Posted 25 days ago in 
Loading ...
As a parent, would you invite drug dealers, gang bangers and thieves to live in your home with your children? And ignore the advice from your friends and family that their negative influence will rub off and corrupt your family? But you disregard all the warnings and invite even more “friends.”
This is the current situation at the highest levels of our government. There are socialist, Marxist, Maoist and communist sympathizers surrounding our president. These czars are not subtle in their convictions. Some are very vocal and self-avowed. They are appointed by the president and do not have to be approved by the Senate, except for one, the Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein. He says that America needs to accept socialism and support communism but is too racist to do so in his 2004 book, “The Second Bill of Rights.” He doesn’t like property rights and favors redistribution through climate change policy.
The president has the right to appoint advisers. It has been done in the past, e.g. drug czar, energy czar —but only a hand full at a time. Now we have more than 40 czars. The extremist czars are not out on the fringe. They oversee manufacturing, climate change, green jobs, science, regulatory, energy, FCC. They answer to no one except to the president, are funded by our tax monies and cannot be subpoenaed by Congress.
It looks like the president has found a loophole in the Constitution to create an extremist political party within White House. So much for checks and balances.
DETLEF HOFFMANN
Grand Junction
37 Responses to “Obama creating extremist part within White House”
Posted October 26th, 2009 at 6:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Czar”, taken literally, is just another word for “King”. It comes from the Latin word “Caesar”, and is currently used (in a slang sense) to describe top advisors to whoever happens to be POTUS. These Czars are advisors, experts in their respective fields, and operate in an advisory capacity only. All modern day POTUS’s administrations have had them. Mr. Hoffman, you are yet another paranoid teabagger who actually takes pundits like Glenn Beck seriously. Maybe Beck should be appointed “Insanity Czar”.
Posted October 26th, 2009 at 6:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
hey fastfreddie, how about answering the points instead of calling names?…if bush would have appointed nothing but conservatives to all those posts, you’ld have been complaining just as much…
Posted October 26th, 2009 at 6:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I provided useful information pertinent to the topic at hand, and then voiced my opinion. Just because Mr. Hoffman (and possibly YOU, hitekredneck) say these people are ALL socialists, marxists, communists or whatever DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE!
Posted October 26th, 2009 at 6:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
fastfreddie: “Maybe Beck should be appointed “Insanity Czar”.
Let us not give Beck any further delusions of grandeur, not after looking at the book cover with Beck attired in what I believe to be an SA (Brownshirt) uniform.
Posted October 26th, 2009 at 7:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres,
Perhaps you would be better served actually researching the written and verbal words of those you so vehemently defend. It won’t take much time or effort to see Beck’s points are nothing more than the words of the czars themselves, available in print and on video. Unfortunately extremists like yourself won’t actually check the facts since it’s much more simple to parrot the talking points of government media.
Posted October 26th, 2009 at 7:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
stiego, hitekredneck, Detlef Hoffman:
YOU are the extemeists here!
Posted October 26th, 2009 at 9:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Typical comment from the left one liner (”YOU are the extremists here!”) with no substance and made up out of assumptions of people posting here you have never met face to face. Anyone not in lockstep with BO and his “czars” is an extremist or a racist. Am I to assume you are just another sheep that can’t think for yourself or think critically? This country was born out of dissention and criticism. The first amendment was not only ratified to protect free speech but also to protect offensive and critical speech of the likes that even Glen Beck dishes out. All the “rules” apply to those who disagree with BO but they don’t apply to those who support him. Get out line and speak up like the National Chamber of Commerce, the health insurance industry or Fox News and get smacked upside the head by BO. Chicago thug politics at their finest. I watched a good movie once where one of the characters told another one - “The time for honoring yourself will soon be at an end.” Get used to those words RL and fastfreddie, they will be coming to fruition starting in November 2010.
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 1:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
i always love reading the diatribe offered by polar opposites on the voting wings. as a moderate i let the clashes have their rounds before making my choice. so far what i have learned is that the dems want to keep throwing money at many social programs. they also like to try and tie up business to be under their watch. so what i get so far is they want to draw everything into the gov’t web the dems are trying to fundamentally change our way of how our country is going to be led. under this ideology i don’t anticipate jobs are coming back soon. personally, can’t wait for next elections. my vote will be against anyone that wants to spend more of our money for any program.
