Who Are These Czars?

Barrack Obama told us during the presidential campaign if we wanted to know who he was, and what he believed, all we had to do was look at those he surrounded himself for council. At the time, he mentioned those who we would consider rational people such as Warren Buffet, and Richard Lugar. However, who has he actually surrounded himself in his administration, and especially in his shadow government of the Czars?

What exactly is a Czar anyway? What powers do they really have? What is their budgets? How much do they make? Who other than Obama are they accountable to, and in what ways? Frankly it seems that only they and Obama know those answers. As we are learning more about some of these Czars we should also be wondering what type of vetting process was used.

Obama has more Czars than even Russia had though the reign of the Czars there. I personally have never been comfortable having something or someone called a Czar having power over any aspect of my life, how about you?

The American Daughter Media Center has a wonderful blog site to keep you updated on the comings and going of these Czars. You might want to check them out at http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/?p=2385 they are a wonderful resource on this shadow government group. I will take the list of Czars from their site to give you quick access to all of them later on this post. However, first there are a handful of very interesting Czars we should all be very aware of, especially when taking Obama for his own word on who he is can be seen by those who he has brought into his inner circle.

The most well known over the last few days is most easily Van Jones, the Green Jobs Czar. This is a very interesting fellow. By his own self description he was a Black Nationalist, who when put in prison after the Rodney King riots, met these real radicals, and communists in prison and realized this is who he needed to be. His background as a Radical and Communist is deep and prolific. He realized that the best method to advance this radical agenda was the marriage of the "green" movement, the Unions, and the Communist radicals into one strong cohesive force. This is what he has been in charge of for quite some time, Obama's team brags that they have been watching him and his advances and couldn't wait to recruit him and his energy for their team. The media and many of the politicians from the GOP are in an uproar over two recently discovered items about Van Jones, one is where he used a potty mouth description of Republicans and the other that he is a signed member of the nutty 9/11 Truthers who believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Frankly their missing the point worrying with these two lower level blunders or proof of nuttiness. I am much more concerned with recently found tapes of his commitment to tear down our systems and replace them completely with his Communist ideology. One was speaking of total wealth redistribution to Native Americans, Immigrants, and minorities. Another was his speech where he admitted that the entire Green initiative has nothing to do with ecology, but a methodical step in destroying the "gray capitalism" and replacing it in the short term with a marketable "green capitalism" until they can completely eliminate capitalism all together. What could possibly be more frightening than having someone whose open goal is to dismantle capitalism and the entire American system and replace it with Communism who is the president's adviser and "Czar?"

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-czars-shock-admission-green-jobs-goal-is-complete-revolution-away-from-gray-capitalism/

Want more scary stuff on Van Jones look into his involvement with Apollo, Tides Center, SEIU, and ACORN.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/31/glenn-beck-uncovers-van-j_n_249044.html

Van Jones telling us that white people are poisoning minorities.

http://embedr.com/playlist/breitbart-tv-playlist-van-jones

Van Jones is also one of the founding members of STORM and wrote their manifesto you can read it yourself below.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070719020533/http://leftspot.com/blog/files/docs/STORMSummation.pdf

How about Regulatory Czar, Cal Sunstein? Does he have any radical agenda in his office?

Kyle Smith writes in the New York Post about one aspect of Sunstein's ideology:

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a "chilling effect" on speech that might hurt someone's feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.

Advance copies of Sunstein's new book, "On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done," have gone out to reviewers ahead of its September publication date, but considering the prominence with which Sunstein is about to be endowed, his worrying views are fair game now. Sunstein is President Obama's choice to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. It's the bland titles that should scare you the most.

In "On Rumors," Sunstein reviews how views get cemented in one camp even when people are presented with persuasive evidence to the contrary. He worries that we are headed for a future in which "people's beliefs are a product of social networks working as echo chambers in which false rumors spread like wildfire." That future, though, is already here, according to Sunstein. "We hardly need to imagine a world, however, in which people and institutions are being harmed by the rapid spread of damaging falsehoods via the Internet," he writes. "We live in that world. What might be done to reduce the harm?"

