from Ecoscience, which mused openly about putting sterilants in the water supply to make women infertile and engineering society by taking away babies from undesirables and subjecting them to government-mandated abortions, the White House issued a statement from Holdren last week denying he embraced those proposals. The Ehrlichs challenged critics to read their and Holdren’s more recent research and works.
Well, I did indeed read one of Holdren’s recent works that reveals his clingy reverence for, and allegiance to, the gurus of population control authoritarianism. He’s just gotten smarter about cloaking it behind global warming hysteria. In 2007, he addressed the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference. Holdren served as AAAS president; the organization posted his full slide presentation on its website.
In the opening slide, Holdren admitted that his “preoccupation” with apocalyptic matters such as “the rates at which people breed” was a lifelong obsession spurred by scientist Harrison Brown’s work. Holdren heaped praise on Brown’s half-century-old book, “The Challenge to Man’s Future,” then proceeded to paint doom-and-gloom scenarios requiring drastic government interventions to control climate change.
Who is Holdren’s intellectual mentor, Harrison Brown? He was a “distinguished member” of the International Eugenics Society whom Holdren later worked with on a book about – you guessed it – world population and fertility. Brown advocated the same population control-freak measures Holdren put forth in Ecoscience. In “The Challenge to Man’s Future,” Brown envisioned a regime in which the “number of abortions and artificial inseminations permitted in a given year would be determined completely by the difference between the number of deaths and the number of births in the year previous.”
Brown exhorted readers to accept that “we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that artifical means must be applied to limit birth rates.” If we don’t, Brown warned, we faced a planet “with a writhing mass of human beings.” He likened the global population to a “pulsating mass of maggots.”
When I pressed Holdren’s office specifically about Holdren’s relationship with Harrison Brown, press spokesman Rick Weiss told me he didn’t know who Brown was and balked at drawing any conclusions about Holdren’s views based on his homage to lifelong intellectual mentor, colleague and continued inspiration Brown just two years ago.
Weiss lectured me rather snippily about the need for responsible journalism (he was a Washington Post reporter for 15 years). He then me not to expect any response from Holdren’s office to my question on whether Holdren disavows his relationship with a eugenics enthusiast who referred to the world population as a “pulsating mass of maggots” and championed a scheme of abortion and artificial insemination quotas.
If this is the kind of ghoulish “science” that guides the White House, we can only hope that Obamacare is dead on arrival.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Former Democrat Rep. Regrets Vote for Obamacare Due to Contraceptive Coverage
February 7, 2012 03:40 PM by Doug Powers
73 Comments
How to Make a Liberal Politician Stand Up Against Intrusive Government
February 6, 2012 04:28 PM by Doug Powers
95 Comments
Your Friday IRS regulation dump: Obamacare’s job-killing medical device tax
February 3, 2012 04:21 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
Concrete Evidence Man is Causing Glacier Retreat
February 2, 2012 03:07 PM by Doug Powers
68 Comments
First, they came for the Catholics
January 31, 2012 10:51 PM by Michelle Malkin
181 CommentsThe SIGA scandal: Calls for investigation mount
January 27, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
E-mail of the day: Media Matters coordinates with Capitol Hill “allies” on Keystone XL; Plus: 20,000 jobs “is not that many”
January 25, 2012 11:23 PM by Michelle Malkin
86 CommentsObama’s Green Robber Barons
January 25, 2012 09:13 AM by Michelle Malkin
89 Comments
Categories: Abortion,Enviro-nitwits,Health care,John Holdren
Sister Toldjah
» Video: A president of the People, and for the PeopleJustOneMinute
» Oatmeal LaterPundit & Pundette
» Oh my: Santorum sweepsAmSpecBlog
» Thoughts on the Santorum SweepHot Air
» Video: The Obama 2012 fashion show!Riehl World View
» Santorum Kicked The Mitt Out Of Romney
Holdren is going to change his stripes like Ayers or Wright or Obama himself…
the question is why is the president selecting these wackos?
My guess-Control. People control specialists.
