Nurse Refuses Mandatory Swine-Flu Shot - What's Worse? Swine Flu
Or The Swine Flu Vaccine? This Vaccine Is BAD NEWS! - An American
Communist Is Paralyzing Us - ObamaCare And
Catholic Social Teaching - Van Jones' Departure Inspires: 'Who's Next?'
PRIORITY - SWINE FLU VACCINE ALERT
[LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH] What's Worse? Swine Flu or the Swine Flu Vaccine?
Mary Ann Kreitzer (email@example.com)
Tue 9/08/09 7:27 AM
Read these two articles for some
eye-opening data about the swine flu vaccine. The two pharmaceutical firms fast-tracking
the vaccines have some serious background problems particularly Baxter. Here's
what Dr. Blaylock says about one of the ingredients (particularly squalene) in the vaccine. "What is terrifying is that
these pandemic vaccines contain ingredients, called immune adjuvants
that a number of studies have shown cause devastating autoimmune disorders,
including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and lupus." You owe it
to yourself and your family to be as informed as possible about these vaccines.
Another Shocking Warning About Swine Flu Vaccine by Dr. Mercola
"I’ve published earlier articles about some of the more dangerous
ingredients in this vaccine, such as mercury, and squalene,
which has been linked to the development of autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid
arthritis and lupus.
"Now, German lung specialist Wolfgang Wodarg has come out about even more potential health risks associated with the swine flu vaccine. Interestingly, Dr. Wodarg also holds political office, as the chairman of the health committee in the German parliament and European Council.
"According to Dr. Wodarg, the swine flu vaccine contains animal cancer cells, and there’s no data indicating whether or not this may cause an allergic reaction when injected.
"It also raises questions about the risk of contracting cancer.
"He also told the German press that the widespread fear of the pandemic was an “orchestration,” stating,
'It is great business for the pharmaceutical industry. Swine flu is not very different from normal flu. On the contrary, if you look at the number of cases it is nothing compared to a normal flu outbreak.'"
"This virus continues to be an
enigma for virologists. In the April 30, 2009 issue of Nature, a virologist was
quoted as saying,“Where the
hell it got all these genes from we don’t know.” Extensive analysis of the
virus found that it contained the original 1918 H1N1 flu virus, the avian flu
virus (bird flu), and two new H3N2 virus genes from
Nurse refuses mandatory swine-flu shot
'I so strongly don't want a vaccine that I'm not comfortable having injected into my body'
A vaccine for the H1N1 virus, or swine flu, is still a month away at best. But health care workers are already being bumped to the front of the line.
Those who work in health care are being strongly urged by the federal government to get immunized once the swine flu vaccine is available. The state of
Health care professionals do have an obligation to protect their patients, but at what cost? For one health care worker the new state directive intended to stop the spread of H1N1 goes too far.
Just a word like pandemic is enough to scare anyone in the health care field. For registered nurse Deborah Gerhardt, there are words even scarier.
"Whenever you hear mandatory required, you start to get a little bit anxious," says Gerhardt.
She's been a nurse for 15 years and has never had a flu shot.
"I feel that everyone should have a choice," says Gerhardt.
She recently learned she doesn’t have a choice.
"It was just one day we were told you will receive the flu injection," says Gerhardt.
"As a parent, as a doctor, as a public health professional please get your vaccine," New York State Commissioner of Health Dr. Richard Daines asked during a news conference last week.
The commissioner says refusal to be immunized against H1N1 could increase the spread of the virus and stress and already overwhelmed medical system. He says when a vaccine is approved, there's no reason to believe it won't be safe.
"It goes through that same system and the testing so I'll have every confidence the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control put in it," says Daines.
After her own research, Gerhardt isn't as confident in a potential vaccine.
"It's left a lot of questions for me," she says.
Questions that have left her with one final decision.
"I so strongly don't want a vaccine that I'm not comfortable having injected into my body," says Gerhardt. "If I refuse I can' work in nursing."
It's a choice she wishes she didn't have to make.
