Chai Feldblum, Obama's nominee for the EEOC, aims to fundamentally change America's definition of marriage.
"My own view, reflected in my writing over the past decade, is that government often appropriately legislates on a shared social vision of morality and that changing the public's moral assessment of same-sex sexual activity is thus key to achieving true equality for LGBT people. For some time, I have articulated this view as a requirement that the public must come to view homosexuality and heterosexuality as morally equivalent - that is, the public must believe that both straight sex and gay sex encompass equivalent moral ‘goods'...that there is nothing inherently immoral or wrong with two people of the same gender engaging in sexual conduct. That belief of moral neutrality must then be coupled with an affirmation that government has an obligation to advance what I term ‘statements of moral understanding'. Four of those statements are the following: it is good for human beings in society to feel safe, to feel happy, to experience and give care, and to live a life of authenticity. These four statements of moral understanding, coupled with a belief in the moral neutrality of homosexual conduct, should then result in a society in which gay people are protected from discrimination in employment, provided access to civil marriage, permitted to adopt children, etc."
So here we go, another Obama appointment that is at moral odds with the rest of the country. Another radical appointed by a president that's supposed to be in charge of our nation. What fuck-ups put him there?
You can see the original article here.
Showing posts with label czars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label czars. Show all posts
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Republicans Are Demanding Jennings Be Fired
Kevin Jennings, the so-called "safe schools czar" who focuses on furthering the homosexual agenda, is under fire from 53 Republicans. They say he does not have the qualifications or ethical standards required for his position and he narrowly focuses on the gay agenda. They have sent a letter to Obama:
Dear Mr. President,
We respectfully request that you remove Kevin Jennings, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, from your Administration. It is clear that Mr. Jennings lacks the appropriate qualifications and ethical standards to serve in this capacity.
As the founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Mr. Jennings has played an integral role in promoting homosexuality and pushing a pro-homosexual agenda in America’s schools—an agenda that runs counter to the values that many parents desire to instill in their children. As evidence of this, Mr. Jennings wrote the foreword for a book titled Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue About Sexualities and Schooling. Throughout his career, Mr. Jennings has made it his mission to establish special protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students to the exclusion of all other students. The totality of Mr. Jennings’ career has been to advocate for public affirmation of homosexuality. There is more to safe and drug free schools than can be accomplished from the narrow view of Mr. Jennings who has, for more than 20 years, almost exclusively focused on promoting the homosexual agenda.
Equally troubling is Mr. Jennings’ self-described history of ignoring the sexual abuse of a child. In his book, One Teacher in Ten, Mr. Jennings recounts a 15-year old student confiding in him that he had a sexual relationship with a much older man. Mr. Jennings’ only response was to ask if the underage boy used a condom. As a mandatory reporter, Mr. Jennings was required by law to report child abuse, including sex crimes. Mr. Jennings cannot serve as the “safe schools” czar when his record demonstrates a willingness to overlook the sexual abuse of a child.
As the “safe schools” czar, Mr. Jennings is also charged with ensuring our schools and students are drug free. It is clear that Mr. Jennings is unfit to serve in this capacity, as well. His own history of unrepentant drug and alcohol abuse indicates that he is of the opinion that getting drunk and high as a young person is acceptable. In his memoir, Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son, Mr. Jennings describes his use of illegal drugs, without expressing regret or acknowledging the devastating effects illegal drug use can have on a person’s life.
Everyone that deals with the education of the most vulnerable must be a positive role model. Our children are not blessed with the wisdom to discern and reject. Children presume the adults who educate them are approved by the larger society and their parents. Kevin Jennings cannot gain the approval of parents who want their children safe and their schools drug free. You should replace him with someone who has a record of educating children in a safe and moral environment.
Given these very serious issues with Mr. Jennings’ record, we urge you to remove him immediately.
The signers of the letter are: King; Alexander; Aderholt; Akin; Austria; Bachmann; Bachus; Bartlett; Barton; Boozman; Broun; Brown, H.; Carter; Chaffetz; Coffman; Cole; Conaway; Davis, Geoff; Fallin; Fleming; Foxx; Franks; Garret; Gingrey; Gohmert; Hunter; Issa; Jordan; Lamborn; Latta; Luetkemeyer; Marchant; McClintock; McHenry; McKeon; McMorris; Mica; Miller, J.; Myrick; Neugebauer; Olson, P.; Pence; Pitts; Posey; Rogers; Rooney; Ryan, Paul; Shuster; Smith, C.; Smith, L.; Wamp; Westmoreland; and Jones, Walter.
You can find the original article here.
Dear Mr. President,
We respectfully request that you remove Kevin Jennings, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, from your Administration. It is clear that Mr. Jennings lacks the appropriate qualifications and ethical standards to serve in this capacity.
As the founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Mr. Jennings has played an integral role in promoting homosexuality and pushing a pro-homosexual agenda in America’s schools—an agenda that runs counter to the values that many parents desire to instill in their children. As evidence of this, Mr. Jennings wrote the foreword for a book titled Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue About Sexualities and Schooling. Throughout his career, Mr. Jennings has made it his mission to establish special protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students to the exclusion of all other students. The totality of Mr. Jennings’ career has been to advocate for public affirmation of homosexuality. There is more to safe and drug free schools than can be accomplished from the narrow view of Mr. Jennings who has, for more than 20 years, almost exclusively focused on promoting the homosexual agenda.
Equally troubling is Mr. Jennings’ self-described history of ignoring the sexual abuse of a child. In his book, One Teacher in Ten, Mr. Jennings recounts a 15-year old student confiding in him that he had a sexual relationship with a much older man. Mr. Jennings’ only response was to ask if the underage boy used a condom. As a mandatory reporter, Mr. Jennings was required by law to report child abuse, including sex crimes. Mr. Jennings cannot serve as the “safe schools” czar when his record demonstrates a willingness to overlook the sexual abuse of a child.
As the “safe schools” czar, Mr. Jennings is also charged with ensuring our schools and students are drug free. It is clear that Mr. Jennings is unfit to serve in this capacity, as well. His own history of unrepentant drug and alcohol abuse indicates that he is of the opinion that getting drunk and high as a young person is acceptable. In his memoir, Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son, Mr. Jennings describes his use of illegal drugs, without expressing regret or acknowledging the devastating effects illegal drug use can have on a person’s life.
Everyone that deals with the education of the most vulnerable must be a positive role model. Our children are not blessed with the wisdom to discern and reject. Children presume the adults who educate them are approved by the larger society and their parents. Kevin Jennings cannot gain the approval of parents who want their children safe and their schools drug free. You should replace him with someone who has a record of educating children in a safe and moral environment.
