Land of the Czar's_________WTF

[American_Jihad]

GOP uses procedure to embarrass Democrats
9/17/09


They may be out of power, but the GOP isn't out of options when it comes to forcing Democrats to make difficult votes, such as the ones to defund the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) that occurred in both chambers this week.

Republicans in the House and Senate are using procedural floor votes to confront Democrats on various issues, ranging from ACORN’s funding to President Obama’s “czars” to a controversial airport in Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. John Murtha’s home district supported generously with taxpayer dollars.

Votes in the House and Senate to deprive ACORN, a group that usually supports the Democratic caucus, of federal funding are only ones that have been successful thus far, but Republican staffers say the annual fall budget-making process presents many opportunities to demand spending cuts and policy changes that will resonate with their base.

So far, so good. A Senate amendment to strip ACORN’s funding from a housing and transportation bill, sponsored by Nebraska GOP Sen. Mike Johanns, passed 83-7. The House adopted a procedural measure sponsored by GOP Rep. Darrell Issa of California to kill all of ACORN’s federal funds, 345-74. These GOP victories were spurred by shocking videos made by a pair of conservative filmmakers who exposed ACORN workers giving advice on how to obtain federal funds to run a brothel.

Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, wasn’t so lucky, though. He forced a vote to kill federal subsidies for Mr. Murtha’s small airport that only served 6,700 people last year, but it didn’t pass. The so-called "air pork amendment" was voted down 53-43 Thursday afternoon, mostly on party lines.

Yet, he still was able to use the loss to talk about the need for fiscal responsibility and to blast the party in power. "I'm glad most Republicans and few brave Democrats stood against this abuse of taxpayer dollars," Mr. DeMint said in a statement after the vote. "American people are speaking out against spending and debt, but sadly the majority in the Senate still isn't listening. Senators who voted for Murtha's boondoggle have little credibility calling for fiscal responsibility."

Meanwhile, Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican, has been drafting an amendment that will highlight concerns with Mr. Obama’s "czars," who sometimes make policy from the White House.

Mr. Obama’s "climate change czar," Carol Browner, has been criticized by both Republicans and Democrats for negotiating a fuel mandate deal between the government and the auto industry, rather than letting Energy Secretary Steven Chu assume that duty. Several senators have expressed concern that the White House is using czars to usurp authority from Cabinet officials and Congress.

Mr. Vitter hopes to force a discussion about Ms. Browner’s actions by pushing a measure to prohibit the Department of Interior or the Environmental Protection Agency from enacting any of her policies. His staff tells The Washington Times he plans to introduce this as an amendment to the Interior and EPA spending bills soon.

http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/b...eat=home_blogs

[American_Jihad]

Opinion: A look at President Obama's czars and their role in America
9/4/09


With the news of Van Jones' controversial past, President Obama's czars are getting a closer look from the media, Republicans, and average Americans.

A "czar" is an unofficial term used to describe an individual who is a special adviser to the President on a given issue. Several presidents have had at least one czar, such as the drug czar and the homeland security czar. What is causing controversy within the Obama White House is that the president has an estimated 31 czars, with the possibility of more to come.

Now to be completely clear, a czar is not subject to a Senate confirmation hearing and answers to no one except President Obama. They are typically given oversight over a specific issue, directs policy of their topic, provides advice to the president, and often has a budget to go along with their responsibilities.

Just yesterday, news broke that President Obama's "Green Jobs Czar," Van Jones, has quite a controversial past. My opinion piece yesterday details many of his troubling statements and actions, such as signing a 9/11 petition that accused the Bush Administration of being behind it, for calling Republicans "assholes," for being a declared "communist," and for accusing "white people" of sending poison to black communities. There have been calls today for him to resign, but as of now that has not occurred. Most political pundits are predicting that Jones will be forced out of his position by the end of the holiday weekend.

The Van Jones case begs a few questions that people should ask to themselves: Who are these czars? Are they being properly screened before getting their job? How much power do they have? Can the public do anything about it? Going along with those question should be concerns over why are certain czars needed, when a Cabinet position exists to oversee that given area already.