"This is just so surreal right now," says Gerhardt. "I don't know what I will do."
Gerhardt says she's never had the flu and practices simple preventative measures like hand washing and simple sanitation techniques. She believes that's even more effective.
She realizes she could lose her job for speaking out, but says it's important since she knows others in the health care field have the same concerns.
If Obama's not stupid …
Thomas Sowell explains why medical takeover doesn't kick in till 2013
If Obama's not stupid …
1:00 am Eastern
The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.
The words of convicted swindler Bernie Madoff were apparently quite convincing to many people who were regarded as knowledgeable and sophisticated. If you go by words, you can be led into anything.
No doubt millions of people will be listening to the words of President Barack Obama tomorrow night when he makes a televised address to a joint session of Congress on his plans. But, if they think that the words he says are what matters, they can be led into something much worse than being swindled out of their money.
One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's medical care before the August recess – for a program that would not take effect until 2013!
Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the medical-care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for years – more specifically, until the year after the next presidential election?
If this is such an urgently needed program, why wait for years to put it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why not let them experience those benefits before the next presidential election?
If it is not urgent that the legislation goes into effect immediately, then why don't we have time to go through the normal process of holding congressional on the pros and cons, accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What sense does it make to "hurry up and wait" on something that is literally a matter of life and death?
If we do not believe that the president is stupid, then what do we believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive takeover of medical care passed into before the public understood what was in it.
Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be.
Unfortunately, this way of doing things is all too typical of the way this administration has acted on a wide range of issues.
Consider the "stimulus" legislation. Here the administration was successful in rushing a massive spending bill through Congress in just two days – after which it sat on the president's for three days, while he was away on vacation. But, like the medical-care legislation, the "stimulus" legislation takes effect slowly.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will be September 2010 before even three-quarters of the money will be spent. Some economists expect that it will not all be spent by the end of 2010.
What was the rush to pass it, then? It was not to get that money out into the economy as fast as possible. It was to get that money – and the power that goes with it – into the hands of the government. Power is what politics is all about.
The worst thing that could happen, from the standpoint of those seeking more government power over the economy would be for the economy to begin recovering on its own while months were being spent debating the need for a "stimulus" bill. As the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, you can't let a crisis "go to waste" when "it's an opportunity to do things you could not do before."
The proliferation of White "czars" in charge of everything from financial issues to media issues is more of the same circumvention of the public and of the Constitution. Czars don't have to be confirmed by the Senate, the way Cabinet members must be, even though czars may wield more power – so you may never know what these people are like, until it is too late.
What Barack Obama says Wednesday night is not nearly as important as what he has been doing – and how he has been doing it.
Exclusive: Mychal Massie looks at deeper meaning of BHO's name
1:00 am Eastern
If you were to say that the Obama White and its Justice Department, vis-à-vis Attorney General Eric Holder, et al., were attempting to prosecute those involved in the successful extraction of information from captured terrorists – which has saved American lives and protected American interests – in an attempt to ultimately charge former Vice President Dick Cheney and former President George W. Bush as well – you would be correct.
But don't stop there. Another reason Obama, Holder, et al., are attempting to bring down the Justice Department is because terrorists are like a family of cockroaches, ergo when you step on a terrorist in one corner of the world, you're in effect stepping on their ideological cousins in this part of the world – and their ideological cousins in the Obama not only take it personally, but seek ways to exact revenge.
And that is exactly why Obama, Holder and company are so upset. They're not upset that Danny Pearl was beheaded. They're not upset that Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., lied and dragged brave men and women through the political mud concerning Haditha.
