You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘White House Czars’ category.

Normally I steer away from Rolling Stone and their articles. However, this one makes some very good points and arguments in regards to the Obama administration’s catastrophically negative impact on the U.S. economy. As in the author of the article Obama’s Big Sellout stated, “This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside.” Which in my opinion, is putting it mildly. It is and has been a buy out of the major banks and automobile companies in aspirations to gain even more of a government foothold. And as the article points out, “… the extensive series of loophole-rich financial “reforms” that the Democrats are currently pushing may ultimately do more harm than good.”

It is also explains that during the campaign Obama had advisers which focused heavily on helping the poor and middle class, and condemned the bankers of Wall Street. But the day after Barack Obama was elected to office, he did away with those advisers and replaced them with the total opposite, Wall Street bankers. Which “Leading the search for the president’s new economic team was his close friend and Harvard Law classmate Michael Froman, a high-ranking executive at Citigroup.” And it wasn’t long after he was made official in his office that Obama made the $306 billion bailout of Citigroup and agreed to make taxpayers pay up to $277 billion in losses for the Citi assets.

It is very interesting to say the least to see how the web of Obama’s economic team was formed. There is no interest in helping the poor or middle class. It is about making more money and expanding government control. The author of the cited article does well showing the timeline of events and the connections of the appointees. However, he is clearly a democrat and was at one time for Obama. He also uses a fair amount of profanity, which is completely unnecessary for getting his point across. But I do think it is a worthwhile read for informational purposes if you read it to the end.

Article cited:

WARNING THE FOLLOWING LINK DOES CONTAIN PROFANITY (very unnecessarily)

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout/4

Advertisements

Over the past 10 months of Barack Obama’s presidency we have seen many new people added to the members of the White House. The vast majority of these new people, put into place by President Obama, have Marxist or Communist ties of some sort. A number of them are open about it, being members of revolutionary groups and citing known Communists or Marxists in speeches in the recent past. And others are a little more hidden, being uncovered by past remarks, friends, associates, and writings that were never made well known. Is this purely a coincidence? I honestly do not think that is the case. It is proven time and again through history that you are who your friends are, and you usually hold many of the same views as the company you keep. Why would President Obama put into power so many people with one common factor? I’m sure you already know the answer.

Here is the latest reveal of yet another White House authority, Anita Dunn, the communication’s director. She stated that Mao Tse Tung (a mass murderer responsible for more deaths than Hitler) was one of her favorite political philosophers, one that she turns to the most. And she directly quoted him while giving a speech to an audience of high school students. (video below)

Is it any surprise now that, with Ms. Dunn being the communication’s director, of the White House communication’s staff is now plotting a more aggressive way to deal with news stories that they find unflattering? Not at all, she is not the first in the Obama administration to attack free speech. But she is on the rampage. She told Time Magazine this week, “that she and her team were no longer going to “just sit back and defend ourselves, because [conservative media] will say anything. They will take any small thing and distort it.” She also said in a telephone interview as reported by NYTimes, “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent.”

We can clearly see, that Anita Dunn is like a child who has been caught steeling. She is kicking and screaming, trying to point the finger at anyone but herself. In this case, she is pointing at the one’s who have called her out, the conservative media. This is a normal liberal tactic to divert attention from their agenda. But the video of Ms. Dunn, like the many videos of other White House authorities, shows that there is no distortion, only the facts. And the facts are, the people being put into power in the Obama administration are heavily relying on and favoring Marxist and Communist tactics and policy.

The new White House czars brought in by President Obama has been a hot topic the past several months. After all, Obama has brought in more czars in his thus far short presidency than President George W. Bush had in his entire 8 years, and the same goes for all the other past presidents as well. The term czar is not an official job related term in Washington, however it is what the White House uses to refer to those who are not voted on to be put into a government position.

The question from conservative news and talk radio icons along with the general public has been whether or not these czars are being put into place to create policy without the obligation to submit to congressional questioning. This is especially a troubling thought being as the mass majority of the people who are in these positions have disturbing past and current beliefs that are quite contrary to what most of the people of the US believe to be good for the country.

Given the rise in demand for answers to why so many czars are becoming part of the Obama Cabinet, the House and Senate became quickly aware of the way the people felt about the situation and started voicing their own concerns. This lead to the proposition of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing to explore the powers given to these White House officials which was regrettably shrugged off by the Obama Administration.