Here is a list of the current Obama Administration czars, as reported by Politico.com

1) Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke
2) AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley
3) Auto recovery Czar: Ed Montgomery
4) Border Czar: Alan Bersin
5) California Water Czar: David J. Hayes
6) Car Czar: Ron Bloom
7) Central Region Czar: Dennis Ross
8) Domestic Violence Czar: Lynn Rosenthal
9) Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske
10) Economic Czar: Paul Volcker
11) Energy and Environment Czar: Carol Browner
12) Faith-Based Czar: Joshua DuBois
13) Great Lakes Czar: Cameron Davis
XX) Green Jobs Czar: Van Jones [Gone]
15) Guantanamo Closure Czar: Daniel Fried
16) Health Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle
17) Information Czar: Vivek Kundra
18) International Climate Czar: Todd Stern
19) Intelligence Czar: Dennis Blair
20) Mideast Peace Czar: George Mitchell
21) Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg
22) Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein
23) Science Czar: John Holdren
24) Stimulus Accountability Czar: Earl Devaney
25) Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration
26) TARP Czar: Herb Allison
27) Terrorism Czar: John Brennan
28) Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra
29) Urban Affairs Czar: Adolfo Carrion Jr.
30) Weapons Czar: Ashton Carter
31) WMD Policy Czar: Gary Samore

The White House screening process, one would think, is quite vigorous. Whether that applies or not to the czars is unknown for a few reasons. In Van Jones' case, either the White House knew of his past controversial statements and actions and hired him or they did not know. Since it is quite easy to locate a person's public remarks and actions, I find it hard to believe that the White House did not know about Mr. Jones. This should have people wonder what the past of the remaining 30 czars holds.

A few other controversies that other czars may be involved in:
Energy and Environmental Czar Carol Browner: was a member of Socialist International's Commission for a Sustainable World Society. The organization calls for "global governance" and demands wealthy nations shrink their economy to address climate change effects.

Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein: believes that hunting should be banned, animals should have "legal rights," and that animals can file lawsuits in American courts.

Science Czar John Holdren: co-authored a 1977 textbook that advocated "compulsory sterilizations," mandated abortions, and stated that "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people."
I would like to note, that many of the czars have served in public service for an extended period of time and some are well known. The controversies listed above, concerning Czars Browner, Sunstein, and Holdren may not bother some people. A person's thoughts and ideas can evolve over time, but it does raise some eyebrows and causes concern with many people.

Many leaders in Washington have expressed concern about the role of czars in the Obama Administration. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said that "Obama has more czars than the Romanovs." Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN), in light of the Van Jones revelations said “In the wake of these recent revelations, the president should suspend any further appointments of so-called czars until Congress has an opportunity to examine the background and responsibilities of these individuals and to determine the constitutionality of such appointments." Even a member of the President's own party, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) and the longest serving U.S. Senator in history, said “The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances,” wrote Byrd. “At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate confirmed officials.”

According to the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2: "He (the President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consults, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."

This begs the question about whether individuals, who have great power over aspects of American policy, should go without being confirmed by the U.S. Senate. President Obama campaigned on transparency in government, but this large number of czars seems to be clouding the water. Many of them have questions to answer and it seems, at least in my opinion, that they should be answered in a confirmation hearing in front of the American people. Our government works for us and we have a right to know about their beliefs and past statements. They often reflect the opinions of the person, the character of the person, and where they intend to lead the United States.

President Obama, please look into the background of those who are giving you advise and who have an impact on our country's direction. If controversy or troubling facts emerge, like in Van Jones' case, you have a duty to dismiss them. If you and your administration hired people, knowing full well of their alarming past, then this is not change we can believe in. Individuals like Van Jones and many of the other czars have a right to believe whatever they want, but their radical beliefs have no place in the United States government.

List of Obama's czars and their backgrounds. The list is on GlennBeck.com and all information can be verified independently.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/278759

[American_Jihad]

The Real Cyber Czar
10/05/2009

A formidable intelligence chief, not a White House staffer, will run network security.

In May, President Obama declared cyberspace a "strategic national asset," and an unacceptably vulnerable one. In a speech at the White House, he warned of unprecedented levels of online theft, pervasive electronic espionage and the increasing use of cyberattacks in conjunction with military operations. Then he pledged to appoint a national-level cybersecurity official to coordinate the government's responses to online threats, giving such efforts "the high-level focus and attention they deserve."