Given these very serious issues with Mr. Jennings’ record, we urge you to remove him immediately.
The signers of the letter are: King; Alexander; Aderholt; Akin; Austria; Bachmann; Bachus; Bartlett; Barton; Boozman; Broun; Brown, H.; Carter; Chaffetz; Coffman; Cole; Conaway; Davis, Geoff; Fallin; Fleming; Foxx; Franks; Garret; Gingrey; Gohmert; Hunter; Issa; Jordan; Lamborn; Latta; Luetkemeyer; Marchant; McClintock; McHenry; McKeon; McMorris; Mica; Miller, J.; Myrick; Neugebauer; Olson, P.; Pence; Pitts; Posey; Rogers; Rooney; Ryan, Paul; Shuster; Smith, C.; Smith, L.; Wamp; Westmoreland; and Jones, Walter.
You can find the original article here.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Safe Schools Czar: Killing Someone Is Okay
Kevin Jennings, the fag-in-charge in the Obama administration, says it's not aberrant behavior to kill someone who calls you a name.
"We need to own up to the fact that our culture teaches boys that being “a man” is the most important thing in life, even if you have to kill someone to prove it. Killing someone who calls you a faggot is not aberrant behavior but merely the most extreme expression of a belief that is beaten (sometimes literally) into boys at an early age in this country: Be a man – don’t be a faggot.
"As Suzanne Pharr so eloquently explained in her landmark work Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism, antigay bigotry is inextricably intertwined with the maintenance of “proper” gender roles by which little girls are supposed to be “sugar and spice and everything nice” and boys are supposed to be, well, quite the opposite. When boys take up guns to kill those who torment them with words like “faggot,” we shouldn’t be surprised. They’re just doing what we have taught them to do."
I don't know about you, but when people taught me to be a man, killing someone wasn't part of the deal. Violence was a last resort and not condoned for someone who called you a name. But only in the twisted logic of homosexuals, I guess, is it right to kill someone who disagrees with you.
Here's the original article.
"We need to own up to the fact that our culture teaches boys that being “a man” is the most important thing in life, even if you have to kill someone to prove it. Killing someone who calls you a faggot is not aberrant behavior but merely the most extreme expression of a belief that is beaten (sometimes literally) into boys at an early age in this country: Be a man – don’t be a faggot.
"As Suzanne Pharr so eloquently explained in her landmark work Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism, antigay bigotry is inextricably intertwined with the maintenance of “proper” gender roles by which little girls are supposed to be “sugar and spice and everything nice” and boys are supposed to be, well, quite the opposite. When boys take up guns to kill those who torment them with words like “faggot,” we shouldn’t be surprised. They’re just doing what we have taught them to do."
I don't know about you, but when people taught me to be a man, killing someone wasn't part of the deal. Violence was a last resort and not condoned for someone who called you a name. But only in the twisted logic of homosexuals, I guess, is it right to kill someone who disagrees with you.
Here's the original article.
Those Evil Cheerios Are a Problem No More
Nick Gillespie writes today about how General Mills has been reigned in over their claim in Cheerios ads that it helps lower cholesterol.
"FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg and deputy Joshua M. Sharfstein -- both with backgrounds running public health agencies -- notified General Mills that it was violating the law with its two-year-old marketing campaign that said Cheerios can lower cholesterol by 4 percent. The FDA said the company was essentially making a drug claim, which would require clinical studies and agency approval before a product is put on the market. The food giant has removed that claim from its Web site and a spokeswoman said it is in discussions with the FDA."
You can read the original article here, which also touches on Cass Sunstein, the regulatory czar under Obama.
"FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg and deputy Joshua M. Sharfstein -- both with backgrounds running public health agencies -- notified General Mills that it was violating the law with its two-year-old marketing campaign that said Cheerios can lower cholesterol by 4 percent. The FDA said the company was essentially making a drug claim, which would require clinical studies and agency approval before a product is put on the market. The food giant has removed that claim from its Web site and a spokeswoman said it is in discussions with the FDA."
You can read the original article here, which also touches on Cass Sunstein, the regulatory czar under Obama.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Regulatory Czar Says Americans Are Too Racist To Implement Socialism
These whacky czars just get better and better. It's like a friggin' Saturday Night Live skit, live and in person.
WorldNet Daily has an article about Cass Sunstein's view that Americans wouldn't implement socialism because it would benefit minorities. From his book The Second Bill of Rights:
"The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics)," wrote Sunstein.
"During the Cold War, the debate about [social welfare] guarantees took the form of pervasive disagreement between the United States and its communist adversaries. Americans emphasized the importance of civil and political liberties, above all free speech and freedom of religion, while communist nations stressed the right to a job, health care, and a social minimum."
And we all know how well that turned out for the Soviet Union, right? We can see how well it's working in Venezuela, France and China, too.
Sunstein penned a 2007 University of Chicago Law School paper in which he debated whether America should pay "justice" to the world by entering into a compensation agreement that would be a net financial loss for the U.S. He argues it is "desirable" to redistribute America's wealth to poorer nations.
And how would that happen, that we would give away more than we earn? Cap and trade:
"It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid," wrote Sunstein.
You can find the article here.
WorldNet Daily has an article about Cass Sunstein's view that Americans wouldn't implement socialism because it would benefit minorities. From his book The Second Bill of Rights:
"The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics)," wrote Sunstein.
"During the Cold War, the debate about [social welfare] guarantees took the form of pervasive disagreement between the United States and its communist adversaries. Americans emphasized the importance of civil and political liberties, above all free speech and freedom of religion, while communist nations stressed the right to a job, health care, and a social minimum."
And we all know how well that turned out for the Soviet Union, right? We can see how well it's working in Venezuela, France and China, too.
Sunstein penned a 2007 University of Chicago Law School paper in which he debated whether America should pay "justice" to the world by entering into a compensation agreement that would be a net financial loss for the U.S. He argues it is "desirable" to redistribute America's wealth to poorer nations.
And how would that happen, that we would give away more than we earn? Cap and trade:
"It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid," wrote Sunstein.
You can find the article here.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Democrat Has Questions About the Czars
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) said Congress needs to know whether some of the czars make policy but have no obligation to submit to congressional questioning.
While the Obama administration is hardly the first to name high-level advisers to handle issues like health care and climate change, Feingold said, "It's not good enough to simply say, 'Well, George Bush did it too.'"
In fact, it was a Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, that started the whole czar mess. You can find the Wikipedia entry here.
Feingold also was critical of the administration for declining to send a witness to a hearing about the czars. "The White House decided not to accept my invitation ... to explain its position on the constitutional issues we will address today," Feingold said, referring to the Senate's role in confirming top officials.