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 6:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I bet you believe that Rush Limbaugh drivel about the POTUS’s thesis too!
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 7:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
stiego: “Perhaps you would be better served actually researching the written and verbal words of those you so vehemently defend.”
Some of us do not only look at “words” but look at what is meant by them when they are used, and in what context. It is only those who “believe what they want to believe” that fail to do so and, as a result end up using them for their emotional content, not to inform or discuss in any thoughtful or rational manner, or for meaningful discourse.
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 7:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
fastfreddie: “I bet you believe that Rush Limbaugh drivel about the POTUS’s thesis too!”
It was interesting to note Rush’s response when it was pointed out to him that the entire thing was a hoax that, while it was “not true it was accurate.”
Interesting isn’t it? If something is not true, how can it possibly be accurate? That is an impossibility. Perhaps Limbaugh et al. would do well to check the accuracy of what they puportedly report and comment upon as fact, before accusing anyone else of doing so. They won’t. After all, aren’t they just “entertainers” (but only when it suits them of course, otherwise they wish to be taken seriously).
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 8:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Here’s the question you have to ask yourself. What if people like Beck are right? What if what he reports is true? What if the people surrounding the president are really self proclaimed Marxists, Communists, Revolutionaries, idealogical fans of Chairman Mao? Would that matter to you? If you could find their words and hear their beliefs in the context that proves these idealogical beliefs, would that matter to you? The failure on anyone’s part to ask that question and find the answer is a failure to perform their duty as an American citizen.
It is every Patriot’s duty to protect their country from its government. Those are Thomas Paine’s words, not mine.
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 8:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
If their ideological beliefs have nothing to do with the job they are hired for, then why should anyone care what those people believe? They aren’t in positions to make laws for the nation, so what difference does it make?
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 9:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, if they have no influence whatsoever, what purpose is there to have them in cabinet positions anyway. It seems a bit naive to think their presence is completely innocuous.
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 9:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I didn’t say they had no influence. I said they aren’t making law all by themselves. They are advisors and overseers, not legislators. And again, if their ideological beliefs have nothing to do with the job they are doing, what difference does it make what they believe?
If someone is a good organizer and gets good product out the door on schedule, what difference does it make if he is a socialist or a communist?
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 9:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The “CZARS”… For an official explanation email Senator Bennet. He responds almost as quickly with that form letter, as he would for veteran affairs issues.
“Czar” is nothing more than a silly nickname. First applied during the Nixon era, to the “Drug Czar” and/or “Energy Czar”. Again, its a silly nickname easier to say than “Senior Advisor to the President on so and so issue/ cabinet, whatever and so forth”. Much like how the British refer to “Spotted Pudding” as “Spotted Dick”. Either they cant pronounce the word “pudding”, or they preferred the silly nickname. Also, the machinist file that Mr. Barsted invented comes to mind. You know it by the silly nickname, and you know exactly which machinist file I am referring to.
I don’t like the silly nickname “Czar”. Nor do I like the characterization, or innuendo that the word implies. So basically its another profane “C” word. The word “Dude” would be preferable, feel free to use that word instead. The “Drug Dude”, “Energy Dude”, “Green Jobs Dude”, “Labor Dude” etc. Indeed, the word “Dude” implies that the Advisor is not as powerful, or smart…. I noticed that too… hence I prefer the nickname “Dude” even more.
From an image standpoint, it is not very brilliant for a President with an image problem of being a Marxist, Socialist Commie etc… to go and appoint even more “Czars” than the last President. FACT.
As for the radical associations, many of which he admitted to in his book… and the people he surrounds himself with that I was asked to judge him by…. If any young American were to enlist in the Army, and have those same radical associations… they couldn’t get a high enough security clearance to pull K.P. Duty! FACT. I am not being mean, and nasty either. I am merely stating a fact. Ask any Veteran.
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 9:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Last I heard, the current president had not yet hired as many “czars” as the last president had, although that was a couople of months ago. And it was the last president that convinced Congress to allow him the power to appoint them without Senate oversight. Prior to that they did have to go through confirmation hearings.
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 10:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rijellio: “From an image standpoint, it is not very brilliant for a President with an image problem of being a Marxist, Socialist Commie etc… to go and appoint even more “Czars” than the last President. FACT.”