Everything about Obama screams narcissist,
and they are fed by the nectar of control.
Now though, he is losing control, and they say that narcissists become very dangerous when this happens.
Even some of the press are starting to ask semi-real questions which leaves him visibly annoyed.
It is unthinkable that this man obtain the power he is seeking over the people.
Damn girl. Michelle you kicking some serious heiny. No single rep from the Obama admin deserves it more then John “kill em all and let Gaia sort em out” Holdren.
That kind of conflicts with the earlier claims that, ” Hawaii Officals have inspected the “vault” copy of Obambi’s BC and found everything in order”. Unless the vault copy is the same information devoid short-form Chris “tingle up my leg” Matthews keeps waving around as “proof” of where Obama was born. I don’t care what kind of names I get called, there is something big-time wrong with Obama’s eligibility to be president, in addition to his incapability and completely lack of qualifications.
I see where John Stossel’s 20/20 piece on heath care in Canada and the UK was postponed once again. Now it’s scheduled to air on July 31 at 10:00 PM EDT.
Instead they had the chief bloviator, Charlie Gibson talking about oil and refineries – big news story now that oil prices are dropping. Of course it was a hack job against oil drilling.
I’ll bet ABC will keep postponing the segment until either the legislation is passed or defeated.
What flagrant, liberal, propagandist’s ABC is. Stossel is the only one I’m willing to switch the channel to ABC for.
I don’t know if this point has already been made, since the comment list is so long, but.. here goes…
Let’s not forget that it was science that served as the spiritual core in the dystopian society that Ayn Rand presented in “Atlas Shrugged.” Relying on science and on scientists was the only way to prosperity, even as society was crumbling all around them.
Science as all the right answers. But to all the wrong questions.
(I am reading AS for the second time right now. This time with a highlighter.)
Sounds like something that would come from you. It does not offend me. I am confident enough in my beliefs so that these comments don’t make me angry.
Happy:
Sure you are. Of course, that’s after a long exchange over several threads where you finally realize you can resort to that answer to come out looking good.
Nevermind, the countless other times you took offense just by me stating my atheism. Nevermind the fact that you yourself said my posts make “blood shoot out of your eyes.” Nevermind all the other times you felt it nessecary to interject when I was merely stating that being an atheist doesn’t lead to evil. I am not fooled Happy. Sorry.
long_haired_conservative:
Rand herself was an atheist.
Happy -
What kind of wisdom do you suppose zeroangel plans on imparting to zeroangel junior?
Just wonderin’.
za – So lets go with the Religion of Science for 100.
Who said:
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
I understand what you are saying. Please let me put it another way…
I personally believe that all people have a god-shaped hole (void) in their heart that only the one true God alone can fill. Anything else filling that void is folly, and will NEVER bring satisfation.
Swede,
I happen to know….
Ditto.
jangar:
Hopefully the kind that will one day allow him to become a doctor, lawyer, or well-educated person. I won’t be teaching him (for example) that dinosaurs were on Noah’s ark.
swede:
Einstein, and it certainly doesn’t sound like he thought Jesus Christ was the son of the creator of the universe. It’s also doubtful he thought that the Earth is 6000 yrs old and that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. I also doubt Einstein believed prayer works. In short, he was a Pantheist at best. That’s a whole lot closer to what I am then an Evangelical Christian.
jangar:
Arrogant in the extreme. I guess it wouldn’t help if I told you I am a much happier and complete person after have shrugged off religion. Of course, I am lying about my own feelings, right?
No, of course not! Just blind.
I pity you.
jangar:
Right… I am deficient and partly responsible for the downfall of the nation by virtue of my irreligion. Rags? You there? I could use your assistance. Can you help me to explain to jangar here in a non-confrontational fashion why his statements are incredibly arrogant and bigoted? Thank you.
za
Einstein was a jew, but had no time for organized religion, for much the same reasons that you reject it; rampant hypocrisy in the church and synogogue, and in general a low view of the Creator he knew from his understanding of the creation. Read more on him. You’ll graduate to at least Deism.