"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."
Eight czars are in federal agencies whose employees testify regularly before Congress. This group includes Richard Holbrooke, the Afghanistan czar and Ron Bloom, the car czar.
Four more are in the National Security Council, individuals who have no independent authority and whose sole function is to advise the president.
Another four are in the president's and vice president's offices and function as senior White House advisers on health, energy and environment, urban affairs and domestic violence. They are Lynn Rosenthal, domestic violence; Carol Browner, energy and environment; Adolfo Carrion Jr., urban affairs and Nancy-Ann DeParle, health.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said the administration has created doubt about its promise of transparency. However, neither Coburn nor Feingold would criticize any specific official.
I have covered some of these crazies extensively before -- Carol Browner, Cass Sunstein, Kevin Jennings, Dr. David Michaels (though technically not a czar), Mark Lloyd and Van Jones before he was forced to resign.
You can find the original article here.
While the Obama administration is hardly the first to name high-level advisers to handle issues like health care and climate change, Feingold said, "It's not good enough to simply say, 'Well, George Bush did it too.'"
In fact, it was a Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, that started the whole czar mess. You can find the Wikipedia entry here.
Feingold also was critical of the administration for declining to send a witness to a hearing about the czars. "The White House decided not to accept my invitation ... to explain its position on the constitutional issues we will address today," Feingold said, referring to the Senate's role in confirming top officials.
"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."
Eight czars are in federal agencies whose employees testify regularly before Congress. This group includes Richard Holbrooke, the Afghanistan czar and Ron Bloom, the car czar.
Four more are in the National Security Council, individuals who have no independent authority and whose sole function is to advise the president.
Another four are in the president's and vice president's offices and function as senior White House advisers on health, energy and environment, urban affairs and domestic violence. They are Lynn Rosenthal, domestic violence; Carol Browner, energy and environment; Adolfo Carrion Jr., urban affairs and Nancy-Ann DeParle, health.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said the administration has created doubt about its promise of transparency. However, neither Coburn nor Feingold would criticize any specific official.
I have covered some of these crazies extensively before -- Carol Browner, Cass Sunstein, Kevin Jennings, Dr. David Michaels (though technically not a czar), Mark Lloyd and Van Jones before he was forced to resign.
You can find the original article here.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Safe Schools Czar Reveres NAMBLA Member
Kevin Jennings, the so-called 'safe schools czar', is already in hot water for failing to report victimization of a teenage boy by an older man.
Now it's come to light that he has praised a member of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a criminal organization -- or, at least, should be criminal -- that pushes for legalizing homosexual relations between men and boys. From the site Regular Folks United:
Jennings publicly stated that he was inspired by one of the biggest promoters of pedophilia in the country — Harry Hay. Hay actively promoted sex between men and boys and supported the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Transcripts of a GLSEN conference in NYC on October 25, 1997 indicate that Jennings said, “one of the people that always inspired me is Harry Hay.”
Jennings also edited a book called Becoming Visible: A Reader in Gay and Lesbian History for High School and College Students which included a biographical sketch on Harry Hay. One of GLSEN’s Education Department resources also lists a work on Harry Hay.
And yes, Jennings did write the forward to a book called Queering Elementary Education. And another fellow you may have heard of wrote one of the endorsements on the book jacket—Bill Ayers. Yes, the same Bill Ayers who loaned his living room to Obama for launching his campaign. The same Bill Ayers from the Weather Underground.
And if you would really like to learn about the character and temperament of Jennings, I suggest you read his old blog posts on Huffington Post where his hatred of Christians oozes through his writings and Mr. Tolerance doesn’t seem so tolerant of those who disagree with his indoctrination practices.
You can find the original article here, complete with links to damning evidence.
Now it's come to light that he has praised a member of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a criminal organization -- or, at least, should be criminal -- that pushes for legalizing homosexual relations between men and boys. From the site Regular Folks United:
Jennings publicly stated that he was inspired by one of the biggest promoters of pedophilia in the country — Harry Hay. Hay actively promoted sex between men and boys and supported the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Transcripts of a GLSEN conference in NYC on October 25, 1997 indicate that Jennings said, “one of the people that always inspired me is Harry Hay.”
Jennings also edited a book called Becoming Visible: A Reader in Gay and Lesbian History for High School and College Students which included a biographical sketch on Harry Hay. One of GLSEN’s Education Department resources also lists a work on Harry Hay.
And yes, Jennings did write the forward to a book called Queering Elementary Education. And another fellow you may have heard of wrote one of the endorsements on the book jacket—Bill Ayers. Yes, the same Bill Ayers who loaned his living room to Obama for launching his campaign. The same Bill Ayers from the Weather Underground.
And if you would really like to learn about the character and temperament of Jennings, I suggest you read his old blog posts on Huffington Post where his hatred of Christians oozes through his writings and Mr. Tolerance doesn’t seem so tolerant of those who disagree with his indoctrination practices.
You can find the original article here, complete with links to damning evidence.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Safe Schools Czar Says He Would Do Things Differently Now
I covered before the 'safe schools czar', an open homosexual who advocates teaching homosexuality to school kids.
In that article I covered the time when he was a teacher. A male student came to him and told him about having sex with older men. Instead of reporting the incident he sympathized and offered advice.
Jennings says, "Twenty one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities."
Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council says Jennings' past remarks about the incident call into question the sincerity of his new statement.
"It's not as though, 'oh, this was a youthful mistake I made as a brand-new teacher, but now that I'm an adult I realize that I handled it wrong.' Because he has told this story as recently as last year, in another book, and has not expressed any regret until now. So that indicates to me that this is more out of political necessity than it is about genuine remorse," Sprigg told FOX News.
I agree. Look carefully at what he said. He didn't say he was sorry. He didn't say he was wrong. As is typical in politics, he expresses regret that he got caught. This is an apology of political expedience, nothing more.
You can find the original article here.
In that article I covered the time when he was a teacher. A male student came to him and told him about having sex with older men. Instead of reporting the incident he sympathized and offered advice.
Jennings says, "Twenty one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities."
Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council says Jennings' past remarks about the incident call into question the sincerity of his new statement.
"It's not as though, 'oh, this was a youthful mistake I made as a brand-new teacher, but now that I'm an adult I realize that I handled it wrong.' Because he has told this story as recently as last year, in another book, and has not expressed any regret until now. So that indicates to me that this is more out of political necessity than it is about genuine remorse," Sprigg told FOX News.
I agree. Look carefully at what he said. He didn't say he was sorry. He didn't say he was wrong. As is typical in politics, he expresses regret that he got caught. This is an apology of political expedience, nothing more.