They're not upset that Sen. Dick
Durbin, D-Ill., compared our military at
No – they give little or no indication of being upset at those things – but they've given every indication of being upset that terrorists were and are being held accountable for their acts. They are upset that the enemies of civilized humanity are being forced through non-life-threatening means to divulge information they possess (that has resulted in keeping
Obama, Holder and company are the latest crop of anti-American sympathizers. They have embraced the theistic resentment of Muslims, while swallowing the communist manifesto hook, line, sinker, jot and tittle. They have become sympathizers to those who hate
Obama was so proud of his American , his mother and grandparents, that he changed his name from Barry Soetero to Barack Hussein Obama (sarcasm intended). It is worth noting that "Barack Hussein" literally translated means "blessed handsome one," with "Obama" being based on the Duholo of the Luo people of
With that said, I submit that he would have done better to have changed his name to "Kazzaab" Obama. Kazzaab means liar – and that is exactly what he did when he said that he wouldn't try to prosecute those who had already been questioned and exonerated of any wrongdoing pursuant to decisions made concerning the methods used to interrogate captured terrorists. That is exactly what he is doing as he continues to mislead the nation about his universal health-care reform. He is willing to say and/or promise whatever he has to for the bill to pass – fully cognizant that once passed, Congress will secretly make mandate that which he now promises will be optional – as the price tag for same increases exponentially.
It is time we put Obama and his cabal of "rowdy" communist, anarchist appointees on trial for undermining our intelligence . It is time we have the blogosphere, talk radio and every news outlet at our disposal – no matter how small – effect a movement that clearly and precisely reminds the public of the promises and pledges he made during his campaign that were clearly lies.
People need to be reminded of exactly how a malevolent narcissist deceived his way into
He and his minions must be held accountable for not only subverting the Constitution, but also for literally rendering it of no effect by acting contrary to what it allows.
And there is no better place to start than with his own words at the , when he said: "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America" (Oct. 31, 2008). He should be forced to explain exactly what he really meant – because in the absence of a convincing argument, it would appear that he meant "fundamentally change America" by destroying free-market capitalism, rendering the Constitution of no effect and turning America into a North American communist state.
10 reasons why Obama's agenda will fail
Exclusive: Janet Porter offers collection of troubles plaguing president's tenure
10 reasons why Obama's agenda will fail
1:00 am Eastern
Despite an Obama activist media,
firstname.lastname@example.org on behalf of Dr. Frank (DrFrank@abortiontruths.net)
Tue 9/08/09 6:10 AM
Actually Dick McDonald's formidable article below doesn't need an introduction; it speaks by itself.
All I can say here is to earnestly recommend you that, after reading McDonald's piece, go to http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/406996.html to read and DIGEST THOROUGHLY the article by Andie Brownlow "From Russia with No Love".
Be sure that you visit all the links in that very informative article, particularly and primarily the one titled tactics of Soviet psychological warfare.
That link will take you to a wealth of You Tube information from Yuri Bezmenov, a Soviet KGB operative that defected to
Reading McDonald's and Brownlow's article, and watching all the series of Bezmenov's videos, amounts to taking an abridged crash course --which most non-leftist Americans need-- on how the hardcore Left came to acquire all the awesome power it holds now and which --with Obama and his troupe of hardcore Left comrades squatting on White House premises-- will mushroom to bury us all under a most repressive government...that if We the People, don't stop it...lawfully, of course.
But you still need to add another layer to your knowledge on the ways and means the Left used to climb to the cusp of power in
Your badly needed abridged crash course would be thoroughly complete when you read an article that will take you to most of the specificities on how Obama is where he is now: "Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis", by James Simpson at www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html .
Then, as a most valuable appendix to getting a decently deep grasp of how the Left took us to where we are now, read the article "Why the Mortgage Crisis Happened", by M. Jay Wells, at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/what_really_happened_in_the_mo.html With that background your all-American grassroots activism will be sounder.
By the way, the course syllabus I have outlined here provides powerful tools to empower your teenager children to realize, in some depth, what's is going on and to arm them with elements of judgment to debate and defeat leftist school peers and teachers.
Now, to the start of your abridged crash course on how the Left shafted us, while we were leaving it ALL to Adam Smith's "invisible hand":
(NOTE: text within brackets is mine, RG)
An American Communist is Paralyzing Us
Dr. Jory Goodman, a Beverly Hills psychiatrist, has made it clear - Barack Obama is a communist not a socialist. Barack insists on his way or the highway, whereas socialists will debate you.
