Hannity falsely claims science adviser Holdren "advocated compulsory abortion"
On his Fox News show, Sean Hannity forwarded the false conservative talking point -- which PolitiFact.com gave "Pants on Fire" status -- that White House science and technology adviser John Holdren "advocated compulsory abortion" and "spoke out in defense of compulsory abortion and sterilization." In fact, Holdren never "advocated" for any kind of involuntary birth control; he co-authored an environmental sciences book more than 30 years ago that discusses "compulsory control of family size" including abortion and sterilization as a possible consequence for countries whose expanding birth rates are not curbed by "milder methods."
From the
September 8 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: So we know the White House sought out Van Jones, which begs the question: How many more like him are serving in our government? Is Van Jones just the tip of the iceberg?
We know for example there's John Holdren, the science and technology adviser, who has advocated compulsory abortion. And then there's Cass Sunstein, the Harvard law professor, who wants to ban hunting and grant rights to livestock, wildlife, and pets.
Now we can only conclude that it's time to take a much closer look at who exactly this president has now serving in our government.
[...]
HANNITY: Here's the question I have. When you have Eric [sic] Holdren, his science adviser, who supports -- spoke out in defense of compulsory abortion and sterilization.
MICHAEL STEELE (Republican National Committee chairman): Yep.
HANNITY: When you have a State Department lawyer, Harold Koh, who says the U.S. should follow Sharia law in some cases. This guy Cass Sunstein who wants to give rights to pets and ban hunting. You know, the question is, this is not just one mistake here.
STEELE: Right.
HANNITY: What does this tell you about this president? Is he presenting a more moderate face to the American people, but in reality he is a radical himself?
PolitiFact calls similar claim about "forcing abortions" "irresponsible," gives it "Pants on Fire" status
PolitiFact.com: "We think it's irresponsible to pluck a few lines from a 1,000-page, 30-year-old textbook, and then present them out of context." After Fox News' Glenn Beck claimed that Holdren "proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population," PolitiFact concluded that "the text of the book clearly does not support that. We think a thorough reading shows that these were ideas presented as approaches that had been discussed. They were not posed as suggestions or proposals. In fact, the authors make clear that they did not support coercive means of population control. Certainly, nowhere in the book do the authors advocate for forced abortions." From PolitiFact:
But in seeking to score points for a political argument, Beck seriously mischaracterizes Holdren's positions. Holdren didn't advocate those ideas then. And, when asked at a Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he did not support them now. We think it's irresponsible to pluck a few lines from a 1,000-page, 30-year-old textbook, and then present them out of context to dismiss Holdren's long and distinguished career. And we rate Beck's claim Pants on Fire!
PolitiFact also quoted a statement from Holdren's office that said:
The quotations used to suggest that Dr. Holdren supports coercive approaches to limiting population growth were taken from a 1977 college textbook on environmental science and policy, of which he was the third author. The quoted material was from a section of the book that described different possible approaches to limiting population growth and then concluded that the authors' own preference was to employ the noncoercive approaches before the environmental and social impacts of overpopulation led desperate societies to employ coercive ones. Dr. Holdren has never been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive means of population limitation.
Indeed, Holdren and his co-authors advocated for non-coercive means of population control. After Holdren and his co-authors discussed involuntary fertility control, they concluded that "[a] far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly against population growth, perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries." Excerpted from Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, written by Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren:
[...]
Fox News routinely distorts textbook passage to attack Holdren
Hannity has previously said Holdren has "spoken out in defense of compulsory abortion." Hannity has repeatedly accused Holdren of defending "compulsory abortion." On his Fox News show, Hannity said: "We have this other guy, a science adviser, Eric [sic] Holdren, who's spoken out in defense of compulsory abortion. And, you know, all of this -- I know we've been very engaged. We have talked about all of these czars and all of these extreme positions. But there's one right after another." [Hannity, 9/2/09]
Beck: Obama czars have "nut-job beliefs like putting sterilants in drinking water ... forced abortions." Discussing Obama's czars on his Fox News show, Beck said: "I'm more concerned with the fact that seeming -- seemingly every single one of these guys shares one common thing: They all have nut-job beliefs like putting sterilants in drinking water, legal rights for animals, forced abortions. There's at least one communist that I know. The collective resumes of these czars has me on my knees every night praying for the run-of-the-mill socialist just to be appointed." [Glenn Beck, 8/3/09]
Beck: "Holdren has proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population." On his Fox News show, Beck said: "I mean, look at what's going on. We got czars coming out our -- they're shooting out of our butts. Czars like John Holdren, who is -- there is great evil happening in our country. Holdren has proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population. Oh, that's crazy. What, that was -- that was 20 years ago." [Glenn Beck, 7/22/09]
Michelle Malkin accused Holdren of putting forth and writing about "wacky and nutty policies." On Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin said: "I've been focusing on the so-called science czar, John Holdren, and he's actually one of the few, quote-unquote 'czars' who did go through the nomination process. But even in that sense there was not enough accountability for the wacky and nutty policies that this guy has put forth and wrote about in the 1970s. This is a guy who wrote a book that actually posited the idea of putting sterilants in the water supply so that women would be infertile, and they would have control over the population. It's very scary. And that's ultimately what the whole czar regime about. It's about control and coercion." [Fox & Friends, 7/16/09]
Is that how it works, Sean?
