Misplaced Fears About the 'Czars'

[Winehole23]

Misplaced Fears About the 'Czars' (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091803048.html)


By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
Saturday, September 19, 2009


Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) argued on this page this week ["Czarist Washington (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091103504.html)," op-ed, Sept. 13] that the Obama administration's "czars" are effectively in those positions unconstitutionally because their hiring creates "precisely the kind of ambiguity the Framers sought to prevent." Far from undermining the separation of powers, however, the president's right to organize his White House policymaking apparatus is protected by that very constitutional principle.




The White House czars are presidential assistants charged with responsibility for given policy areas. As such, they are among the president's closest advisers. In many respects, they are equivalent to the personal staff of a member of Congress. To subject the qualifications of such assistants to congressional scrutiny -- the regular confirmation process -- would trench upon the president's inherent right, as the head of an independent and equal branch of the federal government, to seek advice and counsel where he sees fit.





As Hutchison points out, the result of a president seeking counsel where he likes may well be embarrassment -- as was the case with "green jobs czar" Van Jones, who recently resigned (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/02/AR2006080202056.html) over revelations of his ties to radical groups and his apparent endorsement of Sept. 11 conspiracy theories. Barack Obama has taken the political hit -- and he is not the first president to pay that price. In 2006, Claude Allen, a domestic policy adviser to President George W. Bush, resigned after being accused of shoplifting.
This raises a second point in the Obama administration's favor: Some of the positions many are now criticizing have existed for years. As The Post reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/15/AR2009091501424.html) this week: "By one count, Bush had 36 czar positions filled by 46 people during his eight years as president." Historically, presidents have turned to special advisers.



However much the czars may drive the policymaking process at the White House, they cannot -- despite their grandiose (and frankly ridiculous) appellation -- determine what that policy will be. The Constitution's "appointments clause" requires that very senior federal officials be appointed with the Senate's consent, though lesser appointments can be made by the president, agency heads or the courts, as Congress provides. Well-established Supreme Court precedent (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=424&invol=1) holds that an "officer" subject to these requirements is one who exercises "significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States."



This is the critical difference between the White House czars and federal officials who must be confirmed by the Senate. In the absence of legislation (such as that creating the Office (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/about/index.html) of Drug Control Policy, whose director is the "drug czar"), the only power exercised by White House czars comes from their proximity to the president and the access this provides. Yes, as many will note, that truly is power. But it is not significant authority under U.S. law -- which only the Constitution or Congress can confer.



Thus, White House "Energy and Environment Czar" Carol Browner can analyze, develop, advise, hold meetings and pound the table all she likes on energy and environment issues, but she can determine nothing. Her signature on any order, decision or regulation establishing or altering Americans' legal obligations would be meaningless, unenforceable by a court.



Contrast this with Browner's authority as Senate-confirmed administrator (http://www.epa.gov/history/administrators/browner.htm) of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Clinton administration, when her signature on regulations gave them the force and effect of law, fully enforceable in the courts, not infrequently by substantial fines and even jail time.



If there is doubt about the centrality of advisers to the president's execution of his office, recall the 2005 demands (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031300776.html) by Democrats that former White House counsel Harriet Miers and Bush adviser Karl Rove testify before Congress about the dismissal of several U.S. attorneys. This effort had very little to do with Miers and Rove and even less to do with a handful of unhappy Republican political appointees. The target was always President Bush and his policies. Republicans who are concerned about Obama's czars should not fall into the same bad habits now that a Democrat is president.
Hutchison's frustration at being unable to tell whether the czars are imposing the administration's agenda on agency officials who have been confirmed by the Senate is misplaced. Legally, they can do no such thing. The Constitution vests all executive power in the president, creating a unitary executive, and it is his authority to execute the laws that federal officials exercise, subject to his direction.



The writers are partners in the D.C. office of Baker Hostetler LLP and served in the Justice Department under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

[SouthernFried]

Nothing to worry about here...move on folks, nothing to see here, move on.

[boutons_deux]

czars outrage is just more fabricated, fake, transparent outrage in bad faith by the wrongies. yawn

[DarrinS]

I have no problem with John Holdren being a former proponent of Eugenics and forced sterilization. Good times. :toast

[Wild Cobra]

I have no problem with John Holdren being a former proponent of Eugenics and forced sterilization. Good times. :toast

Especially if he advocates sterilization of welfare mothers and dead beat dads.

