Commie- Czars
Oct 14, 2009 Political
Or commissars, whatever you think the term most fits- the administration is riddled with them, much like termites eating their way through your home, so are they busy munching their way through our Constitution, our Rights, our lives.
We need Terminex, or the equivalent that gets rid of these governmental leeches.
There are just so many of them- and all of them with a negative agenda, when it comes to our Constitution.
Eric Holder — Attorney General of the United States. A handpicked Obama/Jarrett selection, who earlier this year referred to the United States as “a nation of cowards” on race relations, Mr. Holder is a shiningly despicable example of everything wrong when politics and personal ambition dictate the parameters of American justice.
Prior to grasping the brass ring of the department where he’d toiled during the Clinton Administration, Mr. Holder was responsible for these widely-reported miscarriages of justice: (1) He streamlined the Clinton Administration’s pardon of fugitive billionaire Marc Rich by steering Rich’s representatives to a former White House counsel, then helped lobby the President to pardon Rich (“an unrepentant fugitive wanted on extensive fraud, racketeering, and trading-with-the-enemy charges”). Holder did so for personal gain, later admitting he hoped this would help him become Attorney General in a Gore administration. Mr. Holder concealed the pardon negotiations from other prosecuting and investigative agencies to prevent their opposition. Mr. Rich’s wife was a generous donor to both President Clinton’s library as well as his legal-defense fund.
(2) “In 1999, over the objections of the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, and prosecuting attorneys, Holder supported Clinton’s commutation of the sentences of 16 FALN conspirators. These pardons – of terrorists who even Holder has conceded had not expressed any remorse – were issued in the months after al-Qaeda’s 1998 U.S. embassy bombings…. The commutations were nakedly political, obviously designed by Clinton to assist his wife’s impending Senate campaign by appealing to New York’s substantial Puerto Rican vote.”
(3) Holder was also instrumental in the “stealth pardons” of two Weather Underground terrorists, Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans (both closely associated with President Obama’s terrorist friends, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn). Rosenberg and Evans had been serving decades-long sentences for bombings targeting American government facilities. Again Holder helped circumvent the pardon process and evade objections from prosecutors regarding the terrorists’ jail terms.Just this summer, now-Attorney General Holder dismissed prosecution of an obvious case (it was filmed) of voter intimidation by members of the New Black Panthers, while also instigating prosecutorial investigations into CIA interrogation techniques of terrorist combatants. Attorney General Holder is a strong advocate for the release of the Islamofascist enemy combatants currently held at Guantanamo Bay.
americanthinker.com
Yep, that is one- and he is the Attorney General, is supposed to uphold the law, not circumvent justice as he does routinely, a communist trait- favor the leftists
Then there is John Holdren, our proud nation’s Science Czar- Really??? Science? This is a comedy sketch, right?
John Holdren Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Other than Mr. Holdren’s well known and oft repeated morally relativistic denial of American exceptionalism, one and only one thing need to be said here about President Obama’s “Science” Czar – he is Barack Obama’s twin on the matter of abortion and has advocated compulsory abortion. Here it is again: President Obama searched for, reached out, and chose as his chief “science advisor” a plasma physicist who advocates compulsory abortion.
As John Griffing wrote of Holdren in “Enough is Enough,” for American Thinker
...for a true outrage, consider new Czar of Science, John P. Holdren, who, in a stunning display of unabashed evil, has actively advocated compulsory abortion
There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated…It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
If that doesn’t send a chill down your spine, consider his words, “All the children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons.” Let that sink in: an American official supports forced abortion and the death of “grown persons.” We know what that looks like. It has been official policy for years in Communist China.
americanthinker.com
But the person who may be the most influential in how we live, and under what restraints, is our Resident’s Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein.
Cass Sunstein — Administrator of the White House Office of Administration and Regulatory Affairs. He is a Harvard Law School professor and newly-minted husband of President Obama’s Senior Director, Multilateral Affairs, National Security Council, the Israel-phobic Samantha Power (one of several husband-wife teams in the Obama White House). Mr. Sunstein’s belief structure could understandably be called “Leftist kook” or “fringe” if not downright lunatic. Herewith:
In a 2007 speech at Harvard, Sunstein called for banning all hunting in the United States. All. Everywhere.