You called it, Irony. This is done, to some extent, by most pols, but the Right carries it to obscene extremes, and has done so since the early days of the Republic. This from a book I'm reading, UNITED IRISHMEN, UNITED STATES; Immigrant Radicals in the Early Republic:
"This appeared to validate what a "Loyal Irishman"told Fenno's readers about the strange language that was being used by the American Society of United Irishmen. At the head of a notice advertising a meeting of the Society in Philadelphia in November 1798 were the words CODROMAGHT and SAOIRSEAUGHT. The "mystical meaning" could be deciphered, he wrote, once it was realized that these words actually constituted an anagram. "The parole is ROOM AHOA! Countersign, THIS DAGGER CUTS. It was originally intended for Dublin, where most of the United Irishmen were armed with Daggers only, owing to the difficulty of concealing their pikes and muskets from the general search by the government,--but this is the first time I have met with it in this country." In fact, the words were Gaelic for Equality and Liberty, but no good conspiracy theory worth his salt would be deterred by such minor details."
Shamity and Becky are part of a long, sleazy tradition.
Irony, I've only read excerpts of Holdren's book, but it is interesting how ignorant people interpret things that are beyond their understanding (assuming Hannity and the others frightened by it are being sincere).
What I've seen is theory, worst-case-scenarios written when the dangers of overpopulation were first being explored. The alternative to responsibility in voluntarily controlling population is death through famine, disease, war, and other side effects of out-of-contol populations.
If anything, Holdren's writings were intended as a warning, as a way to avoid the two options available as a natural result of a population explosion, active control of that population or passively letting nature restore balance through massive fatalities.
If only he'd written a book about puppies.
As it turned out the tape was recorded by one of Obama's Constitutional Law law students of one of Obama's lectures. And the passage that Hannity played was of Obama reading the words of someone else from a book. Typical Hannity...
In the same way, compulsory abortion is immoral, absent of circumstances of extreme overpopulation. That's entirely consistent with the text here, as far as I see. There comes a point in time where the unpalatable act becomes necessary.
Yes, they can be reinterpreted in a hundred different ways, which leads me to challenge you to actually read the work in question at least in part. Before you too either bash or laud Holdren, make your own deductions about him through his own work and words. Non-fiction or not, much about a person can be gleaned from their writing.
I have done this myself, and for me, Holdren is a poster boy for what I find wrong with big government. My carbon footprint is nothing compared to the proposed government thumb that Holdren, Sunstein, and Koh represent.
It doesn't have to be. There is nothing wrong with local. We do not need tiers of nannies adding puppet strings to us. Enough already. I hear a lot about amendments, but seldom hear the 10th Amendment quoted:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Washington as it is now, and the even more repressive Washington envisioned by ObamaSunsteinKohBrownerJonesHoldren, is not representative of the people. Both parties are guilty of abandoning the Constitution and both turn the gears further on the coup. Are you going to give up that easily?
In my neighborhood, you defended yourself or were rolled over. Many people who post here I feel are playing dead, but the wheels will roll over them as well. I for one see it coming and I plan to fight it just like previous generations have every time they were called upon. We fought for representation before. I hope you haven't forgotten those lessons. The Redcoats are here again. Freedom calls. Best of luck resisting the awakened tide.
These grand conspiracies have existed in the minds of the paranoid for the entire time of our country's existence and none have come to fruition yet. I see no evidence that any current power grabs are about to take place. I also don't see a level of fear of it among the general populace that would suggest we're anywhere near a fight to regain our freedom.
With all due respect, you are delusional.
You say the threats to liberty I perceive "would require a level of long-term planning and organization that simply isn't realistic." Have you read Our Global Neighborhood, released in 1985? That was years in the making and, let me count...hmm, would 14+ years qualify as "many years"?
These dudes have been around a lot longer than that. And for you to think that the current group in Washington does not represent the most transnationalist slant of any before it tells me that it is you who are delusional (with all due respect of course) and unwilling to challenge your long-entrenched beliefs.
And if there were still doubt as to the veracity of that statement, you actually said (this is not parody), "I see no evidence that any current power grabs are about to take place." And I'm delusional right? I was going to dissect that statement as it is truly absurd, but you succeeded in stripping me of my first amendment rights. I am speechless.