If you are indeed a pantheist, it’s a start. FYI – the 6000 year dating came from Bishop Ussher, an Irish archbishop in the 1600′s – based on his interpretation of genealogies in the Bible. His chronology is rejected by all but a few theologians. It’s not really a point of debate.
happy & jangar
I took the meaning of happy’s post as relating to PS 14: “The fool has said in his heart there is no God”
As annoying as za may be, he is not a fool; thus the “spark of God” happy spoke of. Though he won’t admit it, za knows there is a God. He just can’t/won’t deal with Him.
swede:
I used to be a Deist. I graduated from it. I also used to be a Pantheist. The 6000 yr old view is held by many people in the US. Look up the “Creation Museum” and Ken Ham,
Anyhow, more arrogance. “ZA knows there is a god.” Now you presume to know my own thoughts? Yah, that’s not annoying or arrogant at all.
PS. There is no practical differences between Deism, Pantheism, and atheism. All operate as if god isn’t going to affect their lives.
Agreed. ZA has a great fire in his belly and can offer a great deal…but chooses to ridicule Christians for whatever reason. I personally think he feels threatened for his beliefs (or lack there of), and this is a coping mechanism. He needs to be in complete control, and giving that control to a being that he cannot see is just folly to him.
Therefore, I’m going outside to start mowing 5 acres before the snakes start knocking on the door (no zeroangel…it’s not an ‘apple thing’).
Don’t be an idiot jangar. You are the one that started off this discussion by basically saying atheists are the reason the country is falling apart. You opened with the ridicule, not me.
It has nothing to do with insecurity, that sword cuts both ways in any case. It has to do with not liking being told I am evil or ruining the nation. I am not.
Zeroangel,
I have had a life-long burning interest in all things science my entire life. From astronomy to botony to zoology to palentology what I have learned and observed has only given me more of an understanding and a confidence in my Christian faith.
I have found nothing in science that conflicts with my acceptance that the writings in the Bible are the inspired words of God.
Consider these two thoughts. First, if God wanted to explain to a man how he created the world and the man lived 4,500 years ago in a tent in the Middle East, how would he describe it so the man and the others with him could understand it, and accept it at that time?
Could an all powerful being create where we live in six days? I believe so. But consider a Creator that would take four billion years to create a place filled with such variety and wonders so that we could have a world filled with things designed to help us grow and develop and fill us with endless curiosity.
You want zeroangel junior to develop, grow, learn, and understand all that is around him. So does the Father in whom I believe.
But also, God gave us grass to mow….. on to that.
Flyoverman:
I really don’t have a problem with people that think the way you do. My wife sees it similarly as you do. In fact, it came up again today and I explained to her that her church is fine and her beliefs are fine.
I also explained that it is lunatics like Ken Ham that annoy me. She never heard of him or the “Creation Museum.” She also had never had any experience with real fundamentalists. I explained the YEC view and she was (naturally) shocked. She assured me that was not what her church was about, but she didn’t need to, I knew that already.
In any case, you have to admit that your view of science and religion is compatible with any faith. A Hindu, Muslim, or Jew could see it the same way as you. The problem there, I think, is that those faiths disagree on several key issues.
One question though, if you think the Bible was inspired by god. How do you rectify this with the rampart misogyny in the laws from Deuteronomy?
Never said it. Plenty of unbelieving men and women in history have accomplished great things for mankind. They are champions of humanity.
But an athiest with an axe to grind is a different story. So are those who claim to believe in God and model the exact opposite in everything they do. Neither are a benefit.
So please excuse me…got some grass to cut.
za – True, the Creation Science people have a following, but do not represent the main stream of Christian theology.
Hugh Ross (“Creation and Time“; “More Than a Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation” etc.) is more along the mainstream. But I know straw dogs are easier so knock yourself out.
Don’t know your thoughts, just hold a more tenable position on the nature of humanity. Imagio Dei vs Tabula Rasa.
jangar:
You think I can’t just link what you said?