Of course, the majority of the one’s questioning the power and amount of authority given to the czars came from the GOP, which as always were mocked and unsupported. However, liberal Democrat senator Russell Feingold was the most out spoken of the Democrats about the role of the White House czars and was the one who called for the hearing. Unhappy with the answers from Obama so far, Feingold said, “It’s not good enough to simply say, ‘Well, George Bush did it too.” One would have thought, that since he is a liberal Democrat, that the Administration would have at least entertained his request.

After ignoring the hearing and refusing to even send a witness, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters, “”I would assume that Congress and Senator Feingold have more weighty topics to grapple with than — than something like this.” You know, really important stuff, kind of like that time they spent the ENTIRE day deciding how to punish Joe Wilson. This raises eyebrows even more as to the legality of the positions and authority that has been given in these government positions known as “czars.”

When Russell Feingold was asked how he felt about the White House decision about the hearing, he stated, “That’s unfortunate. It’s also a bit ironic since one of the concerns that has been raised about these officials is that they will thwart congressional oversight of the executive branch.”

What is the Obama Administration hiding with their many White House czars? And to what extent can they create policy without congressional approval? Evidently, that is something that President Obama does not want us to find out.

Sources:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/06/white-house-shrugs-off-feingolds-czar-hearings/

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_obama_czars/2009/10/06/269206.html

This unofficial “czar” is one busy little bee since being approved to his office of administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Cass Sunstein has now drafted what is the equivalent to a new Fairness Doctrine. World Net Daily explains this “First Amendment New Deal”, “would include the establishment of a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure “diversity of view” on the airwaves.” As we all know, the only lack in diversity exists on the side of the mainstream media not presenting any news that may conflict with the liberal or progressive agenda. So, this would undoubtedly be focused on what has been come to be known as conservative media.

But it is so far well disguised. Sunstein even has previously said, “It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the ‘freedom of speech.” It is my opinion, that any restraints on media would prohibit the notion of free speech completely.
Given the wording of some of these documents like the Fairness Doctrine, and what Sunstein is calling his First Amendment New Deal, it can be misleading as to whether or not it would water down the information we are able to receive through the networks. One of the regulations, as reported by World Net Daily, says that “purely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming.”
With Cass Sunstein’s radical past I find it hard to believe that all the regulations contained in the “First Amendment New Deal” is as meaningless as the one previously mentioned. I will be on the lookout for the remainder of the document so that I can see what else Mr. Sunstein has in store for our freedoms.

Resource:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109969

I have been wanting to do a post on Cass Sunstein for a while now, but I kept hoping that he would not be approved. Sadly, he was approved by the Senate as President Obama’s newly confirmed administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Technically he is not what the White House would refer to as a czar because he actually had to be approved unlike the others such as Mark Lloyd, John Holdren, and Van Jones (now resigned). But he holds by far the most outlandish, unbelievably ridiculous ideas I have ever seen come across our government. This guy may need real professional help, or he just might be the biggest tree hugging animal rights kook ever!

Cass Sunstein believes that animals think, feel, and deserve equal rights and treatment as human beings. He has many times quoted authors who compare animals to slaves and say that a dog is more rational than a human baby. One of these quotes that Sunstein quoted was directly from a late 18th century social reformer by the name of Jeremy Bentham having said, “The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.” And then he goes on to quote more. Can’t believe it? See it for your self here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoiHIbwRhSo.

Cass Sunstein also believes that animals should be able to have an attorney and bring lawsuits against humans. He wants to ban hunting all together, which of course you can see how this would in a very huge way affect the 2nd amendment. Cass is a major supporter of gun control. Sunstein thinks we should not be allowed to eat meat, we should not be allowed to remove rodents from our home if it causes them pain, AND restrictions on FARMING to prevent unnecessary animal suffering. This man also believes that ALL human beings should be organ donors, in other words, we should not have a choice. And the list goes on. His opinions really are far from that of any democrat, republican, or independent that I know. He does not reflect the will of the people, maybe the animals, but certainly not the people.

Now, here we are one day after Cass Sunstein’s approval by the Senate and he is already trying to push a new interpretation to The Bill of Rights. And although this is a surprise to most of us just learning of Cass Sunstein, it is no surprise to those who nominated and approved him into office. He has written a book in 2004 called “The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever” which comes from President Roosevelt’s proposal for a completely new set of bill of rights in 1944. And as published on http://www.wnd.com, in 2005 at Yale Law School, Sunstein opened a conference titled “The Constitution in 2020,” which spoke about changing the nature of the Constitution by 2020. We have to let Washington know that we do not approve of this right away! This is not acceptable and we will not stand for them changing our Bill of Rights or our Constitution. They knew who they were approving into office with the partisan vote of 57-40, and with it they gave this man way too much power. Read more about him and his proposed mandates here: Obama’s Regulatory Chief Pushes New ‘Bill of Rights’.