You can find the original article here.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Another Leftist Radical, This Time for OSHA
Although technically not a "czar" under Obama, the appointment of Dr. David Michaels to be the assistant secretary of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is troubling. If confirmed, he would serve under Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.
He has a history of "regulation through litigation." Michaels was the chief architect of an initiative to compensate Department of Energy nuclear weapons workers who developed cancer or lung disease as a result of their exposure to radiation, beryllium and other life-threatening hazards. Since 2000, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program has doled out more than $4.5 billion in benefits to those workers and their relatives (1).
Michaels' detractors point to a 1993 Supreme Court case, Daubert v. Merell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., in which the court ruled that trial judges could hold hearings without juries in an effort to determine whether expert testimony is relevant. The intended goal of the ruling was to protect a trial from being corrupted by hired experts who could sway a jury without proven scientific evidence, with the trial judge acting as a gatekeeper of sorts.
In a June 2003 paper published by the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP), which Michaels now directs, the Daubert ruling was characterized as a "well-intentioned attempt to ensure reliable and relevant evidentiary science." But it went on to describe the consequences of the ruling as "troubling."
The paper said that over 10 years, "some judges, in our opinion, have routinely misinterpreted and broadened the reach of Daubert" (2) and concluded that "polluters and manufacturers of dangerous products are successfully using Daubert to keep juries from hearing scientific evidence or any other evidence against them."
The result, according to the SKAPP paper, has been a significant rise in the percentage of expert testimony excluded from the courtroom, an increase in successful motions for summary judgments, 90 percent of which "came down" against plaintiffs, and a chilling effect upon plaintiffs since they often don't have the same resources as large corporations and cannot afford to "defend against aggressive attacks" on their experts.
Michaels' critics say they fear he will use his new position at OSHA to seek to overturn Daubert (3). You can find the paper here in PDF.
In 2007, while writing on a failed bill that would have allowed workers to bring guns into company parking lots, Michaels predicted that the National Rifle Association "will no doubt be back, pushing legislation that stands in the way of preventing gun violence." (4)
"Thankfully, the NRA's legislation failed," Michaels wrote. "When the toll of preventable and pointless deaths or injuries from any single event or related events becomes so great, or particular aspects of the story bring it to the public's attention, our nation invariably demands more and stronger regulation, not less." (5) You can find his original letter here.
Hans Bader, a senior attorney and counsel for special projects at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington-based think tank, said he expects "a lot more restrictions" on real or perceived workplace hazards if Michaels is confirmed.
"It's one of the scariest appointments the new administration has made," said James Copland, director of the Manhattan Institute's Center for Legal Policy, which argues that the country's litigation system adversely affects innovation and safety."
========================
1. Miller, Joshua Rhett (2009, September 16). "Obama's OSHA Nominee Will Be Bad for Business, Critics Say". Fox News.
Retrieved September 28, 2009, from Fox News
2. THE PROJECT ON SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND PUBLIC POLICY (SKAPP) (2003, June). "Daubert: The Most Influential Supreme Court Ruling You’ve Never Heard Of". SKAPP.
Retrieved September 28, 2009, from SKAPP
3. Miller, Joshua Rhett (2009, September 16). "Obama's OSHA Nominee Will Be Bad for Business, Critics Say". Fox News.
Retrieved September 28, 2009, from Fox News
4. Miller, Joshua Rhett (2009, September 16). "Obama's OSHA Nominee Will Be Bad for Business, Critics Say". Fox News.
Retrieved September 28, 2009, from Fox News
5. Michaels, David (2007, April 20). "It Takes a Tragedy". The Pump Handle.
Retrieved September 28, 2009, from The Pump Handle
He has a history of "regulation through litigation." Michaels was the chief architect of an initiative to compensate Department of Energy nuclear weapons workers who developed cancer or lung disease as a result of their exposure to radiation, beryllium and other life-threatening hazards. Since 2000, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program has doled out more than $4.5 billion in benefits to those workers and their relatives (1).
Michaels' detractors point to a 1993 Supreme Court case, Daubert v. Merell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., in which the court ruled that trial judges could hold hearings without juries in an effort to determine whether expert testimony is relevant. The intended goal of the ruling was to protect a trial from being corrupted by hired experts who could sway a jury without proven scientific evidence, with the trial judge acting as a gatekeeper of sorts.
In a June 2003 paper published by the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP), which Michaels now directs, the Daubert ruling was characterized as a "well-intentioned attempt to ensure reliable and relevant evidentiary science." But it went on to describe the consequences of the ruling as "troubling."
The paper said that over 10 years, "some judges, in our opinion, have routinely misinterpreted and broadened the reach of Daubert" (2) and concluded that "polluters and manufacturers of dangerous products are successfully using Daubert to keep juries from hearing scientific evidence or any other evidence against them."
The result, according to the SKAPP paper, has been a significant rise in the percentage of expert testimony excluded from the courtroom, an increase in successful motions for summary judgments, 90 percent of which "came down" against plaintiffs, and a chilling effect upon plaintiffs since they often don't have the same resources as large corporations and cannot afford to "defend against aggressive attacks" on their experts.
Michaels' critics say they fear he will use his new position at OSHA to seek to overturn Daubert (3). You can find the paper here in PDF.
In 2007, while writing on a failed bill that would have allowed workers to bring guns into company parking lots, Michaels predicted that the National Rifle Association "will no doubt be back, pushing legislation that stands in the way of preventing gun violence." (4)
"Thankfully, the NRA's legislation failed," Michaels wrote. "When the toll of preventable and pointless deaths or injuries from any single event or related events becomes so great, or particular aspects of the story bring it to the public's attention, our nation invariably demands more and stronger regulation, not less." (5) You can find his original letter here.
Hans Bader, a senior attorney and counsel for special projects at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington-based think tank, said he expects "a lot more restrictions" on real or perceived workplace hazards if Michaels is confirmed.
"It's one of the scariest appointments the new administration has made," said James Copland, director of the Manhattan Institute's Center for Legal Policy, which argues that the country's litigation system adversely affects innovation and safety."
========================
1. Miller, Joshua Rhett (2009, September 16). "Obama's OSHA Nominee Will Be Bad for Business, Critics Say". Fox News.
Retrieved September 28, 2009, from Fox News
2. THE PROJECT ON SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND PUBLIC POLICY (SKAPP) (2003, June). "Daubert: The Most Influential Supreme Court Ruling You’ve Never Heard Of". SKAPP.