[DarrinS]

With John Holdren being a Malthusian desciple and a global warming catastrophist, what could go wrong?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.506b7104e85d35fc4f8355e566ab5fa d.261&show_article=1




Unchecked population growth is speeding climate change, damaging life-nurturing ecosystems and dooming many countries to poverty, experts concluded in a conference report released Monday.

Unless birth rates are lowered sharply through voluntary family-planning programmes and easy access to contraceptives, the tally of humans on Earth could swell to an unsustainable 11 billion by 2050, they warned.

The UN currently projects that global population will rise from 6.8 billion today to between 8.0 and 10.5 billion by mid-century.

The researchers said that with one and a half million more humans climbing aboard the planet every week, a recipe is looming for ecological overload, famine and broken states.

"Continued rapid population growth in many of the least developed countries could lead to hunger, a failure of education and conflict," said Malcolm Potts at the University of California in Berkeley, which hosted the conference in February.

The papers, authored by 42 specialists in environmental science, economics and demography, are published by the Royal Society, Britain's de-facto academy of sciences.

"There is no doubt that the current rate of human population growth is unsustainable," summarised Roger Short, a professor at the University of Melbourne in Australia.

"The inexorable increase in human numbers is exhausting conventional energy supplies, accelerating environmental pollution and global warming and providing an increasing number of failed states where civil unrest prevails."

Ninety-eight percent of the expected population growth will occur in developing countries, especially in Africa, where numbers are set to double to almost two billion by 2050.

"How Niger is going to feed a population growing from 11 million today to 50 million in 2050 in a semi-arid country that may be facing adverse climate (change) is unclear," said Adair Turner, a member of Britain's House of Lords.

The population of Uganda was five million in 1950, is 25 million today and could reach 127 million by 2050, Turner said.

Concern about population growth is not new.

It was most famously articulated by a British mathematician, Thomas Malthus, who in 1798 -- when Earth was home to about one billion -- calculated that exponential growth would inevitably lead to famine.

Malthus's dire warning was widely taken seriously until the advent of mechanised farming. The surge in food productivity, helped by the Green Revolution of the 1960s, gave the impression that Earth's bounty was limitless.

But relentlessly rising demand, diminishing farmland, depleted fish stocks, falling water tables and the threat of climate change have in recent years placed the Malthusian dilemma back on the table.

In their overview, the authors say that even though the burden of excess population is clear, controversy and taboo stalk the question of how to tackle it.

Some objections, such as the Roman Catholic Church's ban on birth control, are religious.

But the question has been ignored or sidelined in the secular arena too, the authors said.

Population control, for example, did not figure among the UN's eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000, though it was added later "as an afterthought," said Short.

One reason has been the family planning programmes in China and India that critics say veered into forced sterilisations and coercive abortions, breaching human rights.

The researchers acknowledged these problems but also pointed out that without its "one-child" policy, China would have an extra 300 to 400 million mouths to feed today.

There would be double the number of young people, from 20 to 40 million, who enter the Chinese job market each year.

The researchers agreed with the widely held belief that improving economic conditions generally lead to lower birth rates.

But, they argue, smaller families also lead to greater prosperity, and this can be helped by programmes that are voluntary and inexpensive.

Some 80 million pregnancies -- nearly 40 percent of the total each year -- are unplanned. More than half of those unwanted pregnancies will result in abortion, with five million women suffering severe complications or death.

"Much more emphasis need to be given to meeting the need for family planning -- all women should be protected from unintended childbirth," they said in a collective editorial.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So the resident conservatives were silent during the Bush yrs... shocking example of hypocrisy.. Actually it's not shocking it's par for the course..

[LnGrrrR]

In other words, the board conservatives don't have a good rebuttal. :)

You may not like who he chooses to surround himself with, and you can stir up a public storm to get him to fire them, a la Jones, but it's not unconstitutional, and it's certainly not something new that Obama just cooked up.

[George Gervin's Afro]

In other words, the board conservatives don't have a good rebuttal. :)

You may not like who he chooses to surround himself with, and you can stir up a public storm to get him to fire them, a la Jones, but it's not unconstitutional, and it's certainly not something new that Obama just cooked up.

It's an outrage!!:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

I have no problem with John Holdren being a former proponent of Eugenics and forced sterilization. Good times. :toastHe never was.

You lie!


Especially if he advocates sterilization of welfare mothers and dead beat dads.Wasn't your mother on welfare?

[DarrinS]

He never was.