The claim made by Hannity is a pants-on-fire lie. The rest of your post shows you are delusional and into conspiracy theories. Are you a birther?
There is no need for conspiracy theories when the architects of our future tout global governance openly. It isn't a secret. Go take a look at what the UN is up to. It doesn't matter how many times people like you say "Nothing to see here" because there are enough people like me who have their eyes and ears open.
It's a shame really. We could use your revolutionary spirit to fight for our freedom again. Too bad you have chosen the wrong side. Still time for you to defect though.
You think the UN is about to take over the world? Wake up. The UN could do nothing to stop us from invading another sovereign nation. You waste your fear on the UN. Come on, get real.
Um...yes it is. Please google the 2008 election results.
You know, the guy who wanted to kick veterans out of the government health insurance if they could gain access to insurance from their spouses. The guy who forced retired school teachers in Indiana to take an unlawful whack to their pensions with the Chrysler takeover (oh, I forgot, they were just "greedy speculators"). I could continue this lists for hours literally.
The differences between campaign Obama and elected Obama are stark. He's a politician so that is no surprise, but his case is an example of political camouflage to the extreme. He could not have been elected if he were honest with Americans about his philosophy. And he wasted no time exposing himself. So you can cite the election, but the reality is that the guy at the top of the ballot is not the guy who has since emerged from hiding.
You need to open your eyes to reality. The "fringe left" isn't crazy about Obama. Most see him as a moderate at best and many describe him as a conservative.
It's the left that has been the most disillusioned with his Presidency. The fact is that he's governing from a position even farther to the right than he campaigned on, and his campaign was as a moderate.
I honestly feel we have lost control of this government and both parties are to blame for it (as are the American people for allowing it). This president had an extremely left-slanted record in the Senate and his actions as President have not only followed suit but blossomed. If that is bizarro world to you, we live on different planets.
If I had said most progressive President in U.S. history, would that have been acceptable speech?
Just as control has been wrested from the states and the people incrementally, so shall be our return to power. One chip at a time. I guess that makes me crazy.
Which veterans were kicked out of the VA? Maybe you should take a look at Obama's polling numbers. Still a mjority of Americans in support of him. So yes, you are delusional.
I have some left-wing progressive attitudes as well, so I guess "what I think" of them depends on a case-by-case basis (my dad for instance is a left-wing progressive). First and foremost for me is whether someone is willing to listen to what I have to say? That's how I judge people when discussing politics. I don't mind divergent opinions. I think it's called tolerance or something.
Since I am "all over the map, alright" it isn't a simple task to find anyone who agrees with me about everything, and that's a great thing. You learn more that way by keeping your mind open, and you hopefully find people who truly are tolerant, or at least tolerant enough. I thought that was what free thinkers did.
My brand of politician does not exist, so these clowns are fair game to me. And I am not posing. Is being in favor of the legalization of marijuana and prostitution progressive enough for you? How about polygamy then (why would we let a government dictate who it is we love and want to spend our lives with?)? Life of the party when I mention that one, especially right after I say I am a huge proponent of the free market system.
Since you asked about the VA, here you go. I prefer the Jon Stewart piece but the other link has more meat (Obama didn't wait long did he?):
CNN Report Before He Backed Down
Jon Stewart
As for Obama's polling numbers, even after all that has happened in the last four years or so, STILL some people are asleep at the switch. Still time to keep chipping away.
I am mostly libertarian (my politics are honestly all over the map) and would like more than anything to have the government return the powers they have confiscated from us back to the states so that we the people can handle things on a local level. I didn't think that was a sinful goal.
The bottom line is there is a faction within our government that wants more of a "global community" (or "global regime" to quote Holdren) and one that wants strict American sovereignty. I am in the latter group and proud of it. I think that is the principle that let to America's creation, and it is one that I hope my son's children will also enjoy.
It seems a lot of the folks that post here would welcome "global governance" as Gore puts it. I do not and will fight it with all my spirit. I do not expect any violent revolution, but I do certainly expect more and more Americans to awaken from their American Idol stupor, fight against disenfranchisement, and demand their voices be heard again.
Ok, Mr/Mrs Libertarian, what powers are you referring to?
As for your question, are you going to with a straight face claim that the federal government does not have more power than the Constitution and the states allowed? What strings do the states pull anymore? And once the purse strings were being pulled by the feds the game was largely over.
This current administration is the culmination of the coup. Unchecked, it would still take decades to accomplish, but the foundational fortification going on now toward their "radical ends" would be irreversible. That is, if we were to all roll over. That won't be happening.
Someone who will abort a innocent, will assume the right to kill the old or other groups?
(let's leave out the fact that they are discussing it and not advocating - it just gets in the way of a good story)