Retrieved September 28, 2009, from SKAPP
3. Miller, Joshua Rhett (2009, September 16). "Obama's OSHA Nominee Will Be Bad for Business, Critics Say". Fox News.
Retrieved September 28, 2009, from Fox News
4. Miller, Joshua Rhett (2009, September 16). "Obama's OSHA Nominee Will Be Bad for Business, Critics Say". Fox News.
Retrieved September 28, 2009, from Fox News
5. Michaels, David (2007, April 20). "It Takes a Tragedy". The Pump Handle.
Retrieved September 28, 2009, from The Pump Handle
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Carol Browner Making a Power Grab
Carol Browner, the so-called 'climate czar', used to be the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Bill Clinton. I covered here how she destroyed files in defiance of a judicial order.
Long before the Supreme Court ruled in a highly questionable 2007 case, Massachusetts v. EPA, that the EPA has the legal authority to justify its proposed 18,000 pages of greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act, Browner (then EPA director under President Bill Clinton) had her general counsel, Jonathan Cannon, prepare a now-infamous memorandum arguing—for the first time—that the EPA possessed such a power. At the time it was dismissed as a wild-eyed overreach that Congress would never allow. Now it’s happening, and Browner is right at the center of it (1).
Mary Nichols, the head of the California Air Resources Board, and Browner were key in crafting a plan to impose the first-ever national carbon limits on cars and trucks. The emissions standards, announced yesterday by the president in the Rose Garden, would bring federal requirements in line with levels sought by California over much of the last decade (2).
"We put nothing in writing, ever," Nichols said. "That was one of the ways we made sure that everyone's ability to talk freely was protected."
Browner was made a czar so that her powers could be more sweeping than they would be in any single official appointment—witness her cross-agency role in the secret automobile emissions regulations—and to avoid the scrutiny of Senate confirmation, which would have been difficult for Browner. Since leaving the Clinton administration she has moved further left, even becoming one of the 14 members of the “Socialist International Commission for a Sustainable World Society” on whose Web site she was listed as a member as recently as January 5, the day she was named White House Climate Czar (3).
Here we have a czar appointed by Obama, but not accountable to the American people, trying to make laws. This is a perfect reason for abolishing the policy of keeping czars.
========================
1. Kerpen, Phil (2009, September 23). "A Secret White House Power Grab Is In Full Swing". Fox News.
Retrieved September 24, 2009, from Fox News
2. Sullivan, Colin (2009, May 20). "Vow of silence key to White House-Calif. fuel economy talks". The New York Times.
Retrieved September 24, 2009, from The New York Times
3. Kerpen, Phil (2009, September 23). "A Secret White House Power Grab Is In Full Swing". Fox News.
Retrieved September 24, 2009, from Fox News
Long before the Supreme Court ruled in a highly questionable 2007 case, Massachusetts v. EPA, that the EPA has the legal authority to justify its proposed 18,000 pages of greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act, Browner (then EPA director under President Bill Clinton) had her general counsel, Jonathan Cannon, prepare a now-infamous memorandum arguing—for the first time—that the EPA possessed such a power. At the time it was dismissed as a wild-eyed overreach that Congress would never allow. Now it’s happening, and Browner is right at the center of it (1).
Mary Nichols, the head of the California Air Resources Board, and Browner were key in crafting a plan to impose the first-ever national carbon limits on cars and trucks. The emissions standards, announced yesterday by the president in the Rose Garden, would bring federal requirements in line with levels sought by California over much of the last decade (2).
"We put nothing in writing, ever," Nichols said. "That was one of the ways we made sure that everyone's ability to talk freely was protected."
Browner was made a czar so that her powers could be more sweeping than they would be in any single official appointment—witness her cross-agency role in the secret automobile emissions regulations—and to avoid the scrutiny of Senate confirmation, which would have been difficult for Browner. Since leaving the Clinton administration she has moved further left, even becoming one of the 14 members of the “Socialist International Commission for a Sustainable World Society” on whose Web site she was listed as a member as recently as January 5, the day she was named White House Climate Czar (3).
Here we have a czar appointed by Obama, but not accountable to the American people, trying to make laws. This is a perfect reason for abolishing the policy of keeping czars.
========================
1. Kerpen, Phil (2009, September 23). "A Secret White House Power Grab Is In Full Swing". Fox News.
Retrieved September 24, 2009, from Fox News
2. Sullivan, Colin (2009, May 20). "Vow of silence key to White House-Calif. fuel economy talks". The New York Times.
Retrieved September 24, 2009, from The New York Times
3. Kerpen, Phil (2009, September 23). "A Secret White House Power Grab Is In Full Swing". Fox News.
Retrieved September 24, 2009, from Fox News
Broadcasters Should Be Forced To Air Diversity Ads
So says Cass Sunstein, the so-called 'regulatory czar'.
"If it were necessary to bring about diversity and attention to public matters, a private right of access to the media might even be constitutionally compelled. The notion that access will be a product of the marketplace might well be constitutionally troublesome," wrote Sunstein in his 1993 book The Partial Constitution (1).
In other words, let people have access to the broadcasters so they can say what they want, not what the broadcaster wants.
In the book, Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the "fairness doctrine," the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed was "equitable and balanced."
Who else thinks government should have the power to control what private entities say? Oh yeah, places like the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Iran... Seeing a pattern here?
=================
1. Klein, Aaron (2009, September 24). "Sunstein: Force broadcasters to air 'diversity' ads". WorldNet Daily.
Retrieved September 24, 2009, from WorldNet Daily
"If it were necessary to bring about diversity and attention to public matters, a private right of access to the media might even be constitutionally compelled. The notion that access will be a product of the marketplace might well be constitutionally troublesome," wrote Sunstein in his 1993 book The Partial Constitution (1).
In other words, let people have access to the broadcasters so they can say what they want, not what the broadcaster wants.
In the book, Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the "fairness doctrine," the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed was "equitable and balanced."
Who else thinks government should have the power to control what private entities say? Oh yeah, places like the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Iran... Seeing a pattern here?
=================
1. Klein, Aaron (2009, September 24). "Sunstein: Force broadcasters to air 'diversity' ads". WorldNet Daily.
Retrieved September 24, 2009, from WorldNet Daily
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
'Safe Schools Czar' Is Anything But Safe
Kevin Jennings is Obama's pick for 'Safe Schools Czar'. He is a former schoolteacher who has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, written about his past drug abuse, expressed his contempt for religion and detailed an incident in which he did not report an underage student who told him he was having sex with older men (1).
In 1990, as a teacher in Massachusetts, he founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which now has over 40 chapters at schools nationwide. He has also published six books on gay rights and education, including one that describes his own experiences as a closeted gay student.