Sunstein believes anyone sending any email, blog, post, or anything over any electronic medium, phone, whatever, should be able to be sued if they cannot prove any comment that they make. This would end all free speech.

Sunstein believes in "libertarian paternalism." This phrase means that statists plan to do to the word libertarian what they did to the word liberal.

"The idea of libertarian paternalism might seem to be an oxymoron, but it is both possible and legitimate for private and public institutions to affect behavior while also respecting freedom of choice. Often people's preferences are ill-formed, and their choices will inevitably be influenced by default rules, framing effects, and starting points. In these circumstances, a form of paternalism cannot be avoided. Equipped with an understanding of behavioral findings of bounded rationality and bounded self-control, libertarian paternalists should attempt to steer people's choices in welfare-promoting directions without eliminating freedom of choice. It is also possible to show how a libertarian paternalist might select among the possible options and to assess how much choice to offer."

Sunstein also believes that animals have equal rights with humans and should be able to sue humans in court. He has also called for outlawing all hunting.

"Representatives of animals should be able to bring private suits to ensure that anticruelty and related laws are actually enforced. Of course, any animals would be represented by human beings, just like any other litigant who lacks ordinary (human) competence; for example, the interests of children are protected by prosecutors, and also by trustees and guardians in private litigation brought on children's behalf. … If getting rid of the idea that animals are property is helpful in reducing suffering, then we should get rid of the idea that animals are property."

How about John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, any weird ideological baggage there?

In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;

• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;

• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;

• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.

• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

John Holdren: "I have determined that there's nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force women to abort their babies." And as we will see later, although Holdren bemoans the fact that most people think there's no need for such laws, he and his co-authors believe that the population crisis is so severe that the time has indeed come for "compulsory population-control laws." In fact, they spend the entire book arguing that "the population crisis" has already become "sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

John Holdren: "One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society."

John Holdren: " Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock."

John Holdren: "A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
...
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."

John Holdren: "If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection."

John Holdren: "In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?"

John Holdren: "Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."

John Holdren: "If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization."

Carol Browner Obama's Global Warming Czar, surely she doesn't have a shady past does she?

She is listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change. Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30, 2008 to the group's congress in Greece was still available. Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world's social democratic political parties such as Britain's Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.An aide on the Obama team said its information shows that Mrs. Browner resigned from the organization in June 2008. The aide, who asked not to be named because he was discussing internal matters, said the transition team was aware she had been a member of the group when she was vetted.
The Socialist International Web site didn't have a copy of her June 30 speech, but the agenda for the meeting had her scheduled to speak as part of a panel on "How do we strengthen the multilateral architecture for a sustainable future?"

The group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, the organization's action arm on climate change, says the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

I am sorry, but I simply can't do any more research tonight. I am truly becoming sick to my stomach as I put all this information at the same place at the same time. It has been one thing gathering it, focused on the individuals involved, but putting them all together is very difficult to stomach. I haven't even begun to talk about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and others.

President Obama, you told us if we want to know who you are, and what you believe, all we have to do is look at those who your surround yourself for council. I have, and are you telling me that you are and believe as these people whom you have surrounded yourself? Isn't that in it's self self incrimination in your oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America?

Gang, our nation, our representative republic under our Constitution is in more jeopardy today than at any time in history since 1812 when the British burned our Capital and White House. There is a concerted effort by enemies of our American Constitution along with all our corresponding freedoms and liberties operating at the very highest level. ...The next 16 months will determine if we will remain free or become serfs to an oppressive government, it is just that simple. I don't care what political label you consider yourself, we must all unit in opposition to these enemies of America who pretended to be democrats to win this last election.