You lie!




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren#Early_publications

[DarrinS]

Here's the table of contents from John Holdren's lovely book, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment.





Table of contents
Contents
Preface xiii
Chapter 1 Population, Resources, Environment: Dimensions of the Human Predicament 1
The Essence of the Predicament 2
Interactions: Resources, Economics, and Politics 2
Interactions: Technology, Environment, and Well-Being 4
The Prospects: Two Views 5
SECTION I NATURAL PROCESSES AND HUMAN WELL-BEING 7
Chapter 2 The Physical World 11
Earth's Solid Surface and Below 14
The Hydrosphere 21
Atmosphere and Climate 32
Chapter 3 Nutrient Cycles 67
Dynamics of Nutrient Cycling 68
Chemistry of Nutrient Cycles 70
Cycles of the Principal Nutrients 73
Other Nutrients and Geographical Variations 92
Chapter 4 Populations and Ecosystems 97
Population Dynamics 98
Natural Selection and Evolution 122
Community Ecology 128
Biomes 145
Freshwater Habitats 160
Marine Habitats 161
Ecological Models 170
SECTION II POPULATION AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES 177
Chapter 5 The History and Future of the Human Population 181
Population Growth 181
Demographic Projections and Population Structure 202
Population Distribution and Movement 227
Chapter 6 Land, Water, and Forests 247
Land 247
Water 257
Forests 272
The Taken-for-Granted Resources 278
Chapter 7 A Hungry World 283
The Production of Food 284
The Dimensions of World Hunger 290
The Distribution of Food 297
Expanding the Harvest 328
Food from the Sea 352
New and Unconventional Food Sources 370
Should We Be Pessimistic? 376
SECTION III ENERGY AND MATERIALS 387
Chapter 8 Energy 391
Size and Sources of Contemporary Energy Use 393
Growth and Change in Energy Flows 396
Energy Resources: Supplies, Depletion, Limits 400
Energy Technology 411
Energy Use and Conservation 489
Perspectives on the Energy Problem 498
Chapter 9 Materials 515
Materials Use: Flows and Stocks 516
Prospects for New Mineral Supplies 522
Augmenting Resources: Recycling, Substitution, Low-Grade Ores 525
Conclusions 530
SECTION IV UNDERSTANDING ENVIRONMENTAL DISRUPTION 535
Chapter 10 Direct Assaults on Well-Being 541
Air Pollution 542
Water Pollution 556
Pesticides and Related Compounds 561
Trace Metals 567
Fluorides 575
Chemical Mutagens 575
Ionizing Radiation 579
The Environment and Cancer 586
Noise Pollution 596
The Work Environment 597
Geological Hazards 600
The Human Environment 601
The Epidemiological Environment 606
Chapter 11 Disruption of Ecological Systems 621
Modifying Ecosystems 623
Pollutants in Ecosystems 629
Atmosphere and Climate 672
Thermonuclear Warfare 690
Ecological Accounting 691
SECTION V THE HUMAN PREDICAMENT: FINDING AWAY OUT 711
Chapter 12 Humanity at the Crossroads 715
The Optimum Population 716
Understanding the Web of Responsibility: The First Step to Solutions 719
The Prospects 730
Chapter 13 Population Policies 737
Family Planning 738
Population Policies in Developed Countries 745
Population Policies in Less Developed Nations 761
Motivation 776
Population Control: Direct Measures 783
Population Control and Development 789
Chapter 14 Changing American Institutions 805
Religion 806
Science and Technology 813
Medicine 823
Education 824
The Legal System 829
Business, Labor, and Advertising 840
Economic and Political Change 843
Some Targets for Early Change 858
A Question of Goals 873
Chapter 15 Rich Nations, Poor Nations, and International Conflict 885
Rich World, Poor World 887
Population, Resources, and War 908
Helping the Poor: A Problem in Ethics 920
Inventing a Better Future 924
International Controls: The Global Commons 939
Chapter 16 Summary 953
Cornucopians Versus Neo-Malthusians 953
Defects in the Cornucopian Vision 954
Alternative Approaches to Technology and Well-Being 955
Epilogue 957
Appendix 1 World Demography 959
Appendix 2 Food and Nutrition 967
Appendix 3 Pesticides 979
Appendix 4 Reproduction and Birth Control 988
Acknowledgments 1001
Index of Subjects 1005
Index of Names 1029

[ChumpDumper]

Never advocated.

Never a proponent.

