You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘czars’ tag.

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.

Advertisements

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

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

Posts By Category

Search Posts By Month