The Czar list


What a bunch of liberal anti Americans and they answer to no one!

Now that we know who they are, why has the media not let us know about them.   Personally, I don’t think I am going to like or feel well about them. 



 Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke–  Ultra liberal anti gun former Gov.of New Mexico. Pro Abortion and legal drug use.

AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley  Homosexual. A Gay Rights activist. Believes in Gay Marriage and Special Status, including free health care for gays.

Auto recovery Czar: Ed MontgomeryBlack radical anti business activist.  Affirmative Action and Job Preference for blacks.  Univ of Maryland Business School Dean teaches US business has caused world poverty.  ACORN board member.  Communist DuBois Club member.

Border Czar: Alan Bersin–  former failed superintendent of San Diego.   Ultra Liberal friend of Hilary Clinton.   Served as Border Czar under Janet Reno – to keep borders open to illegals

California Water Czar: David J. Hayes  Sr. Fellow of radical environmentalist group, “Progress Policy”.  No training or experience in water management.

Car Czar: Ron Bloom–   Auto Union worker. Anti business & anti nuclear.  Has worked hard to force US auto makers out of business.  Sits on the Board of Chrysler which is now Auto Union owned.   How did this happen?

Central Region Czar: Dennis Ross–   Believes US policy has caused Mid East wars.  Obama apologist to the world.  Anti gun and pro abortion.

Domestic Violence Czar: Lynn Rosenthal  Director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence.  Vicious anti male feminist. Supported male castration.

Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske–  devoted lobbyist for every restrictive gun law proposal,  Former Chief of Police in Liberal Seattle.  Believes no American should own a  firearm.  Supports legalization of drugs.

Economic Czar: Paul Volcker    Head of Fed Reserve under Jimmy Carter when US economy nearly failed.  Obama  appointed head of the  Economic Recovery Advisory Board which engineered the Obama economic disaster to US economy.  Member of anti business “Progressive Policy” organization.

Energy and Environment Czar:     Carol Brower–     Political Radical -Former head of EPA — known for anti-business activism.  Strong anti-gun ownership.  

Faith-Based Czar: Joshua DuBois  Political Black activist-Degree in Black Nationalism.  Anti gun ownership lobyist. 

Great Lakes Czar: Cameron Davis–  Chicago radical anti business environmentalist.  Blames George  Bush for “Poisoning the water that minorities have to drink.”    No experience or training in water management.  Former ACORN Board member

Green Jobs Czar: Van Jones  (since resigned).  Black activist Member of American communist Party and San Francisco Communist Party  who said Geo Bush caused the 911 attack and wanted Bush investigated by the World Court for war crimes.  Black activist with strong anti-white views.

 Guantanamo Closure Czar: Daniel Fried –Rights activist for Foreign Terrorists.  Believes America has caused the war on terrorism.

Health Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle.    Former head of Medicare / Medicaid.   Strong Health Care Rationing proponent.  She is married to a reporter for The New York Times.

Information Czar: Vivek Kundra–  born in New Delhi, India.  Controls all public information, including labels and news releases.  Monitors all private Internet emails.

International Climate Czar: Todd Stern–    Anti business former White House chief of Staff- Strong supportrer of the Kyoto Accord.  Pushing hard for Cap and Trade.  Blames US business for Global warming.

Intelligence Czar: Dennis Blair–  Ret Navy.  Stopped US guided missile program as “provocative”.  Chair of ultra liberal “Council on Foreign Relations” which blames American organizations for regional wars.

Mideast Peace Czar: George Mitchell   Fmr. Sen from Maine– Left wing radical.  Has said Israel should be split up into “2 or 3 “ smaller more manageable plots”.  Anti-nuclear anti-gun & pro homosexual.

Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg–   Chief of Staff to TED KENNEDY.   Lawyer who got rich off the 911 victims payoffs.

Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein-   Liberal activist judge-believes free speech needs to be limited for the “common good”.   Rules against personal freedoms many times –like private gun ownership.

Science Czar: John Holdren-  Fierce ideological environmentalist, Sierra Club, Anti business activist.  Claims US business has caused world poverty.  No Science training.

Stimulus Accountability Czar: Earl Devaney-   spent career trying to take guns away from American citizens.  Believes in Open Borders to Mexico.  Author of  statement blaming US gun stores for drug war in Mexico.

Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration-    Native of Democratic Republic of Congo.  Believes US does little to help Third World countries.  Council of foreign relations, asking for higher US taxes to support United Nations.

TARP Czar: Herb Allison-   Fannie May CEO responsible for the US recession by using real estate mortgages to back up the US stock market. Caused millions of  people to lose their life savings.

Terrorism Czar: John Brennan   Anti CIA activist.  No training in diplomatic or gov. affairs.  Believes Open Borders to Mexico and a dialog with terrorists and has suggested Obama disband US military.  

Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra-    No Technology training.   Worked for the Advisory Board Company, a health care think tank for hospitals. Anti doctor activist.  Supports Obama Health care Rationing and salaried doctors working exclusively for the Gov. health care plan.

 Urban Affairs Czar: Adolfo Carrion Jr.- Puerto Rican.  Anti American activist and leftist group member in Latin America.  Millionaire “slum lord” of the Bronx, NY.  Owns many lavish homes and condos which he got from “sweetheart” deals with labor unions.  Wants higher taxes to pay for minority housing and health care.