But three months after the president's speech, he hadn't yet named the official, in part because more candidates had declined the job than were still in the running for it. The duties of the so-called cyber czar were poorly defined and the office's authorities were too weak to entice a number of well-qualified candidates. According to several news reports, they told the White House, "Thanks, but no thanks."

As of mid-September, Obama was still czar-less. But that doesn't mean a national-level cyber chief, watching over the country's networks, isn't already in place.

Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander is the director of the National Security Agency, the largest intelligence agency in the government, and with little public fanfare he has been setting up the central nervous system in the government's new campaign to defend cyberspace. The agency historically has not been a front-line guardian of civilian government networks, much less the systems that run privately owned electrical plants, dams and financial systems. But that is changing. Recently, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said NSA will provide DHS with "technical assistance" as it carries out its statutory mission to defend civilian networks and coordinate private sector protection.

Homeland Security, with its much smaller and less experienced cyber staff, will depend on Alexander and his crew for the tools, expertise and resources to do the job. "That is the structure of the cyber policy plan that the president announced," Napolitano recently told Wired magazine's Danger Room blog.

And where would this elusive cyber czar fit in that matrix? The official won't have the budget of a major agency, nor the authority to tell Napolitano or Alexander how to run theirs. At that speech in May, Obama said he would "depend on this official in all matters relating to cybersecurity." But in terms of actually doing the job, it's clear that the president already has someone - Alexander.

A number of DHS cyber officials have resigned in recent months, one of them after complaining publicly that NSA was trying to take over the department's mission. Melissa Hathaway, the official who was Obama's most senior cyber expert in the White House and who had been a candidate for the czar post, decided to leave government, telling The Washington Post she "wasn't willing to continue to wait any longer," and she wasn't "empowered" to make any policy changes.

For his part, Alexander has kept a modest public profile and downplayed talk of bureaucratic turf wars with Homeland Security. He and Napolitano are on the same page, even if that can't be said for her staff. In his speeches and statements, Alexander displays the ease of a man who's been given a mission and who knows what it is. Whoever becomes czar will have to hope Alexander maintains this collaborative spirit - and that he returns phone calls.

http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20...oref=spotlight

[American_Jihad]

Senate will hold hearing to probe Obama czars
10/05/09 5:22 PM EDT


A Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Tuesday will scrutinize the "czar" system used by President Obama and previous administrations.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who heads the Senate Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee, said he wants to explore whether the dozens of czars appointed by the Obama administration constitute "an end run around the advice and consent process."

Feingold said his probe does not involve Senate-confirmed czars such as the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair.

"I am most interested in those advisors who have been given important portfolios without undergoing Senate scrutiny," Feingold said.
The witness list includes Matthew Spalding, of the Heritage Foundation and University of Virginia Law School's John C. Harrison.

Among the czars appointed by Obama this year was green jobs czar Van Jones, who ended up resigning after controversial past statements surfaced as well as a petition he signed accusing the Bush administration of purposely ignoring warnings of Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Other top advisors not vetted by the Senate include Afghanistan czar Richard Holbrooke and environment and energy czar Carol Browner.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-63556922.html

[American_Jihad]

Capitol Hill Turns Up the Heat on Criticism of President Obama’s “Czars”
10/6/09

ABC’s Jordyn Phelps’ reports:

The controversy over appointed officials within the Obama administration who have not undergone Senate confirmation—so called “czars”—is not only being discussed by conservative pundits anymore. Senators dedicated a hearing to the topic of “czars” on Capitol Hill today.

The hearing, headed by Senator Feingold (D-WI), took place in the Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.

Feingold said in his prepared remarks that although he fully supports the President and his advisers, “it’s not surprising that some Americans feel uncomfortable about supposedly all-powerful officials taking over areas of their government.”

While past presidents have had “czars,” President Obama is facing particular criticism because of the high number of such appointees in his administration. Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama is among those in Congress who have voiced disapproval.