Granted that the word should not be used but, the reason it is is for not other reason that people demand sensationalism, that communication is not possible without it. The intelligent, thoughtful and discerning person will be able to see through that and will not be “taken in” by any word, and particularly not by one defined emotionally or the emotion attached to any such word.
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 10:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Last I checked the POTUS has the right to surround himself with whomever he wants. It is telling only in that one can make educated observations about the philosophy they hold (and have stated) and previous positions that they have held in the public and private sector. I would prefer that the POTUS find the best qualified people as advisors and not necessarily people who will tell him what he wants to hear. Since he hasn’t asked me my opinion on the subject all I can do is make educated decisions in the next election cycle.
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 11:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
So you’re saying the product(s) coming out the door are good products? Would you care to elaborate on 3 good products that have been generated since the president has taken office?
I wasn’t aware that the previous administration convinced congress to allow for appointed without oversight. However, it does not surprise me. The beginning of our current debacle began when the for statist regime was in control. It has only hit warp speed under the new state. You confuse my comments with someone who has chosen sides in the ongoing war between (D) and (R).
And yes, it does matter if the majority of people surrounding the president have marxist, maoist, communist, dictatorial viewpoints. They influence him, congress, the judiciary, and everyone else within earshot, and they influence them greatly, which in turn alters the course of this country. You seem like an intelligent enough person to realize the preponderance of evidence, from their own mouths, is enough to make the average person ask what the end game is. Believe me, it’s not about making things better for you and me.
Finally, you are correct. They aren’t making laws by themselves, but they do influence the process and certainly introduce those writing the laws to those who pass them. You and I both know the laws aren’t written by the stuffed suits we see on television every day. They’re written behind closed doors, provided to willing accomplices in congress, and passed by the same people who have been in place for decades. Only now, they can rule without impunity with super-majorities in both houses and another willing idiot in the white house.
All the while we fight about which (D) or (R) did what to whom, as our liberties are stripped away with every breath.
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 11:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
stiego: “So you’re saying the product(s) coming out the door are good products? Would you care to elaborate on 3 good products that have been generated since the president has taken office?”
I’m not talking about specifics. I’m illustrating a general principle. If the supervisor’s beliefs do not affect the production, what do those beliefs matter?
“I wasn’t aware that the previous administration convinced congress to allow for appointed without oversight. However, it does not surprise me. The beginning of our current debacle began when the for statist regime was in control. It has only hit warp speed under the new state. You confuse my comments with someone who has chosen sides in the ongoing war between (D) and (R).”
Since I was responding to Rojellio, I don’t think I confused your comments with anyone elses. No worries.
“And yes, it does matter if the majority of people surrounding the president have marxist, maoist, communist, dictatorial viewpoints. They influence him, congress, the judiciary, and everyone else within earshot, and they influence them greatly, which in turn alters the course of this country.”
Only if they are influencing him outside of their appointed areas. Do you have any evidenc ethat this is taking place, or are you simply objecting to people holding viewpoints you disagree with being in governmental positions?
“You seem like an intelligent enough person to realize the preponderance of evidence, from their own mouths, is enough to make the average person ask what the end game is. Believe me, it’s not about making things better for you and me.”
And I see assuming that people I may diagree with are automatically “wrong” on other subjects to be short-sighted and narrow-minded. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they were chosen for the various positions based on their qualifications for those jobs and not their ideological beliefs. Unless yo have some other reason to object to them.
“Finally, you are correct. They aren’t making laws by themselves, but they do influence the process and certainly introduce those writing the laws to those who pass them.”
They are Americans, after all. Right?
“You and I both know the laws aren’t written by the stuffed suits we see on television every day. They’re written behind closed doors, provided to willing accomplices in congress, and passed by the same people who have been in place for decades.”
You seem to have a rather cynical outlook, but okay.
“Only now, they can rule without impunity with super-majorities in both houses and another willing idiot in the white house.”
I think you mean “with” inpunity, but even a super majority is not a rubber stamp.
“All the while we fight about which (D) or (R) did what to whom, as our liberties are stripped away with every breath.”
Exactly what liberties have been “stripped away”? Seriously, which ones?
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 12:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Exactly what liberties have been “stripped away”? Seriously, which ones?”…
…
…
…crickets…
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 2:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Crickets?
How about, some people have more to do with their lives than debate with zealots.