In his 2007 autobiography, Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son: A Memoir, he wrote:
"I got stoned more often and went out to the beach at Bellows, overlooking Honolulu Harbor and the lights of the city, to drink with my buddies on Friday and Saturday nights, spending hours watching the planes take off and land at the airport, which is actually quite fascinating when you are drunk and stoned." (2)
And this is the guy that's supposed to make schools safe from drugs.
In 1997, according to a transcript put together by Brian J. Burt, managing editor of the student-run Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Jennings said he hoped that promoting homosexuality in schools would be considered fine in the future (3).
The group Jennings founded has also been accused of promoting homosexuality in schools. At a GLSEN conference in 2000, co-sponsored with the Massachusetts Department of Education, the group landed in hot water when it was revealed that it had included an educational seminar for kids that graphically described some unorthodox sex techniques (4). Consider this gem:
"Fisting (forcing one's entire hand into another person's rectum or vagina) often gets a bad rap....[It's] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with...[and] to put you into an exploratory mode." (5)
From outlandish sexual behavior being taught to kids, to atheism:
"What had [God] done for me, other than make me feel shame and guilt? Squat. Screw you, buddy -- I don't need you around anymore, I decided. The Baptist Church had left me only a legacy of self-hatred, shame, and disappointment, and I wanted no more of it or its Father. The long erosion of my faith was now complete, and I, for many years, reacted violently to anyone who professed any kind of religion. Decades passed before I opened a Bible again."
Another controversy from Jennings' past concerns an account in his 1994 book, "One Teacher In 10," about how, as a teacher, he knew a high school sophomore named Brewster who was "involved" with an "older man":
"Out spilled a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston. I listened, sympathized, and offered advice. He left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated." (6)
This page has a link to an MP3 with the audio of that speech.
Once again, we have a radical appointed to serve within the White House. And, once again, it takes the conservative media to point out just how radical this guy is.
=================
1. Lott, Maxim (2009, September 23). "Critics Assail Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar, Say He's Wrong Man for the Job". Fox News.
Retrieved September 23, 2009, from Fox News
2. Jennings, Kevin. Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son: A Memoir, p. 103.
3. Lott, Maxim (2009, September 23). "Critics Assail Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar, Say He's Wrong Man for the Job". Fox News.
Retrieved September 23, 2009, from Fox News
4. Heineman, Maggie (2000, May 17). "Graphic gay sex workshop under fire".
Retrieved September 23, 2009, from PersonProject
5. Lott, Maxim (2009, September 23). "Critics Assail Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar, Say He's Wrong Man for the Job". Fox News.
Retrieved September 23, 2009, from Fox News
6. Lott, Maxim (2009, September 23). "Critics Assail Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar, Say He's Wrong Man for the Job". Fox News.
Retrieved September 23, 2009, from Fox News
In 1990, as a teacher in Massachusetts, he founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which now has over 40 chapters at schools nationwide. He has also published six books on gay rights and education, including one that describes his own experiences as a closeted gay student.
In his 2007 autobiography, Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son: A Memoir, he wrote:
"I got stoned more often and went out to the beach at Bellows, overlooking Honolulu Harbor and the lights of the city, to drink with my buddies on Friday and Saturday nights, spending hours watching the planes take off and land at the airport, which is actually quite fascinating when you are drunk and stoned." (2)
And this is the guy that's supposed to make schools safe from drugs.
In 1997, according to a transcript put together by Brian J. Burt, managing editor of the student-run Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Jennings said he hoped that promoting homosexuality in schools would be considered fine in the future (3).
The group Jennings founded has also been accused of promoting homosexuality in schools. At a GLSEN conference in 2000, co-sponsored with the Massachusetts Department of Education, the group landed in hot water when it was revealed that it had included an educational seminar for kids that graphically described some unorthodox sex techniques (4). Consider this gem:
"Fisting (forcing one's entire hand into another person's rectum or vagina) often gets a bad rap....[It's] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with...[and] to put you into an exploratory mode." (5)
From outlandish sexual behavior being taught to kids, to atheism:
"What had [God] done for me, other than make me feel shame and guilt? Squat. Screw you, buddy -- I don't need you around anymore, I decided. The Baptist Church had left me only a legacy of self-hatred, shame, and disappointment, and I wanted no more of it or its Father. The long erosion of my faith was now complete, and I, for many years, reacted violently to anyone who professed any kind of religion. Decades passed before I opened a Bible again."
Another controversy from Jennings' past concerns an account in his 1994 book, "One Teacher In 10," about how, as a teacher, he knew a high school sophomore named Brewster who was "involved" with an "older man":
"Out spilled a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston. I listened, sympathized, and offered advice. He left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated." (6)
This page has a link to an MP3 with the audio of that speech.
Once again, we have a radical appointed to serve within the White House. And, once again, it takes the conservative media to point out just how radical this guy is.
=================
1. Lott, Maxim (2009, September 23). "Critics Assail Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar, Say He's Wrong Man for the Job". Fox News.
Retrieved September 23, 2009, from Fox News
2. Jennings, Kevin. Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son: A Memoir, p. 103.
3. Lott, Maxim (2009, September 23). "Critics Assail Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar, Say He's Wrong Man for the Job". Fox News.
Retrieved September 23, 2009, from Fox News
4. Heineman, Maggie (2000, May 17). "Graphic gay sex workshop under fire".
Retrieved September 23, 2009, from PersonProject
5. Lott, Maxim (2009, September 23). "Critics Assail Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar, Say He's Wrong Man for the Job". Fox News.
Retrieved September 23, 2009, from Fox News
6. Lott, Maxim (2009, September 23). "Critics Assail Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar, Say He's Wrong Man for the Job". Fox News.
Retrieved September 23, 2009, from Fox News
Mark LLoyd Says Whites Should Be Removed from the Media
He wants to remove whites from power in the media and give the positions to minorities because there are only so many positions to go around, and whites have too many.
"There's nothing more difficult than this because we have really truly, good, white people in important positions, and the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions," he said.
"And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will not change the problem. But we're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power." (1)
So, in other words, whether you deserve the post, whether you are competent or not, he wants to take the position from you if you're white and give it to someone who didn't earn it.
And he threw out the black militant race card: "There are few things, I think, more frightening in the American mind than dark-skinned black men. Here I am." Probably to save the mainstream media the trouble of trotting it out themselves.
I have already covered his gushing admiration of Hugo Chavez. And free speech doesn't mean anything to him.
"At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies," Mr. Lloyd wrote. "The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."
Here, again, we have an example of a radical appointed by Obama to make decisions and who is not accountable to the American people.
================
1. Carpenter, Amanda (2009, September 23). "'Diversity czar' takes heat over remarks". The Washington Post.
Retrieved September 23, 2009, from The Washington Post
"There's nothing more difficult than this because we have really truly, good, white people in important positions, and the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions," he said.