You lie!

[DarrinS]

Never advocated.

Never a proponent.

You lie!


Good proof you provided. (as usual)

[ChumpDumper]

The proof is in the book you never read.

Go read it.

[LnGrrrR]

Good proof you provided. (as usual)

Writing about something is not the same as proposing it. I can obviously state that, say, killing those who disagree with you is an effective means of silencing opposition.

Of course, that doesn't mean I'm FOR that issue. Can you find him stating he actually SUPPORTS a policy? And in a relevant way, not in a "50 years from now, where the choices are population control through forced abortion or mass starvation" kind of way?

[ChumpDumper]

Good proof you provided. (as usual)You provided no proof that he was a proponent of anything.

From work.

Again.

[DarrinS]

Writing about something is not the same as proposing it. I can obviously state that, say, killing those who disagree with you is an effective means of silencing opposition.

Of course, that doesn't mean I'm FOR that issue. Can you find him stating he actually SUPPORTS a policy? And in a relevant way, not in a "50 years from now, where the choices are population control through forced abortion or mass starvation" kind of way?



Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren are clearly advocates of controlling population through "population control policies". Their writings make that clear.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren are clearly advocates of controlling population through "population control policies". Their writings make that clear.

When did he write the book?

[ChumpDumper]

Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren are clearly advocates of controlling population through "population control policies". Their writings make that clear.OK, then clearly you can find a passage from the book you clearly didn't read that clearly states that they are clearly advocates of the policies they describe.

[George Gervin's Afro]

PolitiFact.com: "We think it's irresponsible to pluck a few lines from a 1,000-page, 30-year-old textbook, and then present them out of context." After Fox News' Glenn Beck claimed that Holdren "proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population," PolitiFact concluded that "the text of the book clearly does not support that. We think a thorough reading shows that these were ideas presented as approaches that had been discussed. They were not posed as suggestions or proposals. In fact, the authors make clear that they did not support coercive means of population control. Certainly, nowhere in the book do the authors advocate for forced abortions."

[DarrinS]

OK, then clearly you can find a passage from the book you clearly didn't read that clearly states that they are clearly advocates of the policies they describe.

full textr at: http://www.npg.org/notable%20papers/JohnPHoldrenpaper.html





That the United States should and probably can achieve a condition of zero population growth at some time in the next hundred years is no longer a matter of much dispute. Most students of contemporary American problems seem to have agreed, at least, that the costs of long-continued population growth would considerably outweigh the benefits; and the achievement in 1972 of a total fertility rate slightly below replacement has convinced many that a spontaneous and fortuitous approach to a stationary population is already underway. Since the factors that have led to the decline in fertility have not been disentangled, however, it is difficult to be sure yet whether the recent experience represents a fluctuation or a trend. Against this backdrop of loose consensus on the long-term desirability of ZPG and uncertainty about the origins and persistence of recent levels of fertility, serious and controversial questions remain to be settled. Do the potential consequences of continued population growth in the United States justify systematic measures to hold fertility at replacement level if it should show any tendency to rise again? Should such measures be used to push fertility well below replacement, if it does not drop that far without them, in order to bring the attainment of ZPG closer than seventy years hence and to render the intervening population increment smaller than some 70 million? Is even the present U.S. population of 210 million too large? Should there be zero economic growth as well as zero population growth?

Obviously, one's degree of concern about, say, a 30 percent increase in the U.S. population-the increase that would result if fertility remained at the replacement level in the absence of immigration-depends on the way one perceives two basic relations: the role of population size in contributing to existing problems, and the role of population growth in aggravating these problems and impeding the success of attempted nondemographic remedies. I believe that those who are unconcerned by the prospect of 280 million Americans have seriously underestimated the importance of population in both roles. I will argue here that 210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many; that, accordingly, a continued decline in fertility to well below replacement should be encouraged, with the aim of achieving ZPG before the year 2000 and a gradually declining population for some time thereafter; and that redirecting economic growth and technological change (not stopping either) is an essential concomitant to but not a substitute for these demographic goals.

[ChumpDumper]

So no advocating population control policies.

Thanks for the link.

How much of your work day are you dedicating to posting?

[DarrinS]

So no advocating population control policies.

Thanks for the link.

How much of your work day are you dedicating to posting?


Are you and clambake the same dipshit?

[ChumpDumper]

Are you and clambake the same dipshit?We are quite distinct people.

Thanks again for proving me right.