Seriously, you have to ask that question? Are you guys so blinded by elitist thought that you can’t see what’s happening around you? Today, Barney Frank states “we are trying on every front to increase the role of government”. Why? For the benefit of poor souls like you and I? Give me a break.
Why is it important for government to tell me whether I should choose plastic over paper? Why is plastic now bad? Why are my property rights usurped for the benefit of some benign creature, chosen as the poster child of special interest? Why is it someone else’s duty to tell me what I can or can’t eat? What car to drive? What power source to use? What color my roof should be? What light bulb I can purchase? Whether I can carry a gun or not? Whether I can protect myself with it on my property, in my home? Why is a rapist, murderer, thief, criminal given more rights than I am if I should use it in self defense?
The list is endless, some minor, some not, but all usurpations of the rights afforded us by our Constitution. The Constitution was designed to keep government out of our lives, by affording limited power. Unfortunately, our elected “leaders” view it as a hindrance, to be avoided and trampled upon at will.
Obama himself was very clear in his (and our combined government’s) desire to “fundamentally transform this nation”. He just meant it in a way you’re unwilling to see or admit to.
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 2:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh by the way. You haven’t seen anything yet. Guaranteed.
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 2:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
stiego: “Why is it important for government to tell me whether I should choose plastic over paper?”
When was choosing paper or plastic a right guaranteed by the Constitution?
“Why is plastic now bad?”
It was never good, we just didn’t care at the time. Now we do.
“Why are my property rights usurped for the benefit of some benign creature, chosen as the poster child of special interest?”
Are you seriously asking why we should care about the environment? What specific “property rights” are you referring to and where are they enumerated?
“Why is it someone else’s duty to tell me what I can or can’t eat?”
No one is telling you what you can or can’t eat. They are telling you what you should or shouldn’t eat. The choice is still yours. Are you that opposed to making informed decisions?
“What car to drive?”
Who is telling you what car to drive? And where is it defined as a “right” to drive anything you want in the first place?
“What power source to use?”
You can use any power source you want, although you might have to build it yourself. Again, where is this defined as a “right”?
“What color my roof should be?”
Now you’re getting ridiculous. Please cite the law that specifies what color your roof should be. One suggestion that white roofs might reduce global warming does not equal violating ones’ rights. And where is roof color specified as a “right”?
“What light bulb I can purchase?”
Where is light bulb usage defined as a “right”?
“Whether I can carry a gun or not?”
Sure you can carry a gun. No one has said you can’t, although there are restriction on what kind. Of course, when the Second Amendment was written, I doubt they were anticipating the types of weapons that would be invented in the future.
“Whether I can protect myself with it on my property, in my home?”
And who has abrogated those rights? As in actually done so, not just talked about it.
“Why is a rapist, murderer, thief, criminal given more rights than I am if I should use it in self defense?”
Because they aren’t a rapist, murderer, thief or criminal until convicted as such by a jury of their peers. Simply breaking into your home does make them any of those things just because you say so. “Innocent until proven guilty” sucks sometimes, doesn’t it?
So far I see no actual violations of actual rights, just assertions of such and lots of assumed rights that actually aren’t, at least not according to the Constitution. Got anything else?
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 3:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nope. Nothing else. People like you are far to literal to understand anything anyone else says. You’re a true believer, a zealot with all the answers. There is no constitutional right to you, because there is nothing specific and delineated other than generalities like “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
No I have nothing else. It’s like wresting with pigs. Everyone gets covered in mud, but only the pig enjoys it.
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 3:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
When you make specific claims, like “constitutional rights being violated” why is it not germaine to ask for specific examples? You’re howling about losing rights THAT ARE NOT RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE!! (caps for emphasis, not shouting).
It’s not terribly convincing to complain about losing rights that you don’t have in the first place.
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 3:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
stiego: “People like you are far to literal to understand anything anyone else says.”
Actually, some of us believe that it is in the poster’s camp that literalists are found. They read the Constitution and see words. Yet when asked how they interpret those words, there seems to be a total lack of appreciation as to what the founders intended, and what those words were placed into that document in the first place; i.e. their intent.
Words, ideas, documents, etc. have to placed into context, as to time, and as to place and circumstances. Failing to do that means that one does not really understand the words as they were used.
Most who complain about “rights” know neither what they are nor their significance. And they don’t mean doing anything one feels like doing, as some seem to interpret the term. The other factor is that anyone who clamis a “right” should be able to recognize that they also have the obligation to exercise that “right” responsibly.