Barack not only believes in the Marxian "any means to an end" tactic, he is forming a civilian defense force as powerful as the US Armed Forces to intimidate and force the American people to adopt his "equal outcome" redistribution "transformation of America." This should remind Jews of another "preacher" and his "brown shirts" that imposed National Socialism on
Americans spent the 20th Century destroying communism only have its roots resurface and grow into a new tree right here in the White House. As is a radical's usual approach, the kids -incapable of distrusting their teacher - are being asked this Tuesday not about their need to be educated, but how to believe in all things Obama. It is all a part of Obama's plan to deify himself to hide his true agenda. See
Here a very nice, gentlemanly Republican Austin Hill concludes that Obama "understands very little about the country he serves. " Mr. Hill, wake up - Obama knows our weaknesses like the back of his hand. Sol Alinsky's Rules for Radicals (communists) is Obama's bible to orchestrate the takeover of
Listen folks - Obama is a lawyer specializing in Constitutional Law. Are you so enamored and or distracted by his charisma that you believe he doesn't know all about
Please be real. Wake up and smell the smoke.
Obama is banking on Republican reluctance to call him out as the communist he is. Listen, this guy is so arrogant [and brazen that (RG)] he slipped his "brother", an avowed communist -Van Jones - right into the White House for the first eight months, until eight weeks of bleating by Glen Beck forced him to resign. Obama knows Republicans [if exposing him as the communist he really is (RG)] are deathly afraid of being accused in the media about being against poor people, children, women, minorities and he is using that fear as his shield.
David Horowitz has outlined how the communists in the last 50 years have regrouped to attack free markets and capitalism. He should know: he was a 60's radical member of the communist party. He says communists use poverty, children, women and minorities as emotional shields to hide their quest for power. They demonize corporations, business, Republicans and the capitalist system as the enemies of "social justice."
Horowitz concludes that communists are actually the oppressors of children, women and minorities and not only exacerbate poverty wherever they have introduced it. They actually make every country where it has been adopted markedly poorer.
Horowitz is absolutely mystified why Republicans refuse to attack Democrats for perpetuating poverty, subjugating minorities to second-class status, failing to emancipate women and indoctrinating instead of educating children.
When you analyze it, Democrats are really vulnerable because they have run up $500,000 of promises they can't keep for each of the 115 million households in America - yet the [spineless (RG)] Republicans [at the top of the GOP hierarchy (RG)] refuse to even discuss this in public.
Our economy is in the tank. The outlook for job creation is years away, Obama and the Democrats are adding trillions of debt to the American credit card every month and the Republicans sit idly by claiming they have a plan to do WHAT? Just stop Obama? How about the communism he is imposing every day of his term? What are Republicans going to do about that?
Then what are the Republicans going to do for ordinary Americans who are taxed, regulated and inflated into a pay check to pay check existence - if they are lucky enough to even get a pay check? What is their plan to deliver the American Dream to those guys? More of the same semi-socialist paralysis we had under Bush in 2006, 2007 and 2008?
There are ways to immediately revitalize our economy and deliver the American Dream to ordinary Americans - but one dare not discuss it - it will get in the way of the fun Republicans are having watching Obama implode and interrupt their dreams of recapturing Congress in 2010. As usual the American people are going to have to wait until someone stands up for them or they stand up for themselves.
Posted By Mary Ann Kreitzer to LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH at 9/08/2009 07:10:00 AM
[DrFrank c] ObamaCare and Catholic social teaching
email@example.com on behalf of Dr. Frank (DrFrank@abortiontruths.net)
Tue 9/08/09 6:01 AM
September 06, 2009
ObamaCare and Catholic social teaching
By Mark Wauk - American Thinker
The 9/2/09 issue of the Wall
Street Journal, in its Notable and Quotable feature,
calls attention to an important article that Roman Catholic Bishop
R. Walker Nickless of
Bishop Nickless begins by noting the importance of the ongoing debate over proposed reforms of our health care system:
"There is much at stake in this political struggle, and also much confusion and inaccurate information being thrown around. My brother bishops have described some clear "goal-posts" to mark out what is acceptable reform, and what must be rejected. First and most important, the Church will not accept any legislation that mandates coverage, public or private, for abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem-cell research."