“They are unelected, un-vetted, and unaccountable,” Sessions said in response to the hearing today. “They include individuals with extremist views and records—such as Van Jones, John Holdren, and Kevin Jennings—all of whom were installed in high government offices without having to face scrutiny before Congress or the American people.”

Van Jones resigned as Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the Council on Environmental Quality last month after facing targeted criticism from Fox News’ Glenn Beck and conservative bloggers.

Many democrats have rebutted the criticism of the President’s “czars,” pointing to similar appointed positions that existed under the Bush administration. But Feingold says this argument does not suffice.

“While there is a long history of White House advisors and czars, that doesn’t mean we can assume they are constitutionally appropriate,” Feingold said. “It’s not good enough to simply say, ‘well George Bush did it too.’”

In a letter sent to the President three weeks ago, Feingold asked the White House to disclose additional information on the “czars” "roles and responsibilities, and provide the judgment(s) of your legal advisors as to whether and how these positions are consistent with the Appointments Clause" in Article II, section 2 of the Constitution, which states that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States."

Feingold received a White House response to his letter yesterday. The Senator said he invited the White House to send a witness to testify on the constitutional issues surrounding the appointment of “czars” in today’s hearing, but the White House declined to do so.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs reacted in a press briefing today about the hearing.

“I would assume that Congress and Senator Feingold have more weighty topics to grapple with than something like this,” Gibbs said.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...as-czars-.html

[American_Jihad]

Land of the Free Now Home of the "Czars"
10/6/09

House Minority Leader John Boehner has accused President Obama of circumventing and subverting the Constitution by appointing more than 30 "czars" to oversee government operations from newly created positions, most of them not subject to Senate confirmation.

Many of the positions and responsibilities duplicate those of cabinet-level officials and their departments.
"He clearly is circumventing the Constitution, in my view, and I think the heat continues to build on the administration to deal with this," Boehner said in an interview with Newsmax TV. "It's one thing to have domestic policy advisers or international policy advisers, but to have this many people at the White House who have really more control than the Cabinet secretaries, I think is a subversion of the Constitution."

Any list of so-called czars is to some extent subjective, since the word "czar" is not in any official title and which positions qualify for the designation may be debatable. According to Wikipedia, the current use of the term once reserved for the rulers of pre-revolution Russia started during the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, who had 12 such appointees. The number dropped to six under Truman and one in Eisenhower's administration. Reagan had only one, the Director to the White House Drug Abuse Policy, and George H.W. Bush had 2. The number increased to seven under Clinton, then ballooned to 31 under George W. Bush, according to the Wikipedia list. There are 32 thus far in the Obama administration, which began in January of this year.

The offices created by executive order of George W. Bush included the Chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, or the bioethics czar, and the Advisor to the President for Public Health Emergency Awareness, dubbed the bird flu czar. The special counselors to the President included a communications czar. Bush created the Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives, headed by the faith-based czar, and even gave the nation a birth-control czar, formally the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Population Affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services. Former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams was the Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Affairs, known incongruously as the democracy czar.

Obama's additions include an Advisor to the President and the Vice President on Domestic Violence and Assault Issues, or the domestic-policy czar. The green-jobs czar is the Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. There is a health czar who is the Director of the White House Office of Health Reform and Counselor to the President. There is also a car czar for the auto industry, a compensation, or pay, czar for companies receiving money under the Troubled Assets Relief Program, which has its own TARP czar, the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability. The White House has both a science czar, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and a Chief Technology Officer known as the technology czar. The Director of the Office Safe and Drug free Schools is the safe schools czar. There is even a regulatory czar, confirmed by the Senate, to regulate the regulators. The Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is within the Office of Management Budget.

On the international scene, there is the Guantanomo Base closure czar, who is a special envoy of the Department of State. The United States has former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke as the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, or the Afghanistan czar. Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell has an even broader role as the Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, or Mid-East peace czar. The Sudan czar is officially the Special Envoy to Sudan.

Even in the comparatively czar-free Clinton years, when there were only seven, the President had an advisor to oversee the efforts of the other domestic policy advisors. The chief domestic policy advisor and Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council was called, simply, the "czar czar."