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 4:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Gentlemen, it is you who said “rights”, it was I who said “liberties” were being lost. My reference to the rights afforded by the constitution was a generalization of the rights afforded. Remember, context is important.
The intent of the founders is very clear if you’ve ever read the Federalist Papers. I have, as well as the Constitution, numerous times. The basic “right” afforded us by the Constitution is the right to ensure government stays out of every nuance of our lives.
There’s a difference between liberties and rights. Don’t twist words.
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 4:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
OK so what liberties are you losing . . . and please be specific.
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 5:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
stiego: “The intent of the founders is very clear if you’ve ever read the Federalist Papers. I have, as well as the Constitution, numerous times. The basic “right” afforded us by the Constitution is the right to ensure government stays out of every nuance of our lives.”
There is a difference between liberties and rights but they are very closely allied as liberty, by its definition, is effectively maintained by rights and respect for them, and by everyone.
The other problem, and which many fail to acknowledge is that government is not the only force that can enslave or can be used to dominate others, among those others are ideology, economic forces and religion. There is where the real danger lays, the forces that control whatever government, in whatever form, one gets established.
If the poster will pay close attention, he/she will find something very obvious when following these discussions. That has to do with the difference in what various parties use as standards to measure the presence, absence, or degree of both liberty and freedom.
Some use the purely materialstic standards such as money, power, etc. Others, on the other hand, will look to the individual liberty, individual rights and freedom of the individual as a person. It is the standard of measurement used that always establishes the substantive definition in such instances, and not but a dictionary definition.
The poster is not the only one who has read the Federalist Papers but, in doing so, some of it approach it from a historical context, not a legal one or with a legalistic mentatlity. It is a good guide and contains much that needs to be considered. However, it is in no way a bible nor were those who wrote their contributions infallible. They, like every single person, had their own biases and or perspectives.
All of that being said, the Federalist Papers really have no real applicability if the definition of liberty itself is fundamentally changed to serve, not the interests of the individual, but some other social force. Then, the government really becomes an istrument serving the purposes of those forces, at times in combination. And today, those in charge of the government are the moneyed interests, not the people. The latter have been absent for too long enjoying “la dolce vita.”
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 5:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Something else to consider is that we do not live in the same culture as the Founding Fathers. Their intent is meaningless when it comes to elements that did not exist two hundred years ago. They wrote the Constitution to be able to change as time goes on, so the intent of the founders is not necessarily relevant in today’s world.
Posted October 27th, 2009 at 5:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
…and 30 plus posts later, Detlef Hoffman has not responded. I wonder why?
Posted October 28th, 2009 at 10:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I sent this letter friday afternoon, got sidetracked and was surprised to see it this morning with this spirited debate. fastfreddie: As far as calling me a “paranoid teabagger” it just makes me chuckle. By criticizing some of the POTUS’s policy and/or decisions I have been called a racist, fascist blah, blah, blah… I’m not bothered by name calling because I know who I am. I wonder if my detractors really know who they are?
I’m not a Rush-bot or a Beck-bot. I do listen to them but I also watch MSNBC and CNN and sometimes the networks. I also listen to KGO(San Francisco). It was on KGO that I learned about “The Policy for a New American Century” and criticized Bush accordingly. I don’t listen to one oppinion and regurgitate. I make up my own mind. It’s different than yours…that’s OK. I probably can learn from you and maybe vice-versa.
Posted October 28th, 2009 at 12:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey Laitres, that would be a Communist Russian uniform that Glenn Beck is wearing on the cover of his new book. I believe it accurately reflects the rush this country is on to embrace the ideas of central planning and downplay the value of individual liberty and achievement.
Posted October 28th, 2009 at 1:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Indeed, it has become necessary to explain to the smartest’est guy in the room why Glynn Beck is wearing the silly costume… Its called caricature. He is making fun of ‘progressives’. That is how Glenn seems ‘progressives’. Also, this is how ‘progressives’ see him. If Glenn were to pose naked on the cover, you would visualize him wearing pretty much the same outfit. He beat you to the punch, and wore the costume.. so you didn’t have to mentally dress him in it. Which is helpful, for people incapable of making their own sign to take to a convention.
Posted October 28th, 2009 at 1:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Actually, I see him in a clown costume more than anything else.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.