Available in book stores nationwide...
VOICE: The Glenn Beck program presents Spotlight on Science.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: We will restore science to its rightful place.
VOICE: A series dedicated to President Obama's passion for everything science.
GLENN: Yeah, we're going to put science back where she belongs and what a better place to start, what a better way to show the American people that we're serious about science than appointing a science czar. Now, some people are just a little troubled by the whole czar title but don't worry about that. It's just, really just a figure of speech. The administration would never appoint a czar, you know, somebody who doesn't have to answer to anyone who has crazy, way out of the mainstream viewpoints. John Holdren is Obama's new science czar. He's quite an accomplished guy. He's done an awful lot of stuff. For instance, he was the Teresa and John Heinz professor at environmental policy at the Kennedy school of government at Harvard University. I mean, what could go wrong there? The Teresa and John Heinz professor of environmental policy at the Kennedy school of government at Harvard. At some point shouldn't all of that cancel each other out? He also coauthored a book in 1977 on population control called Eco science. He wrote it with Ann and Paul Ehrlich. Paul Ehrlich, I was trying to think this morning, where have I heard that name before. And then I remembered: An Inconvenient Book. We did this, what, is this two years old now? These are the quotes that I found from the inconvenient book this morning. Quote: It would take I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000. He said that in 1969. In 1970 he said, ten years, in ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of the coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. Do you remember that in 1980? That was crazy. In 1978 he said, giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun. He wrote these, he wrote this last thing. He said this last thing a year after he coauthored a book with our new science czar. Now, what has our new science czar done? Well, of course, the big scientific consensus during the Seventies was that overpopulation was going to destroy the Earth. So what was Holdren really thinking? What was he thinking back then? What was he saying? Quote, this is our new science czar, quote: 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. Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods. I want you to know that I am in fact, let me pull up my notebook here. I'm looking up something and I'm going to give it to you here in the next few days. I'm working on, I'm working on some I'm bothered by some things lately that just, that bother me. One is Epicyte. Stu, do you have that story about Epicyte? I'm going to give you a story in the next half hour about Epicyte. It's a biotech company that was putting sterilization into food. They were putting it in. They were making genetically modified corn here in America that if you ate it or you crushed it up into pill form, it would be, you know, it would be corn that would attack a man's sperm cell. And so it would be birth control through food. I looked this up and it's leading me some other places. But I looked for the story and what I found in the news story, there's a reason you haven't heard about this and there's no conspiracy to it. But when I give you the story, you'll say, oh, my gosh. This is huge because what Holdren has said, adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that horrifies people than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. There's somebody who's been working on it, a big company, Epicyte, which no longer exists but follow the trail. He says, seems to horrify in that statement as if it's surprising that some people would be opposed to this idea. Seems to horrify people. He says, quote: Indeed this would pose some very difficult political, legal and social questions to say nothing of the technical problems. Does anybody notice that the one problem that he leaves out is the ethical problems? He says it would be politically tough, it would be legally tough. It would lead to some social questions and it's technically tough, but there's no discussion. Our new science czar of political I mean ethical problems. He says, quote: No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. Oh, that's too bad. Unfortunately he's wrong. He says, quote: To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements. It must be uniformly effective. In other words, you can't kill one race of people and not another. Despite widely varying doses received by individuals and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals, it also must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects and it must not affect members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. So God forbid we put it in the drinking water and cows go sterile.
So the ridiculous idea of our new science czar is not dismissed. It's just not ready to go yet. I mean, it might hurt the livestock or the pets. Since that idea is just ridiculous, here's another one he had. Quote: Of course, a government might require only implantation of a contraceptive capsule. So in other words, the government can require the implantation of some sort of a capsule in you that sterilizes you or is a contraceptive, leaving the removal to the individual's discretion but requiring reimplantation after childbirth. So in other words, they are going to they can require you to have something put in you so you cannot have children. You then, if you want, God knows under universal healthcare how you are going to be able to afford to have that taken out or what the procedure would be like. But you can do it on your own time. You can dig it out of you but then the government will require that that is put back in after childbirth. Since having a child would require positive action, removal of the capsule, many more births would be prevented than in the reverse situation. Oh, the good old opt in, opt out game. That's great. Nothing that would connect with a president who's, you know, must read book in his administration is Animal Spirits that specifically talks about devices like opt in and opt out as effective ways to make the population do exactly what you want them to do. But it gets worse. Quote from our new science czar: Responsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate child bearing should be strongly discouraged. 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. It would be even it would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have an abortion perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption depending on the society.
So what do we have from our new science czar? Something that is so far out of the mainstream, it's hair raising. Forced adoptions. Sterilant in the drinking water or crops. Contraceptive capsules that are required to be implanted. You can then take out and then they would require you after one child to reimplant. Gosh, I hope all this is available in universal healthcare. When will this country wake up and see where we are headed? We have accepted how many people around this guy and said, "Well, he didn't know. Well, he's not a radical." The people how many communists do we have? I mean, avowed communists? How many people do we have that are internationalists, transnationalists that believe in a global government that are now in our government. How many radicals do we have that are way out of the mainstream?