In recent decades White House administrations have increased the numbers of “special advisors to the president” – more commonly called czars. Unlike cabinet appointments, czars don’t go through a confirmation process, their responsibilities are not clearly defined, and there is no guaranteed minimum level of transparency concerning their roles and amount of influence they have. President Obama is definitely not the first president to appoint czars. However, he is the first to appoint so many (around three dozen.) He’s also the first to appoint self-avowed communists, eugenicists, and other extreme radicals to official White House advisory roles. Over the next few weeks, I’m going to discuss some of the most extreme czars currently serving in the White House. As you read about each one, ask yourself the following four questions:
1. Am I comfortable not knowing the extent of this person’s influence on current policy initiatives, especially knowing that the czars are not accountable to anyone but the president?
2. If this is what these czars have written, said, or endorsed in public, then what have they advocated behind closed doors?
3. Do I want these people making any decisions about my life?
4. The House health care bill establishes a “Health Choices Commissioner,” responsible for deciding what treatments should be given to patients. The HCC will be appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and then only accountable to the president. Do I trust President Obama’s judgment about the type of person he will appoint to this position?
Shortly after taking office, B. Hussein Obama declared that politics would be removed from science as he lifted the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius has also explained that, regarding health care reform, “I think it would be wise to let science guide what the best health care package is.” Considering the views of the man Obama has selected as “Science Czar,” this is a very disturbing prospect.
John Holdren was appointed by Obama to Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Advisors on Science and Technology. Informally, he’s the “Science Czar.” No matter what title you choose, it’s easy to see that he’s the main scientific authority for the Obama administration.
Concerns over Holdren’s views on “science” mainly come from a book he co-authored in 1977 titled, “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment.” The book focuses on the issue of overpopulation, what Holdren and his two co-authors, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, see as the impending doom certain to destroy the planet in the following 23 years unless it’s immediately dealt with. In order to fight the “crisis” (a word often used 
in the Obama administration), Holdren argues for Draconian policies. Most Americans would be shocked that anyone supporting the actions proposed in this book has any influence on the President of the United States.
On page 837, the book states, “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortions, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger society.” This passage is extremely offensive for two reasons. Of course there is the horrific idea of forcing women to abort their children. However, perhaps even more disturbing, according to Holdren’s interpretation, there’s nothing in the Constitution to prevent the government from doing this. This man is the White House “scientific” authority in an administration that wants to remove politics from science.
“Ecoscience” also discusses “Involuntary Fertility Control.” The authors write on page 786-7, “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.” Getting more specific, the book goes on to ponder, “The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.” The supposed “women’s rights” groups such as and NOW should be pitching a fit that Holdren is advising Obama. No one has heard a word from these groups. Imagine if a Bush advisor was merely caught checking out a copy of this book at the library. The streets would be illuminated with burning bras for months on end. Yet, Obama appoints the author of the book to advise him and there isn’t a peep of protest from feminist groups.
What forced abortion and sterilization policy would be complete without good old fashioned eugenics? On page 838 of the book, it explains, “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 – just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns – providing they are not denied equal protection.” Apparently, according to them, as long as the Equal Protection Clause is considered, everything would be constitutional. (Notice how the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill will require us to “exercise responsibility in [our] resource-consumption patterns?) Once again, we do not even now to what extent Holdren advises the Obama administration or the specific powers he holds.
These are just three passages from the nearly 1,000-page-book. The authors have plenty other hideous ideas such as placing an infertility drug in the water supply to sterilize general populations. Since his appointment, Holdren has insisted that “Ecoscience” is irrelevant because it was written 32 years ago and the population crisis never materialized. Apparently, he misses the entire point for concern. Regardless of when he wrote this book, at the time of its publishing, he was serious that these steps should be taken to avert a crisis that he was convinced was imminent. The Obama administration announces a new crisis every time we turn around. What “constitutional,” “scientific” (or final) solutions will Holdren propose next? It’s hard to know whether to be more terrified of B. Hussein Obama’s politics or his science. We should be thankful he’s not mixing the two.
(For more, visit www.donkeyridingcommies.com. Recent posts discuss the outrageous claims made upon Ted Kennedy's death, a Democrat Congresswoman's praise of Fidel Castro and Cuba's medical system, and plenty more with new posts added daily. Thanks for reading and come back next Tuesday for part two on Obama's czars.)