Resources:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109529

http://gunowners.org/a090809.htm

Why all these “czars”? What does the President hope to accomplish? Who are they? These are some of the questions people started to ask about when reporters first exposed Van Jones, now former Green Czar, as not only making raciest statements against white Americans, but also admitted to be a self proclaimed Marxist. Yet even though Van Jones resigned over the weekend, not fired like he should have been, there still remains about 30 more czars in the Obama Administration.

Why does President Obama, or for that matter, any president nominate czars to their administration? Well, a White House spokeswoman for the Bush administration Dana Perino told Fox News that presidents like to appoint czars, because it is easier to do rather than putting them through  congressional oversight especially when congress is increasingly partisan. One would have to wonder why then is President Obama doing this in such high frequency? Yes, congress is more partisan than ever, but the Democrats have a huge majority both in the House and Senate. One would have to lean toward the fact that the President appears to be trying to bypass those that have the authority to make laws by putting these other people into power. This includes the recently appointed Ron Bloom to over see manufacturing policy. I certainly hope that our congress steps in to evaluate the responsibilities and powers given to these czars before our country is completely out of the peoples’ hands.

Resource sited:

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_czars_jones_beck/2009/09/07/257127.html

Mark Lloyd, the newly appointed chief diversity officer at the Federal Communications Commission has an interesting stance on freedom of speech indeed. Although Mark Lloyd has stated that he finds the Fairness Doctrine unnecessary, his comments and previous speeches and writings prove that he does in fact support the overall goals of the Fairness Doctrine though be it through a back door method. Mark Lloyd does in fact support more regulation, more taxes and fines, increased government intervention into the commercial media such as public radio, and more in which he believes asserts diversity. Such as in the Center for America Progress proposal co-authored by Mark Lloyd which said:

“. . . a spectrum use fee should be levied on owners to directly support local, regional, and national public broadcasting. A fee based on a sliding scale (1 percent for small markets, 5 percent for the largest markets) would be distributed directly to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting with clear mandates to support local news and public affairs programming and to cover controversial and political issues in a fair and balanced manner. We estimate that such a fee would net between $100 million and $250 million.”

Mark Lloyd’s more popular public stance is one in which he praises Hugo Chavez. He praises the way that he took over the media and controlled what was once ran by the people of his nation. Lloyd calls Chavez “incredible” and “dramatic.” So, I guess Mark Lloyd is saying he approves of Hugo Chavez forcing private media out of business? It would appear that way. He has made his opinions very clear and even put them into writing as recently as 2006 in his book Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America. In that book Lloyd reveals his opinion of the First Amendment (our freedom of speech) by stating this:

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least blind references to freedom of speech or press serves as a distraction from the critical examination of other communication policies. The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules [by the government], fines, and regulations, that would promote democratic governance.”

Unbelievable! You see, not only does he not hold freedom of speech in any high esteem, but he seeks to do away with it to promote democratic governance. This should alarm you no matter who you are. This isn’t a matter of bipartisanship, it is a matter of telling you what to think. It is a matter of telling you what you can and cannot know. It is EXACTLY the same thing that Hugo Chavez has done in Venezuela, the same that Mark Lloyd has praised.

Now, I hate to be the barer of bad news, but this is yet another communist “czar” being put in the White House. Is there anyone else who thinks this is just a little suspicious that all these people being put in are fans of socialism or communism? There are more; John Holdren, Van Jones, and Mark Lloyd are just a couple that I have touched on. I have a great deal of concern for the future of our ability to voice our opinions. I have a great deal of concern for the future of our freedom as a whole. Media has such a big way of reaching out and forming community with others, no matter what your political opinion is, it should never be silenced.

Resources:

Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America by Mark Lloyd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysqsa_TeLys

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53195

http://www.newsmax.com/ernest_istook/obama_pelosi_/2009/08/17/248656.html

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106808

Not only are Barack Obama’s friends and mentors known communists, marxists, and other known extremists, but so are the people that he is giving power to in the White House. My previous post was on the Science and Technology “czar” John Holdren. If you haven’t read it already, you should, it has a lot of information you don’t want to miss. Now on to the man that President Obama has appointed his Environmental Adviser, Van Jones.