[DarrinS]

I love how he wrote that 280 million people in the US by 2040 would be WAAAAY to many.


It's 2009 and we have over 300 million people.

[LnGrrrR]

Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren are clearly advocates of controlling population through "population control policies". Their writings make that clear.

So, if you write about something, you are ipso facto supporting it?

[DarrinS]

So, if you write about something, you are ipso facto supporting it?


Well, not necessarily, I suppose.


I suppose that Al Gore might not really believe in Global Warming, but, from all his books, his sci-fi docudrama, and his speeches, I'd be inclined to believe he does believe in AGW.

[LnGrrrR]

full textr at: http://www.npg.org/notable%20papers/JohnPHoldrenpaper.html

The passage states that achieving ZPG is somewhat that we should aim for, but it does not specifically advocate which of the proposed policies he prefers.

It also states how hard it is to disentangle certain bits of data, and the uncertainty of whether current reproduction numbers are going to increase, decrease or remain steady.

[LnGrrrR]

Well, not necessarily, I suppose.


I suppose that Al Gore might not really believe in Global Warming, but, from all his books, his sci-fi docudrama, and his speeches, I'd be inclined to believe he does believe in AGW.

I believe Al Gore does believe in Global Warming. I'm referring to it in the sense that I could write a paper discussing certain ways of dealing with a problem, even including rather outlandish answers.

For instance, in finding ways to deal with Iraq, I could propose two solutions. One, counter insurgency, and the other, dropping two or three nukes on Iraq. Both would (technically) solve the problem of insurgencies in Iraq. That doesn't mean I'm in favor of one over the other though.

[ChumpDumper]

I love how he wrote that 280 million people in the US by 2040 would be WAAAAY to many.


It's 2009 and we have over 300 million people.I love how you lied about his advocating population control policies.

[Winehole23]

Right-wing blogs reported it, so Darrin just assumes it to be true.

[LnGrrrR]

I love how he wrote that 280 million people in the US by 2040 would be WAAAAY to many.


It's 2009 and we have over 300 million people.

It does seem his predictions were off, in the sense that we'd face mass overpopulation.

[DarrinS]

I love how you lied about his advocating population control policies.


He doesn't advocate population control policies, just a zero net population growth -- the two are as different as night and day.

[DarrinS]

Right-wing blogs reported it, so Darrin just assumes it to be true.


Or, you can just read what the man has written.

[ChumpDumper]

He doesn't advocate population control policies, just a zero net population growth -- the two are as different as night and day.Now you're getting it.

Took you long enough.

[ChumpDumper]

Or, you can just read what the man has written.Exactly -- then he too can see that....


....YOU LIE!

[LnGrrrR]

He doesn't advocate population control policies, just a zero net population growth -- the two are as different as night and day.

Thank you for proving our point here that he isn't, in your words


a former proponent of Eugenics and forced sterilization

[LnGrrrR]

After all, I'm a proponent of peace in the middle East, but I'm not a proponent of laying waste to everyone there. Even though, technically, that would bring 'peace' to the region. Tough to fight when you're dead.

[DarrinS]

Here's a letter by Paul Ehrlich to Barack Obama:

http://www.populationmedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/paul-ehrlich-obama-advice.doc


Ehrlich and Holdren co-authored textbooks and papers on overpopulation.

[ChumpDumper]

Why are you so desperately trying to change the subject away from the fact that you lie?

[NoOptionB]

I'm down with Registration for Reproduction.

[LnGrrrR]

Here's a letter by Paul Ehrlich to Barack Obama:

http://www.populationmedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/paul-ehrlich-obama-advice.doc


Ehrlich and Holdren co-authored textbooks and papers on overpopulation.

The letter doesn't advocate eugenics or any sort of specific population control. In fact, it just seems that this guy is a hippie. He talks about 'quality of life', bemoans the idea of progress = new toys, and generally seems very liberal.

But, apart from saying that it's important to reduce our population, it doesn't list specifics. The only one he seems to support is access to abortion.

[DarrinS]

Direct quotes from John Holdren's Ecoscience



Indeed, 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.





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.





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.





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.




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.




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?

[ChumpDumper]

Yep, not advocating anything.

Thanks for proving, once again, YOU LIE!

--though I don't know how much of your work day you should spend repeatedly kicking your own ass like this.