He actually put in writing, in his 2004 book, Animals that, “Animals should be permitted to bring [law] suit, with human beings as their representatives….”Were Mr. Sunstein to succeed as President Obama’s head regulator of all things American, what might happen to those millions of hunting rifles and shotguns he doesn’t want gathering dust in your cabinet?
Mr. Sunstein is a reputed “1st Amendment scholar.” Having attended law school myself and actually practiced law for a quarter century rather than retreat to the head-swelling-brain-shrinking environs of academia, I can assure you that if he is, America is in very deep trouble. President Obama has made clear his White House Masterregulator is intended to regulate virtually every aspect of American’s lives – including the environment, healthcare, finance, and the economy – regardless of your feelings about such matters much less your freedom and liberty. Sunstein has argued in his prolific literary works (one bookstore tour de force was a whopping 84 pages) that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing.
A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government… Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom’s name.
americanthinker.com
And this guy is a 1st Amendment scholar? Really? I mean, in the theoretical world of Narnia, perhaps- but the first Amendment has no boundaries other than the common sense ones, (cannot shout “fire” in a crowded theater, etc.), but to limit freedom of speech? And that is just one part of this equation. Religion and freedom of the press are mixed in there also, and under fire just as surely.
This is a guy who believes that our Resident should be the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional- and that judges need not weigh in.
The interpretation of Federal Law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him, according to President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.
“There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him,” argued Sunstein.
This statement was the central thesis of Sunstein’s 2006 Yale Law School paper, “Beyond Marbury: The Executive’s Power to Say What the Law Is.” The paper, in which he argues the president and his advisers should be the ones to interpret federal laws, was obtained and reviewed by WND.
Sunstein debated the precedent-setting 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison, which determined it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
wnd.com
Yeah- no I don’t think that our Resident should act like a King (which he is not) and interpret the laws- that is precisely what we have courts for- and indeed, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, have ruled satisfactorily on this issue, but apparently, not for Mr. Sunstein. But to even postulate otherwise is rather traitorous, given that this would treat the Constitution as an “Inconvenient” piece of paper- and it is much, much more than that.
The crux of our problem with Mr. Sunstein is that he will be writing the regulations that will be governing our lives, taxing our money, and curtailing our freedoms. These will encompass many of the freedoms we take for granted now, not just freedom of speech, but through his regulatory powers, he will be able to have a disproportionate say in our lives, all facets, and all the little nooks and crannies. No Amendment would be safe.
Now, I am sure that there are some on the left, who relish constrained freedoms- they will gladly trade their freedoms for a nice, womb-to- tomb controlled existence- much like that traitor character in the Matrix, there are some who can’t stand to live on their feet, using their talent to get ahead. No, these people are scared-
And they are more than willing to live on their knees.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: communism, constitution, czars, Holdren, Obama, servitude, sunstein
Obama Lies (Again)
Sep 18, 2009 Political
As Ronald Reagan would have said, “well, there he goes again”, as our Resident lies blatantly in our face, apparently forgetting that Google is just a click away, and checking on anyone’s words is just too easy. And crosschecking with other members of his party reveals that they just do not care how blatantly they insult the American people with outright lies.
Recently, (within the last two months), we have had both Henry Waxman and the Resident come out and lie about the true costs of the Cap and Trade Bill passed by the House of Representatives. First, the head of the Energy Committee, Henry Waxman says that the cost to the consumer (that would be you and me) would be about “40 cents a day”- Really?
And then you had the Liar in Chief (there- I said it- am I a racist, too?) claim that the cost of this legislation was “… about the cost of a stamp…” per day. Oooohhh, not so fast here.
The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.
A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.
~ snip~
The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.
These disclosures will probably not aid the political prospects of the Democrats’ cap and trade bill. The House of Representatives approved it by a remarkably narrow margin in June — the bill would have failed if only six House members had switched their votes to “no” — and it faces significant opposition in the Senate.
