Ultimately, according to the last count the Obama White House will place 32 czars in its administration. Here is a current list which documents the czar count.
In March 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., became concerned about the proliferation of “czars” in the Obama White House. At times, he said, White House staffers of the past have assumed duties that should be the responsibility of officials and cabinet members who have persevered through the Senate review and confirmation process. It looks here like Byrd was on the right track.
“They rarely testify before congressional committees and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege,” Byrd wrote of past czars and White House staffers in similar positions. At times, he said, one outcome has been to “inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.”
“The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances,” Byrd said.
It is entirely possible that this multiplying of “czars” may be unconstitutional. Bloomburg wrote about this in March as well. The question, it seems to me, should be revisited.
What follows are a few quotes, which go from bad to worse, by some of the more infamous czars; mainstream news outlets have not covered the czar situation at all. I’ve left out Van Jones from this list because he is in a class by himself.
Climate Czar, Carol Browner, “We put nothing in writing, ever.“ That was one of the ways she made sure that everyone’s ability to talk freely was protected. This comment she made to auto executives during meetings to change corporate average fuel economy (CAFE). She didn’t want a paper trail for those meetings. Apparently, meeting minutes are now obsolete? So much for transparency.
Carol Browner, “I’ve read vast portions of it.” She is referring here to the Cap & Trade bill she was campaigning for and hadn’t read when she was being interviewed by Fox.
Browner was also one of 14 leaders of a socialist group called the Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for “global governance” and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change. She has now distanced herself from this group which is socialist in their ideological agenda. Allegedly, she is not affiliated with this group anymore.
Cass Sunstein, Regulatory czar, wants organ donation to be non-voluntary: “The major obstacle to increasing [organ] donations is the need to get the consent of surviving family members,” said Sunstein and Thaler in their 2008 book Nudge: Improving Decisions in Health, Wealth and Happiness.
“Presumed consent preserves freedom of choice, but it is different from explicit consent because it shifts the default rule. Under this policy, all citizens would be presumed to be consenting donors, but they would have the opportunity to register their unwillingness to donate,” Sunstein and his co-author explained.
Dr. John Holdren, Science czar, “The neo-Malthusiasn view proposes…population limitation and redistribution of wealth.” “On these points, we find ourselves firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp” (found in Ecoscience, 1977, 954). Ecoscience was co-authored with Paul Erlich and his wife.
Holdren and the Ehrlichs also maintained in this gem of a book that “there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. . . it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
“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). Throughout the text euphemism abounds.
Of course there is more to Holdren who has been given a pass by mainstream media outlets and public officials. Learn more here at Frontpage about this brave-new-world tract of Holdren and Erlich.
What all of these quotations indicate is a blatant and consistent disregard for individual freedom and basic democratic principles. Van Jones’s bombast throughout his tenure in the administration indicates the same. The vaunted vetting process of the Obama administration is either a failure, incompetently handled, or the Obama transition team agrees with the kind of statements made and the kinds of tactics used by its czars. The pattern has emerged consistently from this White House and it’s essentially autocratic as well as condescending. This gnostic certainly will continue because I see no attitudinal change a head which takes into account the centrist climate of the country. Hence, the country is in for a real ride and an era of protest which will accelerate if the people’s views and the country’s democratic principles are not respected.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, September 6th, 2009 at 4:33 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.