After further noting particular concerncs for Catholic hospitals and health care professionals -- the possibility that the Government would attempt to force them to act in violation of Catholic teaching as well as in violation of their consciences--Bishop Nickless concludes:
"A so-called reform that imposes these evils on us would be far worse than keeping the health care system we now have."
However, Bishop Nickless doesn't stop here. He goes on to enunciate several additional considerations of great importance. The bishop's second point gets to the heart of the role that government should play in health care:
"Second, the Catholic Church does not teach that "health care" as such, without distinction, is a natural right. The "natural right" of health care is the divine bounty of food, water, and air without which all of us quickly die. This bounty comes from God directly. None of us own it, and none of us can morally withhold it from others. The remainder of health care is a political, not a natural, right, because it comes from our human efforts, creativity, and compassion. As a political right, health care should be apportioned according to need, not ability to pay or to benefit from the care. We reject the rationing of care. Those who are sickest should get the most care, regardless of age, status, or wealth. But how to do this is not self-evident. The decisions that we must collectively make about how to administer health care therefore fall under "prudential judgment."
In other words, provision of health care must ultimately rest on prudential considerations that affect an entire society. Broad assertions of generalized "rights" without reference to underlying prudential considerations are not helpful. The relevant considerations include need, but also cost. Another important prudential consideration, however, is this: who should be the main provider of health care, government or the private sector? Bishop Nickless insists that health care provision is not only not a central concern of government as such, it is also likely to introduce harmful economic and policy distortions:
"Third, in that category of prudential judgment, the Catholic Church does not teach that government should directly provide health care. Unlike a prudential concern like national defense, for which government monopolization is objectively good - it both limits violence overall and prevents the obvious abuses to which private armies are susceptible - health care should not be subject to federal monopolization. Preserving patient choice (through a flourishing private sector) is the only way to prevent a health care monopoly from denying care arbitrarily, as we learned from HMOs in the recent past. While a government monopoly would not be motivated by profit, it would be motivated by such bureaucratic standards as quotas and defined "best procedures," which are equally beyond the influence of most citizens. The proper role of the government is to regulate the private sector, in order to foster healthy competition and to curtail abuses. Th erefore any legislation that undermines the viability of the private sector is suspect."
Clearly, there is much that could be said on this score. Nevertheless, Bishop Nickless' reflections are an excellent starting point for any constructive discussion of these important issues. Bishop Nickless places his own considerations in the context of demographic considerations:
"The best way in practice to approach this balance of public and private roles is to spread the risks and costs of health care over the largest number of people. This is the principle underlying Medicaid and Medicare taxes, for example. But this principle assumes that the pool of taxable workers is sufficiently large, compared to those who draw the benefits, to be reasonably inexpensive and just. ... Without a growing population of youth, our growing population of retirees is outstripping our distribution systems. In a culture of death such as we have now, taxation to redistribute costs of medical care becomes both unjust and unsustainable."
I, personally, would suggest that further consideration needs to be given to the entire notion of taxation to redistribute costs. Obviously, this occurs in many areas of our politics: national defense, public works, etc. Just as obviously, when joined to false notions of "natural rights," and a failure to consider the human dignity that and emphasis on individual responsibility fosters, the redistributive use of taxation has led to many controversial and even "unjust" abuses of the government power to tax (my quotes refer to Bishop Nickless' words, above). The power to tax is, after all, the power to destroy, and that destruction can have not only economic consequences but moral consequences as well. Bishop Nickless appears to assume that Medicaid and Medicare were, initially in any event, established on a sound principle. Without getting into the the particulars, which are far beyond my expertise, I think that is an area that would needs to be closely reexamined before moving on to adoption of any new reforms.
