You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘talk radio’ tag.

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

Have you ever wanted to know what was said on the Rush Limbaugh show yesterday while you were in a meeting? Or what Glenn Beck talked about while you were at your child’s school function? Well, World Net Daily has it figured out. They are now going to have a special area just for keeping up with talk radio’s biggest topics of the week updated every Friday. Check it out here:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108647

Posts By Category

Search Posts By Month