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/24/ghoulish-science-obamacare-health-hazard/comment-page-1/#comment-753009
Calling atheists immoral and telling us we are ruining the nation is exactly what you did. Yes, me and my axe to grind, shame on me for insisting I am not evil or ruining the nation.
swede:
See my reply to Flyoverman. I don’t have a problem with the “mainstream.” Jangar isn’t mainstream, and I can’t understand why you “mainstream” folks back him up. Stop pretending to yourself I am the enemy of your religion and recognize the bigoted statements of your fundamentalist allies.
Ref. the nature of humanity, see my earlier arguments WRT social animals. You can’t get a “more tenable position on the nature” of anything than naturalism.
Naturalism presents far more questions than answers my friend. Any position that relies on episomological data restricts thought to observable phenomenon, a tiny fraction of the universe and from a logical perspective, it’s tenets are self referentially absurd. Again, reference good ol’ Albert E.
BTW thanks for the non personal discourse. Much more interesting.
Swede:
I can quote Einstein too:
http://www.atheistempire.com/greatminds/quotes.php?author=9
There’s more, and they are referenced in case you think the website made them up.
In any case, it’s kind of pointless for two main reasons.
1) He isn’t around anymore to ask.
2) He doesn’t know anything more about the supernatural than me, you, or anyone else.
WRT being non-personal; you will find I respond in kind. Folks that spew vile bigotry will get ridiculed. Others on this forum have found that if they actually engage me and don’t start off by calling me evil, flawed, foolish, etc. will find that I am capable of being cordial.
Swede:
I can’t find your quote BTW. Can you reference it?
I know. How does that change my point?
To be more accurate, Rand was an objectivist. A pure objectivist would not believe in God. And would also not believe in the god of science.
long_haired_conservative:
Just throwing it in as part of the ongoing discussion. Some folks aren’t aware of it.
Another poster earlier mentioned that science is a means, not an end. Like any means it can be abused. I don’t know what you mean by the “god” of science. Is it some obscure Roman or Greek deity?
long_haired_conservative:
If I had to describe myself, objectivist might be a pretty good start.
Bucky, Peter A. with Allen G. Weakland, The Private Albert Einstein pp. 85-87
swede:
I can’t find the book online and I can’t get to a library right now. I was just curious if this:
…was you or Einstien. I was also curios of the context, but that can wait till I read it myself.
za
The comment on naturalism is from me. The quote in context is here.
Please za, in the view of a Jesuit Priest I would be an atheist.
Zeroangel,
Thanks for your reply. Yes, I agree that given my view all of the other religons could in theory be acceptable. For the sake of full disclosure I am a Lutheran (Missouri Synod). That shapes the discussion.
In terms of Old Testament Laws I will HOPEFULLY try to be brief. Here is the 50,000 foot view. God promised in Genisis 3 to send a Savior who would break the bonds of sin. To ensure that a race of people stayed true to God in a sinful world God chose the Jews to be the ones who would have some faithful people from whom the Messaiah would come.
In general those laws of daily living were all meant to keep the Jews faithful and pure to have faithful when the Messaiah came.
Could a non-Jew prior to Chirst be saved. CERTAINLY.
When Jesus was born, died and rose again, just like the curtain in the temple was torn in half those old Laws no longer applied. There are many things however that did carry over in our faith because Jesus referred to them in the New Testament.
The best example is there is no need to sacrifice, because Christ in our view HAD to be the perfect sacrifice or we would still be in sin.
Remember most Christians and ESPECIALLY my denomination believes we are only “saved” by grace. There is NOTHING we can do to “earn” heaven. Christ bore our sins on the cross for us. The reason we follow the commandments is because Christ commanded us and we need to live in a way to be a witness to our faith in God.
In my haste I was likely incoherent, but…..
Off to the county fair. Thankfully my church turns a blind eye to gluttony.
obama’s healthcare
=
THE FINAL SOLUTION
for Seniors and the Unborn
This is not intended to offend our Jewish friends….but this is how I view the health care reform generated by the occupier of the WH.
Fly:
I’ll go one step further –
A God that would go so far as to take our punishment for sin in our place rightfully deserves worship and praise.