One reason the bill faces an uncertain future is concern about its cost. House Republican Leader John Boehner hasestimated the additional tax bill would be at $366 billion a year, or $3,100 a year per family. Democrats have pointed to estimates from MIT’s John Reilly, who put the cost at $800 a year per family, and noted that tax credits to low income households could offset part of the bite. The Heritage Foundation says that, by 2035, “the typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year.”
cbsnews.com
Even though figures vary, depending on who’s ox is being gored, the low end, MIT’s estimate of $800 per year is still way above either of the estimates postulated by Waxman or the Resident- by about a factor of around 500%– a rather egregious error, wouldn’t you agree? Other estimates are considerably more- and if it hits the upper end, (1200%), families that are having trouble making ends meet are in for a world of hurt. Do the Liberal progressives care? Obviously not, or they would say, “Perhaps we should hold off until people can absorb the costs,” but nooooooo.
“Heritage is saying publicly what the administration is saying to itself privately,” says Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who filed the FOIA request. “It’s nice to see they’re not spinning each other behind closed doors.”
“They’re not telling you the cost — they’re not telling you the benefit,” says Horner, who wrote the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. “If they don’t tell you the cost, and they don’t tell you the benefit, what are they telling you? They’re just talking about global salvation.”
cbsnews.com
“Global salvation”- oh goody- yeah right, like that will work, what with China and India, who supply us with their smog on a daily basis (it takes two to three days for their air to become ours) NOT signing on to any treaty that inhibits their economic growth. All the Climate bill that was passed by the Democrats in the House- (Republicans were a little smarter than that; they want the Dems to “own” this FUBAR bill) will do is to make us poorer, and give the progressives the excuse to insinuate themselves in our lives, burying themselves deep like the blood-sucking ticks they resemble, but without the good points.
Because personal income tax revenues bring in around $1.37 trillion a year, a $200 billion additional tax would be the equivalent of a 15 percent increase a year. A $100 billion additional tax would represent a 7 or 8 percent increase a year.
One odd point: The document written by Jaffee includes this line: “It will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.” The Treasury Department redacted the rest of the sentence with a thick black line.
The Freedom of Information Act, of course, contains no this-might-embarrass-the-president exemption (nor, for that matter, should federal agencies be in the business of possibly suppressing dissenting climate change voices). You’d hope the presidential administration that boasts of being the “most open and transparent in history” would be more forthcoming than this.
cbsnews.com
Yeah- transparent this Resident is not- (note the “blacked out”, or x’ed out section the Treasury Department redacted from the FOIA document )- liar he definitely is, and complicit in defrauding the American people- think of it- can you afford another 8- 15 % rise in your income taxes, just on the energy bill? This does not take into account the Health care bill, or any other legislation they are considering. All total, we could be looking at a 25% increase in our taxes- for what? So they, the government, could dictate the way we live our lives? How cool or warm we want our living area to be, the amount of water we use,the way we live our lives? How or what we drive?
This is an administration built literally on lie after lie – I truly do not think they are physically or mentally capable of telling the truth, and between the new Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, who can impose restrictive regulations that will rule your lives and make you poorer, and the Resident’s Science Czar, John Holdren, who first believed in Global Cooling and a new “Ice Age”– then reversed course and hyped Global Warming with Al “I’m a HUGE hypocrite” Gore, we will be forced to do what the government wants, and thus our liberties shrink some more. We don’t need this.
Cass Sunstein thinks “free speech” is overrated, and should be restricted anyway, and that expectations of personal privacy are unreasonable. He also believes hunting should be banned, not realizing that hunting is actually a good and necessary thing in controlling wildlife populations, but since he just thinks and has never actually studied the cause and effects of hunting as population control, this position is not unexpected.
John Holdren- ( the Science Czar, for God’s sake), thinks that the government should force people to have abortions and be sterilized, if their genetics are not “preferred” by the government “elites”. Isn’t that just peachy? These are the people the Resident thinks are good for the country-
And you just hoped “Change” would be a good thing-
Silly Goose.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: climate, czars, lies, taxes, third-world status