That Bishop Nickless is open to such discussions, and that the considerations involved are central to Catholic social teaching, becomes apparent from the bishop's final point. That point addresses the whole issue of preventive care which, as several recent studies have shown, can actually greatly increase health care costs. Bishop Nickless places the primary responsibility squarely on the individual:
"Fourth, preventative care is a moral obligation of the individual to God and to his or her family and loved ones, not a right to be demanded from society. The gift of life comes only from God; to spurn that gift by seriously mistreating our own health is morally wrong. The most effective preventative care for most people is essentially free - good diet, moderate exercise, and sufficient sleep. But pre-natal and neo-natal care are examples of preventative care requiring medical expertise, and therefore cost; and this sort of care should be made available to all as far as possible."
The caveat "as far as possible" is a strong indication that Bishop Nickless, in the context of Catholic social teaching, does indeed recognize that cost is an important part of the entire health care equation. No society can morally devote an endlessly increasingly portion of its resources to a poorly structured health care system, while ignoring the long term financial health of its future generations.
Having enunciated these four principles and their related goals, Bishop Nickless asks the all-important question: "Will the current health care reform proposals achieve these goals?" His answer is a firm: No. Not only would all current House and Senate proposals introduce government subsidized abortion (and likely several other morally objectionable features), but these proposals would strike at the heart of private sector health care provision. The House proposal
"provides a "public insurance option" without adequate limits, so that smaller employers especially will have a financial incentive to push all their employees into this public insurance. This will effectively prevent those employees from choosing any private insurance plans. This will saddle the working classes with additional taxes for inefficient and immoral entitlements."
And the Senate proposal would also "impinge on the vitality of the private sector" through various provisions.
Bishop Nickless' resounding conclusion:
"I encourage all of you to make you voice heard to our representatives in Congress. Tell them what they need to hear from us: no health care reform is better than the wrong sort of health care reform. Insist that they not permit themselves to be railroaded into the current too-costly and pro-abortion health care proposals. Insist on their support for proposals that respect the life and dignity of every human person, especially the unborn. And above all, pray for them, and for our country."
Bishop Nickless' article begins at http://www.scdiocese.org/ and continues at http://www.scdiocese.org/Stewardship/healthcare/tabid/416/Default.aspxUN
Published: 9:55PM BST 06 Sep 2009
His policies even have the potential to consign the
There are "troubling similarities" between the US
President's actions since taking office and those which in the 1930s sent the
In particular, the authors,
economists Charles Rowley of
The study represents a challenge to the widely held view that Keynesian fiscal policies helped the
Although the authors support the Federal Reserve's moves to slash interest rates to just above zero and embark on quantitative easing, pumping cash directly into the system, they warn that greater intervention could set the
The paper, which recommends that the
White House: Jones Did Not Fill Out 63-Question, Seven-Page Questionnaire...
By Michelle Malkin • September 7, 2009 11:20 AM
Scroll down for update…
Photoshop: Leo Alberti
Tunku Varadarajan is a professor at NYU’s
He thinks I am a “kook” and “crazy” for criticizing President Obama’s education event tomorrow.
Tellingly, he does not address the actual substance of my arguments. But he packs in plenty of ad hominems:
Too Many Kooks
Tunku Varadarajan, 09.07.09, 12:00 AM EDT
Obama’s school speech drives the right crazy.
The Silly Season ceases to be “silly” when what passes for political debate in
I write of the kooky reaction of many conservatives–politicians, citizens and commentators in the media–to the plan by President Obama to address the nation’s schoolchildren tomorrow.
Obama will, as we all know, address our kids–plenty of whom need a lesson or two on the subject, since they clearly don’t get it from their parents–on the virtues of study, education and hard work. According to a White House spokesman, the aim of the speech is “to challenge students to work hard in school, to not drop out and to meet short-term goals like behaving in class, [and] doing their homework …” If anyone thinks that’s unpalatable, subversive, Commie and un-American, I’d like to meet for a duel at dawn by the skating rink at New York’s Central Park. (Pick your weapon, Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck …)
Obama’s original “lesson plan” had been to ask students auditing him to write letters to themselves outlining ways in which they could “help the president.” This seemingly earnest proposal provoked a reaction so vitriolic from sections on the political right that I began to wonder whether I was missing a point–to wonder, in fact, that I, as a recent immigrant to this country, had failed to integrate well enough to grasp the nuances of American political debate.
