Jennings, Sunstein and Holdren Must Go

What do you get when you do not vet the people you appoint as Czars in America?  Jennings, Sunstein and Holdren. 


Kevin Jennings, Obama’s Safe School Czar, appointed by Arne Duncan, has a problem with reporting statutory rape. According to the Washington Times “ According to Mr. Jennings’ own description in a new audiotape discovered by Fox News, the 15-year-old boy

met the “older man” in a “bus station bathroom” and was taken to the older man’s home that night.”  The article correctly points out Mr. Jennings had a real chance to protect a young boy from a sexual predator, he not only failed to do what the law required but actually encouraged the relationship.”   Is this who you think ought to be in charge of “safe schools”?  And what is Jennings definition of a safe school?  I have to think the founder of GLSEN and co-chair of LGB fundraising for Barack Obama might have his own agenda. 
Updatea must read about the link between Jennings, NAMBLA, Fistgate, and the Jenning’s forward to a book called Queering Elementary Education. And another fellow you may have heard of wrote one of the endorsements on the book jacket—Bill Ayers, Jenning’s funding by the NEA of prohomosexual teachings, and connections to George Soros.   Beck is right.  All roads lead to Soros.  (HT to Lori Roman at Regular Folks United)  


Cass Sunstein,  Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget aka “Regulatory Czar” is in a class all his own.   Much like Obama, he has a number of past records that have been lost.”  Sunstein wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, and advocates a “First Amendment New Deal,” a new “Fairness Doctrine” that would include the establishment of a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure “diversity of view” on the airwaves.”  (HT, WND)


Some of the most bizarrethings have come from Sunstein, a good comprehensive list can be found here:


“[A]lost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. ”

– Cass Sunstein, writing in his book, “Radicals in Robes”

“Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …”

– 2004 book Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions

“[Humans’] willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen … as a form of unconscionable barbarity… morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings.”

– Cass Sunstein, in a 2007 speech at Harvard University

“[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture.”

– Cass Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,”
August 2002.

“A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.”

-Cass Sunstein, arguing for a Fairness Doctrine for the
Internet in his book, Republic.com 2.0 (page 137).

More can be found here, here, here, and here.


In short, Sunstein is anti-1st amendment, anti-2nd amendment, and the fertile San Joaquin Valley in California is so screwed.

In the 1970s college textbook “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment” that Obama’ Science Czar John Holdren co-authored with Paul R. and Anne Ehrlich, the authors argued involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by “climate change.” (HT WND.com)   According the Jerome Corsi: “ On page 786, the authors wrote that one way to discourage illegitimate childbearing “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.”

Alternatively, the authors suggested unwed mothers might place their babies up for adoption, writing: “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.”

While observing that government-imposed coercive measures should be considered “only if milder measures fail completely,” the authors acknowledged extreme ecological situations could justify governmental intervention with coercive population control measures,

“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,” they write. “

Malkin has a good piece on Holdren here, and Zombietime  has scans, pages, transcripts of the book in question, plus a bonus eugenics article.

Holdren denied his intent was to have coercive population control, even though the 1970’s book advocates that and much worse, like adding sterilants to drinking water.  Politifact agrees that the book does not advocate coercive population control, but these lines do not lie:  Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foodsensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible timeSuch laws constitutionally could be very broad. 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-AND Under questioning by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., during his Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he “no longer thinks it’s productive to focus on optimum population for the United States.”  No longer, eh?  That in and of itself is admission these are his thoughts.  This article in Science Magazine clearly shows the same school of thought under a different name, kind of like CO-OP in lieu of government run healthcare.   Same pig, different lipstick.  These thoughts are right in line with the UN’s population control policy, Agenda 21.   It goes without saying that anything the UN advocates, must be scrutinized because the policies coming out of the UN are NEVER good for the US and ALWAYS meant to steal the wealth of the US  for some insipid thing that will paralyze us for years to come.  Please look up CEDAW for confirmation of this.

These 3 Czars are a danger to America and the freedoms we have so long enjoyed.  The are about as far left as one can get.  Obama has stated that if you want to know his character, look at who he surrounds himself with.  I am looking, and I don’t like what I see.  There are a lot of questionable characters surrounding the president and they reflect badly on his character and content.  There are only two explanations; either we have the dumbest president ever calling the shots, or he is the Marxist repeatedly pointed out by conservatives and his vision of hope and change are actually Socialist ideas repackaged and put forth as new ideas.  Either way, we are in trouble as long as these people are in charge.