[LnGrrrR]

Direct quotes from John Holdren's Ecoscience

All these quotes provide answers of how to solve overpopulation. Can you find a quote in which he says, "I think the best answer would be X solution."? Or something like, "I feel if America doesn't do X population control, then Y problem will exist?"

[hope4dopes]

Yeah well we now have about 12,000 new unemployed a month in CA. and we hand out about 100,000 new green cards a month in the U.S. go figure.But the forced sterilization thing has finality that must appeal to the Soros/Obama whitehouse.
Whinehole you like most of the Obamamunitsts are sidestepping the peoples issue with the czar thing.It's not that people have a problem with the presidental advisors, what they have is a problem with is the overstepping of these people"s power and the clandestine way in which lunatics and radicals are being allowed to form policy. Shoplifting is embarassing, but communists,people with extremely hostile attitudes toward westeren culture,and enviro-facists is what is concerning people. The people are not interested in your Clarance Darrow fantasy life, they're concerened that there is a regime in power, whose motives become frighteninglly apparent daily.

[LnGrrrR]

Again Darrin, writing about the possibilities of a situation does not necessarily mean advocating for them. If I wrote a book suggesting ways to build a real-life Frankenstein monster, a technical book that was as well-researched as possible, to the point where others may try to take my book and actually perform such a feat....

That STILL does not mean I'd be an advocate for building Frankenstein monsters.

Now, we know this guy is an advocate for controlling the population. And he lists different methods. But you've not found anything that he's said that lists which methods he favors/advocates.

[DarrinS]

Damn, these get better and better.


No weirdness here.





Toward a Planetary Regime
...
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.








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.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, he's very hippie liberal. I mentioned that earlier.

[DarrinS]

Damn, this is awesome.


Look at table 13-5 in Holdren's Ecoscience


"Evaluation of Some Relatively Coercive Measures for Fertility Reduction"

I love row labelled "Restriction on individual liberty".


http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/788_full.jpg

[Winehole23]

It's not that people have a problem with the presidental advisors, what they have is a problem with is the overstepping of these people"s power and the clandestine way in which lunatics and radicals are being allowed to form policyHow have the czars overstepped their power?

[Winehole23]

Give one example of czar-formulated policy, micca.

[hope4dopes]

Again the Clarance Darrow thing is getting ridiculous,what are we supposed to believe they are in charge of flower arrangment or the whitehouse organic veggie garden. The Appollo foundation.

[Winehole23]

Damn, this is awesome.


Look at table 13-5 in Holdren's Ecoscience


"Evaluation of Some Relatively Coercive Measures for Fertility Reduction"So Holdren seemed to advocate baby licenses 30 years ago.

i'll admit that's pretty kooky. But how does this relate to the OP, or to Holdren's fitness or nonfitness for an advisory post? Does Holdren hold these beliefs now?

More importantly, as a WH czar, what is it in Holdren's power to actually do?

[Winehole23]

Again the Clarance Darrow thing is getting ridiculous,what are we supposed to believe they are in charge of flower arrangment or the whitehouse organic veggie garden. The Appollo foundation.They are advisors, and they promote WH policy. They do not make policy or promulgate regulations. Their signature and work product are not legally binding for others in government, unlike cabinet officers.

[hope4dopes]

They are advisors, and they promote WH policy. They do not make policy or promulgate regulations. Their signature and work product are not legally binding for others in government, unlike cabinet officers.

So what your saying is I'm acting on circumstantal evidence counselor?

[ChumpDumper]

Damn, these get better and better.


No weirdness here.No advocating either.

Liar.

[Winehole23]

Make your case. How are czars abusing power?

[DarrinS]

So Holdren seemed to advocate baby licenses 30 years ago.

i'll admit that's pretty kooky. But how does this relate to the OP, or to Holdren's fitness or nonfitness for an advisory post? Does Holdren hold these beliefs now?

More importantly, as a WH czar, what is it in Holdren's power to actually do?


I really don't know what power these people have.

[DarrinS]

No advocating either.

Liar.


You make a really strong case. :sleep

[ChumpDumper]

So what your saying is I'm acting on circumstantal evidence counselor?So what specifically have the czars done that you are against?

[Winehole23]

I don't really know what power these people have.That's because they don't have any.

They advise. They do the bidding of the President. That's about it.

[ChumpDumper]

You make a really strong case. :sleepYou have provided all the evidence -- unwittingly of course, but wit cannot be expected from you.

[DarrinS]

That's because they don't have any.

They advise. They do the bidding of the President. That's about it.