It is this reality that makes a ‘saved’ person not want to sin anymore, but be thankful for the redemption.
swede:
Then you and I would probably get along fine. You don’t think I am de facto evil by virtue of my atheism do you? In any case, if you dillute the meaning of “god” to be the nebulous “Pantheism” (best way I can think of to describe it) of Einstein, then I also am a “believer” in Einstein’s “god.” In any case, it’s all just labels. Einstein and I are essentially (for all practical purposes) the same.
Flyoverman:
Do you think “God” inspired the rules in Deuteronomy that say to stone the victim of a rape or adulterers? Perhaps that was just primitive man that screwed up the message?
I was raised, communed and confirmed Lutheran. You and I are very likely of the same mind on a great many things.
swede:
Consider that atheism has a very negative connotation. I am no longer ashamed to use it but I will give you this anecdote:
Just about a year or so ago (before reading Dawkins) a self-proclaimed atheist and I got into a conversation on the subject. I said that I haven’t read Dawkins but I kinda get the impression that it’s wrong to speak out so negatively about religion and that I, personally, subscribe to Einstein’s god.
This person suggested that I really should read Dawkins because he doesn’t have any problem with Einstein’s god and that I am being fed a very negative and inaccurate picture of what Dawkins has to say.
Needless to say, I read the book.
Zeroangel,
I am back from the fair. Nice night.
I’ll have to check the verses in Deuteronomy. I have no problem with stoning, but I need to find the reference to the “victim of a rape” being stoned.
I could see someone mangling the translation. Example, if you look at the ancient Hebrew, Moses crossed the Reed Sea (i.e. Sea of Reeds) not the Red Sea. The former actually makes more sense historically.
If you were confirmed Lutheran, yes you and I will be of similar mind on things.
Just be careful, the Holy Spirit might sneak up on you.
Have a good night!
Flyoverman:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/24/ghoulish-science-obamacare-health-hazard/comment-page-2/#comment-753370
Well, it’s saying the girl should be stoned because she didn’t cry out. Seems pretty clearly to be talking about rape and blaming the victim. In any case, stoning for adultery is pretty over the top, don’t you think? Maybe even cruel? Certainly, our laws in the US agree.
Point 1 – She went to the city, which a virgin would not do, especially by herself.
Point 2 – She was in the city, by herself, and did not cry out (“help…someone is raping me”), but seemed content with the situation (easily assume that this was her objective of going to the city).
Point 3 – This kind of sin (sexual deviance) was to be condemned and not allowed to corrupt the people as a whole. Therefore, capital punishment was the requirement in order to impress upon the people that GOD is serious about their sin and will punish. He would rather lose a couple of kids than a whole nation of people.
That is my take on this portion of scripture.
Good night.
(almost done)
God is holy. Sin cannot stand before Him. It is against the nature of God and the order of His creation. He cannot turn His back to sin, He is consistant and does not vary.
Man sinned, giving his birthright to Satan, the father of all lies and sin. Satan now (temporarily) has the title and deed to earth. Man suffers for this, and is condemned.
Man cannot redeem himself and gain back that which he lost. The entire world also suffers from sin, because sin entered the world that was made perfect in the begining.
Sin must be punished by eternal separation from God, unless a sacrifice is provided.
A perfect Adam (man) must purchase the world back from Satan. However, since man is a sinful creature, this is impossible. The creation was lost by a man, and the creation must be regained by a man.
Enter Jesus…God so loved the world that He gave His only Son (as a perfect sacrifice/sacrificial lamb, unblemished, sinless, the seed of God, half God and half man) that who so ever believes in Him shall never perish, but have eternal life. He is our perfect sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin. He will return again to eliminate all sin and evidence of it. At this point, the world will be renewed to its original form.
jangar:
Well… I’ll bet the Taliban would agree with you on all three points! You’ve just condemned every victim of date rape. Nice. It’s amazing to me that you actually try and justify this.
This from the administration which set in place a Science Adviser who thinks it would be OK if mass sterilizations were performed through chemical additives to the drinking water supply. What could go wrong?