"And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will not change the problem. But we're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power." (1)
So, in other words, whether you deserve the post, whether you are competent or not, he wants to take the position from you if you're white and give it to someone who didn't earn it.
And he threw out the black militant race card: "There are few things, I think, more frightening in the American mind than dark-skinned black men. Here I am." Probably to save the mainstream media the trouble of trotting it out themselves.
I have already covered his gushing admiration of Hugo Chavez. And free speech doesn't mean anything to him.
"At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies," Mr. Lloyd wrote. "The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."
Here, again, we have an example of a radical appointed by Obama to make decisions and who is not accountable to the American people.
================
1. Carpenter, Amanda (2009, September 23). "'Diversity czar' takes heat over remarks". The Washington Post.
Retrieved September 23, 2009, from The Washington Post
Judicial Activism to Enforce Global Warming Measures
Al Gore and the 'climate change czar' Carol Browner are warning that if Congress doesn't pass climate change regulations, the courts will step in to do it.
"All of the discussion has been about the president and the Congress," Gore told journalists at a U.N. press conference Tuesday. "We have a third branch of government: the courts."
"The courts are starting to take control of this issue. If they were to follow this out, they would be setting the standards," Browner told reporters at a separate briefing in New York Tuesday. "Obviously, that’s not something that anybody wants….Everything is moving towards getting legislation done because it is the best way to do it."
In other words, do it or we will sick the courts on you. We know what's best, not you.
The original article can be found here.
"All of the discussion has been about the president and the Congress," Gore told journalists at a U.N. press conference Tuesday. "We have a third branch of government: the courts."
"The courts are starting to take control of this issue. If they were to follow this out, they would be setting the standards," Browner told reporters at a separate briefing in New York Tuesday. "Obviously, that’s not something that anybody wants….Everything is moving towards getting legislation done because it is the best way to do it."
In other words, do it or we will sick the courts on you. We know what's best, not you.
The original article can be found here.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Regulatory Chief Wants Second Bill of Rights
Cass Sunstein, the 'regulatory czar' in the Obama administration, pushes socialism in America to a new extreme. In the 2004 book The Second Bill of Rights: FDR'S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever, he advocated these points:
* The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
* The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
* The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
* The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
* The right of every family to a decent home;
* The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
* The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
* The right to a good education.
Although he says in the book he's not advocating putting it in the Constitution, he does admit "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."
Thanks to Mr. Rogers at No Surrender for pointing out this article.
The original article can be found here.
* The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
* The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
* The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
* The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
* The right of every family to a decent home;
* The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
* The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
* The right to a good education.
Although he says in the book he's not advocating putting it in the Constitution, he does admit "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."
Thanks to Mr. Rogers at No Surrender for pointing out this article.
The original article can be found here.
Republicans Want Answers on the Czars
Obama has all kinds of czars, from cars to health to energy to you-name-it. He has 32 czars, according to Wikipedia (1). Looking at the chart on the page, you see that isn't the highest number. George W. Bush had 35. Czars date back to Franklin Roosevelt, who had 12.
Although some people raise objections to the number of czars, the biggest questions remain about how they are vetted and their lack of accountability to the public. Let's take a look at some of Obama's czars:
And Republicans want answers. The czars, those that hold advisory positions but not Cabinet positions, are not confirmed by the Senate. It is all done in the background by the Obama administration.
"Are these czars advisors or are they policy makers?" Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas asked. Poe said the distinction is important and ultimately mandates whether or not the lack of a Senate confirmation amounts to a violation of the U.S. Constitution (8).
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, "They're positions in the administration, they're positions in the previous administration. I think these are positions that date back at least to, you know, many, many administrations, where there may be policy coordination between many different departments in order to make governmental responses more efficient."
"The White House staff should review my full remarks before launching an attack," said Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN). "I made it clear that there have always been a few czars but nothing like the 18 new czars appointed in this administration. Eighteen of the administration's 32 czars hold new positions that did not exist in previous administration [sic] and were not authorized by law."
=================================
1. "List of U.S. Executive Branch Czars" (2009, September 17). Wikipedia.com
Taken September 17, 2009, from Wikipedia.com
2. King Jr., Neil (2009, July 14). "Auto Czar Quits Post Six Months Into the Job". The Wall Street Journal Online.
Retrieved September 17, 2009, from wsj.com
3. Malkin, Michelle (2008, December 12). "Crooked Carol Browner: Obama’s ethically-challenged energy czar". Michelle Malkin.
Retrieved September 17, 2009, from michellemalkin.com
4. Campbell, Dave (2009, September 8). "The Green Jobs Czar Is Gone -- Not That You'd Know It". Common Sense Times.
Retrieved September 17, 2009, from CommonSenseTimes
5. Campbell, Dave (2009, September 10). "Regulatory Czar Is An Animal Rights Whacko". Common Sense Times.
Retrieved September 17, 2009, from CommonSenseTimes
6. Campbell, Dave (2009, September 2). "Obama's Media Czar Supports Marxism". Common Sense Times.
Retrieved September 17, 2009, from CommonSenseTimes
7. Campbell, Dave (2009, September 1). "Obama's Science Advisor Advocated Forced Abortions and Sterilization". Common Sense Times.
Retrieved September 17, 2009, from CommonSenseTimes
8. Bream, Shannon, Eve Zibel and Trish Turner (2009, September 16). "Republicans Press Obama to Shed Light on His 'Czars'". Fox News.
Retrieved September 17, 2009, from FoxNews.com
Although some people raise objections to the number of czars, the biggest questions remain about how they are vetted and their lack of accountability to the public. Let's take a look at some of Obama's czars:
- Steve Rattner, the 'car czar', resigned after becoming embroiled in an SEC scandal (2).
- Carol Browner, the 'energy czar', who as head of the EPA oversaw the destruction of agency computer files in brazen violation of a federal judge’s order requiring the agency to preserve its records. This from a public official who bragged about her tenure: "One of the things I’m the proudest of at EPA is the work we’ve done to expand the public’s right to know." (3)
- Van Jones, the 'green jobs czar', who is an admitted Communist, who believes the U.S. caused 9/11 and who is undoubtedly a racist (4).
- Cass Sunstein, the 'regulatory czar', believes hunting should be banned and some other freaky stuff (5).
- Mark Lloyd, the 'media czar', is a member of the Communist Party USA and believes Hugo Chavez is just trying to implement a popular democracy in Venezuela (6).
- John Holdren, the 'science czar', believes in forced abortion, sterilization of certain people and other drastic population control measures. He said, "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people." (7).