Well, he sure picked some kooky people for these positions.

[hope4dopes]

That's because they don't have any.

They advise. They do the bidding of the President. That's about it.

You forgot they also do the weeding in michelle's tomato patch.

[DarrinS]

You have provided all the evidence -- unwittingly of course, but wit cannot be expected from you.


46,000+ lame-ass posts and counting. You're going to break some kind of record.

[Winehole23]

You forgot they also do the weeding in michelle's tomato patch.Scary.

[hope4dopes]

That's because they don't have any.

They advise. They do the bidding of the President. That's about it.

stupid

[Winehole23]

Well, he sure picked some kooky people for these positions.It's fine to be upset about that, and the furore hasn't been fruitless -- at least two of Obama's picks have been kicked to the curb. So give yourself a pat on the back.

But the idea that the President's picks for non-official advisory posts should be subject to Congressional consent is just silly. The President can-- and should be able to -- seek out candid advice wherever he pleases.

[Winehole23]

stupidProve me wrong if you can.

[ChumpDumper]

46,000+ lame-ass posts and counting. You're going to break some kind of record.And post-count smack from work is hilarious.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, micca....
So what specifically have the czars done that you are against?

[hope4dopes]

Hey, micca....
Oh look Whinehole's monkey, hey whinehole throw Chimp a bananna and make him do that little dance again.

[Winehole23]

So basically, you got nothing.

[hope4dopes]

Prove me wrong if you can.
Your doing your best to side step the issue people have with the czars.You like the whitehouse, when confronted blithely look out the window and say.

Crowds...crowds...I don't see any crowds.Prove the people don't love me.They also love Fidel, Hugo,and Che.

[Winehole23]

You just pull stuff out of thin air and tease other posters.

[nuclearfm]

So basically, you got nothing.

Not so harsh. You have to be easy on these domestic terrorists. Next thing you know they shoot up a mall and blame you.

[Winehole23]

Your doing your best to side step the issue people have with the czars.What issue? What's getting sidestepped?

[jack sommerset]

CZARS need to end. Van Jones and Obama ruined it. No more CZARS.

[Winehole23]

So then, the President shouldn't be allowed non-official advisors of his own choosing? Period?

[ChumpDumper]

Oh look Whinehole's monkey, hey whinehole throw Chimp a bananna and make him do that little dance again.micca, I couldn't help but notice you couldn't come up with even one example of a an action by a czar which you disapprove. It seems you tried to distract from that fact with rather childish insults.

[hope4dopes]

micca, I couldn't help but notice you couldn't come up with even one example of a an action by a czar which you disapprove. It seems you tried to distract from that fact with rather childish insults. Wow you're begining to sound like such a big boy now.......let's see how long that lasts.

[Shastafarian]

:lol He's an expert at dodging questions and changing the subject.

[ChumpDumper]

Wow you're begining to sound like such a big boy now.......let's see how long that lasts.Still can't really find anything a czar did in government that you can cite, eh?

Of course not.

[ChumpDumper]

I guess Darrin is at lunch. He'll post again when he's back on the clock.

[coyotes_geek]

Evidently it's just the term "czar" people have a problem with. Afterall, the real czars were Russians. And we all know that Russians are socialists. Well, except for the actual Russian czars who were monarchs, not socialists, but let's not let factual details get in the way of irrational paranoia. So it's obvious that by employing so many czars that Obama is trying to turn us all into socialists. Now I know some might try to point out that Republican Presidents had czars too. Well, that's different. Republicans love America. Therefore Republican presidents can have as many czars as they want and not have to worry about being infected by the socialist cooties that are associated with the use of the term czar. Unfortunately for Obama, he has no such protection and therefore his use of czars is highly inappropriate. So, in order to resolve this issue I think Obama needs to get rid of all his czars and replace them with new advisors with different monikers to describe their titles. Something like Mullah, or Imam.

[Winehole23]

Iman:

http://panachereport.com/channels/hip%20hop%20gallery/images/iman-cosmetics-400a121307_000.jpg



Imam:

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/11/16/cleric_narrowweb__300x437,0.jpg

[coyotes_geek]

Iman:

http://panachereport.com/channels/hip%20hop%20gallery/images/iman-cosmetics-400a121307_000.jpg



Imam:

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/11/16/cleric_narrowweb__300x437,0.jpg

:lol

Believe it or not I did know that. An ill-placed typo on my part.

[Winehole23]

For the record, I'm pro-Iman.