"I think this whole issue has gotten way out of control in terms of the number of czars that he has and advisers around him," Boehner said about the reign of czars under Obama. Some Senate Democrats, including Dianne Feinstein of California and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin also have expressed misgivings.

The dean of the Senate, Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) wrote Obama a letter warning: "The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate confirmed officials."


http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....e-of-the-czars

[American_Jihad]

'Queering' to czaring
10/22/09

LEAVE IT to the Founders, who had suffered under the oppressive hand of King George III, to devise a government of checks and balances to keep power from flowing too heavily one way. That system explains complaints about President Obama's "czars," complaints emerging not only from partisan Republicans and the Fox den but also from such Democratic senators as Robert Byrd (W.Va.) and Russ Feingold (Wis.). Presidential appointments that bypass the Senate steal power from the Hill and concentrate it in the White House. Of course protests arise. The latest lightning rod: "Safe schools czar" Kevin Jennings.

Mr. Jennings, whose Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools handles millions of dollars in grant money, has spent much of his career as an educator attempting to increase tolerance of homosexuality in schools. The founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, he tells in one of his books of an incident that occurred when he was a young high-school teacher. A student reportedly told him that he, the student, was tired because he'd met an older man in a bus-station restroom and had gone home with him, presumably not to get eight hours of shuteye. Mr. Jennings says he responded, "I hope you knew to use a condom."

Was this (a) atrocious judgment or (b) an illegal failure to report child sexual abuse? That depends on whose "facts" you believe. Even Mr. Jennings says he would now handle the matter differently. But add this incident to the introduction he wrote to a book called "Queering Elementary Education" to his advocacy for teaching about homosexuality as early as kindergarten, and to his documented attacks on conservative organizations such as the Southern Baptist Church and the Boy Scouts, and it's valid to wonder just for whom he intends schools to be safe.

So far, 53 Republican congressmen have called for his ouster, maintaining that the presumed Jennings agenda "runs counter to the values that many parents desire to instill in their children."

The White House and some media seem shocked at the criticism of Mr. Jennings, but such a brouhaha is the danger of slipping outside the normal advise-and-consent role of the Senate for presidential appointments. Had Mr. Jennings appeared before a Senate panel, his background would have emerged and senators would have had to take a stand on his suitability as a schools lord. Bypassing the Senate leaves the role of background exposure to pundits and lobby groups, exacerbating the nation's divisions.

Of course, other presidents have appointed czars, but none has gone hog wild like Mr. Obama. "If [appointees] are going to have sweeping policy responsibilities they ought to be accountable to Congress," writes Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. That's what the Founders thought. With few exceptions, that should be the default status for presidential appointments, especially one who carries the exotic baggage of a Kevin Jennings.

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2...0222009/502291

[American_Jihad]

White House Science ‘Czar’ Tells Students: U.S. Can’t Expect to Be Number One in Science and Technology Forever
4/12/10

(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration’s top science and technology official, who has argued for the economic de-development of America, warned science students last Friday that the United States cannot expect to be “number one” forever.

“We can’t expect to be number one in everything indefinitely,” Dr. John P. Holdren said at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

Holdren is director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and chairs the President’s Council of Advisors on Science & Technology (PCAST), making him the top science adviser in the administration.

The former Harvard professor was at the AAAS to speak to students about the Obama administration’s priority of advancing science and technology issues; its goal to increase spending in the area to 3 percent of the gross domestic product; and Obama’s great personal interest in the fields.

In a question-and-answer session with students after the talk, one student asked Holdren how the United States could move forward now that it is no longer “the big shiny beacon” where all scientists travel to do their research.

Holdren called it a mixed picture, and said it was not purely bad for the United States that other countries were making gains instead of us.

“That is, there are many benefits to the increasing capabilities of science and technology in other countries around the world,” he said. “It’s not an unmixed or dead loss that other countries are getting better in science and technology.”

“Other countries getting better increases their capabilities to improve the standard of living of their countries, to improve their economies and, as a result, ultimately to make the world a better and safer place.”

Holdren, who was previously director of the Science, Technology and Public Policy program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, said that as a result of those good advances, “We can’t expect to be number one in everything indefinitely.”