One would think that in order to hold a position in the White House you would need to have a great deal of qualifications. In an environmental position that would likely call for a PHD or some equivalent in environmental science or something along those lines. Not an open communist, black nationalist, attorney, and founder of STORM. ( You can only find out about STORM in the links provided below because after a report ran by www.wnd.com it was scrubbed from the internet and is only available in these archive links now.) Jones actually was arrested during the 1992 Rodney King riots and was in jail for not just one day, but four months. So it was not as reported by some as an illegal arrest, it had to be more serious than that. Not to mention upon leaving Van Jones had said “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.” And this is the man that was appointed by Obama to be the Environmental Adviser? What connection would he possibly have to the environment?

Well, after being released from jail, Van Jones then turned his focus on as he said, “trying to be a revolutionary.” He attended workshops on Challenging White Supremacy, started up the group STORM, and did a lot of speeches to recruit others of similar opinions. It was during this time that he learned he could prosper from getting involved with the “green” movement. Mr. Jones said the eco movement would be the best way to carry out his agenda. His speeches would include telling supporters off the street that someone would make millions off of these “green” project and that it should be you (him and his supporters). Getting them really fired up about pushing for the “green” movement. One reporter from the New Yorker, as said by Glenn Beck, had Jones say after one of these speeches, “That was my street rap. You get to hear my elite rap later on.” So, you see, he was and is “working”, as Beck said, the whole “green” movement.

This is not all, I could go on for several more pages on this guy. He also is has strong ties to known terrorists, communists, marxists, you name it. Some of those being Jeff Jones, Bill Ayers (also linked to Obama), Mark Rudd, and more. Don’t believe it? Van Jones not only founded STORM, he was also on the board of an environmental activist group at which the founder (Jeff Jones & Bill Ayers) of the Weather Underground terrorist organization is a top director. There is so much more, but I will leave some for you to research. But like I said in the beginning, I find it strange that our President is surrounded by these people in the White House and as long time friends. I am not a conspiracy theorist, I just can’t help seeing the puzzle pieces and hope they don’t fit together the way it looks.

Resources Sited:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=106653

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/28315/

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/12/090112fa_fact_kolbert

STORM Information:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070719020533/http://leftspot.com/blog/files/docs/STORMSummation.pdf

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108445

You may think that the story of President Obama electing to have John Holdren as the head of his Science and Technology Policy department as old news, but with the recent fear mongering of the swine flu, global warming, and other such events, I believe it is very much still a live story in need of more research. At first glance in researching John Holdren you will find that in the 1970’s he was a major adjocate for compulsory abortions in the U.S. and a “Planetary Regime”.

Having co-authored Ecoscience, it was well known John Holdren’s stance on population control and the repercussions thought at the time of letting people breed freely. The methods to unknowingly sterilize a population included methods tried by the Nazi’s, Soviet’s, and communists such as adding infertility drugs to a national food or water supply, and forced abortion to name a few. It also goes into a radical and unrealistic stance on what could happen if population were to get out of control in reference to resources and environmental impact. Like I said before, this is all very easy to find.

Now, the not so easy to find was the recent opinions of Mr. Holdren. In 1995 he also co-authored an essay called, The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects, published by the World Bank on the need to eventually have “world of zero net physical growth” and “population limitation” to sustain economic activity (ummm…very interesting considering the current economic events). Now suddenly, upon being appointed to a position in the White House his opinions change? In his White House interview he explained as stated by www.wnd.com, “when asked if he still felt population control was appropriate, health care and opportunities for women, as well as education, naturally create families more likely to have fewer children, thus solving the potential problems of population growth.” I don’t think so. Someone holding so tightly to a belief for so many years would not let it go so easily. Not to mention, Obama knows Holdren’s past, works, and beliefs having both gone to Harvard. Obama is no dummy, he would not have manged to get elected as President of the United States of America had that been the case.

In conclusion, the question in many minds at this time is if there is a connection between John Holdren’s past and the current events with the economic instability (made worse by the stimulus and will be more so by a passing of health care reform), myths of global warming, and the fear mongering of the H1N1 virus. One would have to wonder, with his new found powers as Science Czar and only having to answer to the President of the United States, not obligated to answer to Congress, John Holdren definitely warrants more scrutiny and a watchful eye on his handling of his office. Our founders would be rolling in their graves if they knew that the President gave such unlimited powers to an unelected official.

Resources:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=103707

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=52080

Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment by Paul R. Ehrlich co-authored by John Holdren

The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects published by World Bank 1995 (full text available at http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1995/01/01/0000092
65_3961219103404/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf

Posts By Category

Search Posts By Month