And Republicans want answers. The czars, those that hold advisory positions but not Cabinet positions, are not confirmed by the Senate. It is all done in the background by the Obama administration.
"Are these czars advisors or are they policy makers?" Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas asked. Poe said the distinction is important and ultimately mandates whether or not the lack of a Senate confirmation amounts to a violation of the U.S. Constitution (8).
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, "They're positions in the administration, they're positions in the previous administration. I think these are positions that date back at least to, you know, many, many administrations, where there may be policy coordination between many different departments in order to make governmental responses more efficient."
"The White House staff should review my full remarks before launching an attack," said Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN). "I made it clear that there have always been a few czars but nothing like the 18 new czars appointed in this administration. Eighteen of the administration's 32 czars hold new positions that did not exist in previous administration [sic] and were not authorized by law."
=================================
1. "List of U.S. Executive Branch Czars" (2009, September 17). Wikipedia.com
Taken September 17, 2009, from Wikipedia.com
2. King Jr., Neil (2009, July 14). "Auto Czar Quits Post Six Months Into the Job". The Wall Street Journal Online.
Retrieved September 17, 2009, from wsj.com
3. Malkin, Michelle (2008, December 12). "Crooked Carol Browner: Obama’s ethically-challenged energy czar". Michelle Malkin.
Retrieved September 17, 2009, from michellemalkin.com
4. Campbell, Dave (2009, September 8). "The Green Jobs Czar Is Gone -- Not That You'd Know It". Common Sense Times.
Retrieved September 17, 2009, from CommonSenseTimes
5. Campbell, Dave (2009, September 10). "Regulatory Czar Is An Animal Rights Whacko". Common Sense Times.
Retrieved September 17, 2009, from CommonSenseTimes
6. Campbell, Dave (2009, September 2). "Obama's Media Czar Supports Marxism". Common Sense Times.
Retrieved September 17, 2009, from CommonSenseTimes
7. Campbell, Dave (2009, September 1). "Obama's Science Advisor Advocated Forced Abortions and Sterilization". Common Sense Times.
Retrieved September 17, 2009, from CommonSenseTimes
8. Bream, Shannon, Eve Zibel and Trish Turner (2009, September 16). "Republicans Press Obama to Shed Light on His 'Czars'". Fox News.
Retrieved September 17, 2009, from FoxNews.com
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Regulatory Czar Says Cloning Should Be Legal
Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory czar, said in a paper he authored, "If scientists will be using and cloning embryos only at a very early stage when they are just a handful of cells (say, before they are four days old), there is no good reason for a ban (on cloning)."
He reviewed the book Our Posthuman Future by Francis Fukuyama and said, "It is silly to think that 'potential' is enough for moral concern. Sperm cells have 'potential' and (not to put too fine a point on it) most people are not especially solicitous about them." Never mind that neither sperm cells nor eggs have the potential to turn into humans on their own.
I have already written about his animal rights whacko ideas, like how animals should be considered just as important as humans and they should be allowed to bring suit in court.
You can find the original article here.
He reviewed the book Our Posthuman Future by Francis Fukuyama and said, "It is silly to think that 'potential' is enough for moral concern. Sperm cells have 'potential' and (not to put too fine a point on it) most people are not especially solicitous about them." Never mind that neither sperm cells nor eggs have the potential to turn into humans on their own.
I have already written about his animal rights whacko ideas, like how animals should be considered just as important as humans and they should be allowed to bring suit in court.
You can find the original article here.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Regulatory Czar Is an Animal Rights Whacko
Cass Sunstein, the new Regulatory Czar, believes hunting should be banned and some other freaky stuff. Some of his beliefs are (1):
* Animals should have access to legal representation
* Hunting should be banned
* Compares animal use to slavery
* Proponent of extensive regulation of animal husbandry
* Opposed to using animals in scientific research
From his Wikipedia page, he also thinks animals should be allowed to bring suit in court.
After this guy and the nut job Van Jones, maybe people ought to be taking a closer look at the people Obama has gathered around him as advisors.
=================================
1. Van Ness, John (2009, September 9). "Cass Sunstein, Animal Rights, Animal Welfare and Obama". Examiner.com.
Retrieved September 10, 2009, from Examiner.com
* Animals should have access to legal representation
* Hunting should be banned
* Compares animal use to slavery
* Proponent of extensive regulation of animal husbandry
* Opposed to using animals in scientific research
From his Wikipedia page, he also thinks animals should be allowed to bring suit in court.
After this guy and the nut job Van Jones, maybe people ought to be taking a closer look at the people Obama has gathered around him as advisors.
=================================
1. Van Ness, John (2009, September 9). "Cass Sunstein, Animal Rights, Animal Welfare and Obama". Examiner.com.
Retrieved September 10, 2009, from Examiner.com
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Green Czar Is Gone -- Not That You'd Know It
You probably wouldn't know much about Van Jones, Obama's 'Green Czar' if you were only getting your news from the mainstream media.
This blog and other conservative sources were covering the whacko and his beliefs like the U.S. causing 9/11 and how he is a self-avowed Communist and how he and others are getting rich off the green job agenda in the stimulus package.
But you wouldn't have known that by watching or listening to the mainstream media. They completely ignored it until Friday. CBS News was the first to say something. It wasn't until Jones gave his resignation over the weekend that the three networks carried any news of it. Imagine the surprise of all the people.
Although Democratic and liberal apologists will dismiss the lack of coverage, you have to wonder how a Communist could get past the screening process. And it makes you question what exactly that screening process is, if this guy can get by it.
The original article about the media bias is found here.
This blog and other conservative sources were covering the whacko and his beliefs like the U.S. causing 9/11 and how he is a self-avowed Communist and how he and others are getting rich off the green job agenda in the stimulus package.
But you wouldn't have known that by watching or listening to the mainstream media. They completely ignored it until Friday. CBS News was the first to say something. It wasn't until Jones gave his resignation over the weekend that the three networks carried any news of it. Imagine the surprise of all the people.
Although Democratic and liberal apologists will dismiss the lack of coverage, you have to wonder how a Communist could get past the screening process. And it makes you question what exactly that screening process is, if this guy can get by it.
The original article about the media bias is found here.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Van Jones, Green Jobs Czar, Believes U.S. Caused 9/11
From the article here, Van Jones signed a document in 2004 saying he believed the U.S. government was responsible for 9/11. That makes him a "truther".
Here is Google's archive of the page showing the list of people. Van Jones is listed at number 47.
I have written before about Van Jones here and here.
Here is Google's archive of the page showing the list of people. Van Jones is listed at number 47.
I have written before about Van Jones here and here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)