“Probably the most appropriate responses to this degree of levelization (sic) of the playing field is to cooperate, to exchange more,” he said. “We have all kinds of programs already in which U.S. graduate students and post-docs go to China and Chinese graduate students come here—direct exchanges, university to university.”

Holdren said such programs also exist with Japan, India, Brazil, and “a variety of European countries.”

“We intend to grow those programs because we think they are mutually beneficial and we intend to grow the cooperations (sic) in which we engage with other countries.,” he said.

However, the top science adviser admitted that accepting this kind of level playing field also had its downside for the United States.

“On the other hand, there are some problematic aspects,” he said, “if, for example, it is so hard for scientists and technologists from certain countries to get into this country that that kind of cooperation is impeded.”

“It’s a problem if everybody who we graduate from our universities who is originally from another country goes back—invite some of them to stay,” he said. “And we make it, in some respects, too hard to say. Some people have suggested we should staple a green card to every Ph.D. in science and engineering that we give to a non-U.S. citizen. So again, like so many of the very good questions you folks are asking, this one has no really tidy answer, but we’re trying to work it on a number of fronts.”

Holdren is often called the science ‘czar’ for the vast swath of topics on which he is tasked to advise the president, including health care, the space program, bioethics, and more.

As CNSNews.com previously reported, his ideas for cooperation among nations in prior decades have included diverting large amounts of the U.S. Gross National Product (GNP) to countries in need of development aid.

In 1995, in accepting a Nobel prize on behalf of a large group of scientists, Holdren said investing about 10 to 20 percent of the GNP of developed countries in less developed ones was vital to a world of “durable security.”

Pointing to the conclusions of geochemist Harrison Brown in the 1950’s, Holdren said, “(T)he cooperative effort needed to create the basis for durable prosperity, and hence durable security, for all the world's people would require an investment equivalent to 10 to 20 percent of the rich countries' GNPs, sustained over several decades. In 1995, these figures do not seem far wrong, but they are said to be politically unrealistic: nothing approaching them has ever been seriously contemplated by the world's governments. Until this changes, a world free of war…will remain just a dream.”


Similarly, in his 1973 book “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” he suggested “de-developing” the United States to benefit other, poorer nations.[ssob]

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren and two co-authors wrote. “De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses of overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries.”

“This effort must be largely political, especially with regard to our overexploitation of world resources, but the campaign should be strongly supplemented by legal and boycott action against polluters and others whose activities damage the environment,” he said.

Holdren has rebuffed the efforts of CNSNews.com and other media to discuss his former positions on multiple occasions, and he did not take questions from the press at the AAAS event.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/64073

[American_Jihad]

Riders on the Storm
4/19/10

In 2001, Cass R. Sunstein wrote an essay in The Boston Review called “The Daily We: Is the Internet really a blessing for democracy?” Sunstein, a professor at the University of Chicago who now serves in the Obama administration, raised the possibility that the Internet may be harming the public square.

In the mid-20th century, Americans got most of their news through a few big networks and mass-market magazines. People were forced to encounter political viewpoints different from their own. Moreover, the mass media gave Americans shared experiences. If you met strangers in a barbershop, you could be pretty sure you would have something in common to talk about from watching the same TV shows.

Sunstein wondered whether the Internet was undermining all this. The new media, he noted, allow you to personalize your newspapers so you only see the stories that already interest you. You can visit only those Web sites that confirm your prejudices. Instead of a public square, we could end up with a collection of information cocoons.

Sunstein was particularly concerned about this because he has done very important work over the years about our cognitive biases. We like hearing evidence that confirms our suppositions. We filter out evidence that challenges them.

Moreover, we have a natural tilt toward polarized views. People are prone to gather in like-minded groups. Once in them, they drive each other to even greater extremes. In his recent book “Going to Extremes,” Sunstein shows that liberal judges get more liberal when they are on panels with other liberals. Conservative judges get more conservative.

Sunstein’s fear was that the Internet might lead to a more ghettoized, polarized and insular electorate. Those fears were supported by some other studies, and they certainly matched my own experience. Every day I seem to meet people who live in partisan ghettoes, ignorant about the other side.