Thank You American Daughter Media Center for this list below:

1. Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) czar, Richard Holbrooke
2. AIDS czar, Jeffrey Crowley [openly gay white man]
3. Auto recovery czar, Ed Montgomery
4. Behavioral science czar, position not yet filled
5. Bailout czar, Herbert Allison Jr., [replaced Bush bailout czar Neel Kashkari, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability confirmed by Senate]
6. Border czar, Alan Bersin
7. Car czar, Ron Bloom [Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury , under Senate oversight]
8. Climate change czar, Todd Stern
9. Copyright czar, not appointed yet
10. Counterterrorism czar, John Brennan
11. Cybersecurity czar, position will be vacant on August 21st [upon the departure of Melissa Hathaway]
12. Disinformation czar, Linda Douglass [This is a new media buzz since our earlier list, a response by pundits to the White House request for informants: see Glenn Beck and Lew Rockwell]
13. Domestic violence czar, Lynn Rosenthal
14. Drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske
15. Economic czar, Larry Summers
16. Economic czar number two, Paul Volcker
17. Education czar, Arne Duncan
18. Energy czar, Carol Browner
19. Food czar, Michael Taylor [a former Monsanto executive, or, the fox in charge of the henhouse]
20. Government performance czar, Jeffrey Zients
21. Great Lakes czar, Cameron Davis
22. Green jobs czar, Van Jones [who has a communist background]
23. Guantanamo closure czar, Daniel Fried
24. Health czar, Nancy-Ann DeParle
25. Infotech czar, Vivek Kundra [Shoplifted four shirts, worth $33.50 each, from J.C. Penney in 1996 (source). His last day in DC government was March 4 but on March 12 the FBI raided his office and arrested two staffers.]
26. Intelligence czar, Dennis Blair [Director of National Intelligence, a Senate confirmed position. He is a retired United States Navy four-star admiral]
27. Latin-American czar, Arturo Valenzuela (nominee) [although this post is referred to as a czar, he is nominatied to be Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs and so is subject to Senate confirmation. Voting on his confirmation was delayed to clarify his position on Honduras. Watch WaPo’s Head Count to track status of confirmation.]
28. Mideast peace czar, George Mitchell
29. Mideast policy czar, Dennis Ross
30. Pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg
31. Regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein
32. Religion czar, aka God czar Joshua DuBois
33. Safe schools czar, Kevin Jennings [appointed to be Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, a newly created post (that does not require Senate confirmation); openly gay founder of an organization dedicated to promoting pro-homosexual clubs and curricula in public schools]
34. Science czar, John Holdren
35. Stimulus oversight czar, Earl Devaney
36. Sudan czar, J. Scott Gration
37. TARP czar, Elizabeth Warren [chair of the [Congressional Oversight Panel for the Trouble Assets Relief Program; note that Herb Allison is frequently called the TARP czar]
38. Technology czar, Aneesh Chopra
39. Trade czar, Ron Kirk
40. Urban affairs czar, Adolfo Carrion
41. War czar, Douglas Lute [retained from Bush administration, married to Jane Holl Lute, currently a Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security]
42. Water czar, David J. Hayes [a Deputy Interior Secretary and therefore subject to Senate oversight]
43. Weapons czar, Ashton Carter [actually Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and so subject to Senate confirmation]
44. Weapons of mass destruction czar, Gary Samore

Positions being planned:

1. Income redistribution czar
2. Land-use czar
3. Mortgage czar, formally “consumer financial protection czar” (source)
4. Radio-internet fairness czar
5. Student loan czar, to oversee a program of mandatory service in return for college money (source)
6. Voter list czar
7. Zoning czar

Obama has moved swiftly to concentrate power in the White House, bypassing the review of our elected representatives in Congress in most of the posts listed above. Even though cabinet positions are part of the executive branch, the cabinet secretaries must be approved by Congress, they are funded by Congress, and they can be called before Congress to testify. Most of these czars, on the other hand, are appointed by Obama at his sole discretion, and are answerable only to him. If subpoenaed by Congress, they can claim executive privilege.