Yes, you missed the point.
It’s not the speech (as I pointed out last week), it’s the subtext.
It’s the radical activism of the White House Teaching Fellows who designed the education guides tied to Obama’s speech.
It’s the overzealousness of public school educators who have turned classrooms into Obama campaign offices.
It’s the influence of the left-wing social justice crusaders of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge on Team Obama.
It’s the Left’s embrace of Obama Chicago pal Bill Ayers’ pedagogical philosophy of “education as the motor-force of revolution.”
It’s the activist tradition of government schools using students as junior lobbyists to pressure legislators for higher education spending, pro-illegal immigration protests, gay marriage, environmental propaganda, and anti-war causes.
Now, who are you calling “kook?”
Update: Speech text released. It’s not about Obama…except, of course, that it is.
Obama, Hygience Czar, tells your kids to wash their hands.
Van Jones' departure inspires: 'Who's next?'
Holdren, Sunstein, Lloyd all linked to radical ideas
Van Jones' departure inspires: 'Who's next?'
Holdren, Sunstein, Lloyd all linked to radical ideas
Posted: September 07, 2009
7:36 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Former Obama green jobs czar Van Jones is gone, along with his views about whites directing poisons to minorities, his obscene condemnations of Republicans and his affiliation with the idea the
Jones' midnight-on-a-holiday-weekend resignation came after pressure over his extremist history first exposed in WND reached critical mass, set off by a tape of him in an expletive-packed rant, directly attacking Republicans in the Senate who he said abused their majority position in the past to push legislation through.
Now czar regime opponents are looking into names such as John Holdren, Cass Sunstein and Mark Lloyd.
Holdren, the science czar, for example, has been described as a population control "zealot" who has stated his belief the Constitution justifies compulsory abortions. His 1977 book with Paul Ehrlich called "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, ," states: "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."
The authors created a "Planetary Regime" whose police forces would be able to "enforce" population limits around the globe.
Then there's Cass Sunstein, the Harvard Law professor named the regulator czar.
He's also been on the population control bandwagon, advocated animal rights and followed the teachings of Peter Singer devoutly. Singer has argued that abortion should be allowed because killing unborn isn't like homicide.
"Killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."
"Any that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian-like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients' behalf," he suggested.
Then there's Mark Lloyd, the "diversity czar" who has talked about issues such as a 100 percent on broadcast outlets in order to collect money to provide alternative viewpoints, mandatory diversity in station ownership and the idea of requiring broadcast to cater to the demands of local activism committees.
Republican Congressman Mike Pence said all such appointees should be reviewed by Congress like those who take various cabinet positions and must be approved by elected legislators.
According to a Fox report, Pence said the czars should be subject to background checks and a vote.
"I’m suggesting that the administration should suspend immediately any future czar appointments while both the constitutionality of this practice is examined and while the background and qualifications of individuals who’ve been appointed as czars is carefully examined," Pence over the weekend.
While Code Pink activist Medea Benjamin was describing the treatment of Jones as being "swift-boated," Obama was pushing ahead with the appointment today of Ron Bloom as manufacturing czar, bringing to nearly three dozen the political appointees who wield huge influence but effectively answer only to the president.
A blogger at RedState.com, however, addressed the idea that perhaps there was no breakdown in the vetting process for the candidates with radical ideas out of alignment with mainstream
Perhaps, the commentator suggested, the individuals were chosen because of those ideas.