Yet new research complicates this picture. Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse M. Shapiro, both of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, have measured ideological segregation on the Internet. They took methodologies that have been used to identify racial segregation, and they tracked how people of different political views move around the Web.

The methodology is complicated, but can be summarized through a geographic metaphor. Think of the Fox News site as Casper, Wyo. If you visited and shook hands with the people reading the site, you’d be very likely to be shaking hands with a conservative. The New York Times site, they suggest, is like Manhattan. If you shook hands with other readers, you’d probably be shaking hands with liberals.

The study measures the people who visit sites, not the content inside.

According to the study, a person who visited only Fox News would have more overlap with conservatives than 99 percent of Internet news users. A person who only went to The Times’s site would have more liberal overlap than 95 percent of users.

But the core finding is that most Internet users do not stay within their communities. Most people spend a lot of time on a few giant sites with politically integrated audiences, like Yahoo News.

But even when they leave these integrated sites, they often go into areas where most visitors are not like themselves. People who spend a lot of time on Glenn Beck’s Web site are more likely to visit The New York Times’s Web site than average Internet users. People who spend time on the most liberal sites are more likely to go to foxnews.com than average Internet users. Even white supremacists and neo-Nazis travel far and wide across the Web.

It is so easy to click over to another site that people travel widely. And they’re not even following links most of the time; they have their own traveling patterns.

Gentzkow and Shapiro found that the Internet is actually more ideologically integrated than old-fashioned forms of face-to-face association — like meeting people at work, at church or through community groups. You’re more likely to overlap with political opponents online than in your own neighborhood.

This study suggests that Internet users are a bunch of ideological Jack Kerouacs. They’re not burrowing down into comforting nests. They’re cruising far and wide looking for adventure, information, combat and arousal. This does not mean they are not polarized. Looking at a site says nothing about how you process it or the character of attention you bring to it. It could be people spend a lot of time at their home sites and then go off on forays looking for things to hate. But it probably does mean they are not insecure and they are not sheltered.

If this study is correct, the Internet will not produce a cocooned public square, but a free-wheeling multilayered Mad Max public square. The study also suggests that if there is increased polarization (and there is), it’s probably not the Internet that’s causing it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/opinion/20brooks.html

Cass Sunstein – infiltrate!
4/19/10
Obama’s regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, wrote a paper in 2008 proposing that the government, when faced with an opposition movement, should employ a team to infiltrate the movement and discredit it. Huh, it’s almost like that’s exactly what’s happening now…

The rest is here

State of Propaganda: Is Cass Sunstein the New Big Brother?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Big...00212-572.html

[American_Jihad]

Bizarre Czars
5/25/10

We have not heard much discussion on the subject of Obama's efforts to change our Country into a "czar-dom", due to so many areas of concern, such as the oil spill in the Gulf, illegal immigration, the ballooning National debt, ad infinitum, but it represents a dangerous precedent! Obama's Big Media barely ever mentions the subject, or ANYTHING that may appear negative about the current regime in WA! It could be said that "Big Media" resembles the 3 proverbial monkeys that "See no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil."

Obama is apparently attempting to single handedly solve the unemployment problem by hiring (at taxpayers' expense) numerous "czars" (At last count 40) to run the Government. Not only do these "czars" serve at Obama's beck and call, but are endued with sweeping powers over the duly elected Congress AND with enormous salaries without Senate confirmation! Many of these appointees have gone on public record with suspect ideologies totally at odds with the time-honored concepts of our Republic! Additionally, to buttress President Obama's outright war on conservative talk show hosts, (or anyone who disagrees with his agenda) he has appointed one dubious "czar, Mark Lloyd as "diversity czar" at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates the nation's broadcast airwaves. Lloyd has expressed some outrageous views regarding the First Amendment and the concept of free speech and a free press. Lloyd wrote this in 2006: “It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. Lloyd went on to say, "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".

This appointment is another attempt by the President to squelch all dissent toward the socialized, freedom-infringement upon our private lives being attempted by the Obama Administration. We could go on and on about other "Bizarre Czars", but suffice it to say, a "czar-dom" is NOT what Abraham Lincoln had in mind when he said in his famous Gettysburg Address, "That Government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth."

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/art.../Bizarre-Czars