"Over at The Corner at NRO, Andy McCarthy has a different take – one that I believe is quite accurate. McCarthy asserts that Jones was chosen precisely because of his controversial background," said RedState.com
The blog quoted McCarthey's statements: "The point, of course, is that Obama vetted Jones just fine. President Obama is not Mr. Magoo – haplessly gravitating to Truther Van and Ayers and Dohrn and Klonsky and
"The two have the same kinds of backgrounds. They were both community organizers of some ilk. It only makes sense that Obama would seek someone with the same background to pursue one of his pet policies – 'green jobs,'" he continued.
The RedState blog pointed out that someone – probably someone very high up – had to approve Jones personally – or he never would have been given access to the White House.
"As former Reagan staffer Jeffrey Lord explains at the Spectator, the Secret Service carefully scrutinizes the background of everyone who works at the White House. With his background, Van Jones couldn't possibly have gotten into the White House, much less had physical access to the president, unless the top echelon of the administration (I'd wager, the very top) overrode any objections," the blogger said.
"The … likelihood is that the Obama staff simply told them to give him a pass."
"Conservatives are no doubt emboldened to go after more of Obama's czars," the analysis continued, "with the expectation that they, too, are 'under-vetted.' Indeed, there are several who appear to have questionable backgrounds – from our perspective. But do they from Obama's perspective?
"This was not a mistake by Obama," he continued. "The appointments of Jones, Mark Lloyd, and other 'Czars of the Obama Underworld' were quite intentional. … He is a socialist ideologue who has a mission to transform
One of the participants in the RedState forum page expressed the idea of Obama throwing liberals at a wall to see if they stick.
"If they stick (read: stay) they are free w/o congressional approval/oversight to do the radical agenda bidding."
At Politico.com, there was agreement with the assessment.
"With the resignation of green jobs adviser Van Jones, the conservative firing squad is setting its sights on other White House czars," wrote Lisa Lerer. "The resignation of Jones – who stepped down from his post as the White House green jobs adviser early Sunday morning, citing a 'vicious smear campaign' waged against him by 'opponents of reform' – was a win for conservative politicians and pundits who waged a months-long campaign hammering him for comments he made in his previous post as an environmental activist for poor and minority communities."
Lerer specifically cited Holdren for his "involuntary fertility control methods like mandatory abortions, mandating family size and adding sterilants to drinking …"
Also identified was Sunstein, who "supported taking people's organs 'against their will.'"
Lloyd was mentioned again, too.
It was in April when Aaron Klein,
Succeeding revelations by WND included:
Jones was co-founder of a
black activist organization that has led a campaign prompting major advertisers
to withdraw from Glenn Beck's top-rated Fox News Channel program. The
revelation followed Beck's reports on WND's story
about Jones' communist background.
While talk radio and some
cable television shows such as Glenn Beck picked up WND's
reporting and increased the pressure on the administration to cut Jones loose,
there was no significant press coverage of the scandal by the major
Lawyer and conservative political analyst Phyllis Schlafly notes there are other possible questions to be raised for members of the czar corps.
"So far, Obama has appointed 34 czars. Just listing them is enough to scare anyone who believes in constitutional and representative government: Afghanistan czar, AIDS czar, border czar, car czar, climate czar, copyright czar, cyberspace czar, drug czar, economic czar, education czar, czar, executive pay czar, faith-based czar, Great Lakes czar, green jobs czar, Guantanamo closure czar, health reform czar, infotech czar, intelligence czar, Iran czar, Middle East peace czar, non-proliferation czar, Persian Gulf/Southeast Asia czar, regulatory czar, science czar, stimulus accountability czar, Sudan czar, TARP czar, terrorism czar, urban czar, war czar, and WMD and terrorism czar," she wrote.
"At least one Obama pal is functioning in a similar capacity without the awesome Russian title of czar. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who publicly withdrew from his appointment as secretary of health and human services because of non-payment of income taxes, is providing 'outside advice' to the president inside the Oval Office and to top White House officials, while continuing as a highly paid policy adviser to hospital and pharmaceutical clients of a law and lobbying firm," she said.
Glenn Beck: Jones quit 'under cover of darkness'
'The American people stood up and demanded answers'