Weapons Czar: Ashton Carter   Leftist.  Wants all private weapons in US destroyed.  Supports UN ban on firearms ownership in America.  No Other “policy”

WMD Policy Czar: Gary Samore- Former US Communist.   Wants US to destroy all WMD unilaterally as a show of good faith.  Has no other “policy”.


Holdren: Sterilize welfare recipients–Obama boss suggested ways to save planet, said fetus not a person


Holdren: Sterilize welfare recipients

Obama boss suggested ways to save planet, said fetus not a person


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Obama science czar John Holdren stated in a college textbook that compulsory, government-mandated “green abortions” would be a constitutionally acceptable way to control population growth and prevent ecological disasters, including global warming, because a fetus was most likely not a “person” under the terms of the 14th Amendment.

Holdren further suggested government-mandated population control measures might be inflicted in the United States against welfare recipients, writing on page 840: “There has been considerable talk in some quarters at times of forcibly suppressing reproduction among welfare recipients (perhaps by requiring the use of contraceptives or even by involuntary sterilizations). This may sadly foreshadow what our society might do if the human predicament gets out of hand.” (Parenthesis in original text.)

As previously reported, WND has obtained a copy of the 1970s college textbook “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment” that Holdren co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich’s wife, Ann. 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.”

Get “The Audacity of Deceit,” and learn about the looming hostile attack on Judeo-Christian values and freedoms Americans hold dear

Writing on page 839 of the textbook, the authors state: “The common law and drafters of the U.S. Constitution did not consider a fetus a human being. Feticide was not murder in common law because the fetus was not considered to be a human being, and for purposes of the Constitution a fetus is probably not a ‘person’ within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus under the constitution, abortion is apparently not unlawful, although infanticide obviously is.”

read the full article

New UN resolution aims at nuclear-free world-And Iv’e got swampland in the Sahara for sale

New UN resolution aims at nuclear-free world
Sep 24 01:33 PM US/Eastern
Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS (AP) – With President Barack Obama presiding over a historic session, the U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a U.S.-sponsored resolution Thursday committing all nations to work for a nuclear weapons-free world.Russia, China and developing nations supported the measure, giving it global clout and strong political backing.

The resolution calls for stepped up efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, promote disarmament and “reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism.” It calls for better security for nuclear weapons materials and underscores the Security Council’s intention to take action if such material or nuclear weapons get into the hands of terrorists.

The resolution consolidated many elements previously endorsed individually in the Security Council or other international forums. But bringing them together in a single document, voted on by global leaders, should add political momentum to efforts to achieve these goals, particularly at important conferences next year on nuclear security and on strengthening the Nonproliferation Treaty.

It was only the fifth time the Security Council met at summit level since the U.N. was founded in 1945 and 14 of the 15 chairs around the council’s horseshoe-shaped table were filled by presidents and prime ministers. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s name was on the U.N.-circulated list as attending but he was a no-show. Libya’s U.N. ambassador spoke for his country.

The U.S. holds the rotating council presidency this month and Obama was the first American president to preside over a Security Council summit, gaveling the meeting into session and announcing that “the draft resolution has been adopted unanimously.”

“The historic resolution we just adopted enshrines our shared commitment to a goal of a world without nuclear weapons,” Obama said immediately after the vote. “And it brings Security Council agreement on a broad framework for action to reduce nuclear dangers as we work toward that goal.”

Just one nuclear weapon set off in a major city—”be it New York or Moscow, Tokyo or Beijing, London or Paris”—could kill hundreds of thousands of people and cause major destruction, Obama said.

The council endorsed a global effort to “lock down all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years” and the president announced that the United States will host an April summit to advance compliance and assist all nations in achieving the goal.

The resolution does not mention any country by name but it reaffirms previous Security Council resolutions that imposed sanctions on Iran and North Korea for their nuclear activities. It does not call for any new sanctions.

The resolution “expresses particular concern at the current major challenges to the nonproliferation regime that the Security Council has acted upon.”

“This is not about singling out an individual nation,” Obama said. “International law is not an empty promise, and treaties must be enforced.”

But Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy all identified North Korea, which has tested nuclear weapons, and Iran, suspected of harboring weapon plans, as obstacles to a safer world.

Sarkozy sharply criticized both countries for ignoring Security Council resolutions calling on them to cease such activities.

“We may all be threatened one day by a neighbor, by a neighbor endowing itself” with nuclear weapons, he said.

“What I believe is that if we have the courage to affirm and impose sanctions on those who violate resolutions of the Security Council we will be lending credibility to our commitment to a world with fewer nuclear weapons and ultimately with no nuclear weapons,” Sarkozy said.

The British leader called on the council to consider “far tougher sanctions” against Iran.

Iran’s U.N. Mission issued a statement calling allegations about its nuclear program “totally untrue and without any foundation,” insisting it is pursuing nuclear power as an alternative source of energy “to supply its booming population and rapid development.”

Iran called French claims “preposterous” and accused Britain of “deliberately and cynically” ignoring its legal commitments to take practical steps to eliminate nuclear weapons but did not mention the United States by name.

Diplomats from Iran are scheduled to hold talks on Oct. 1 with the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.

The Iranian statement reiterates the country’s “readiness to engage in serious and constructive negotiations with interested parties, based on respect, justice, rights of nations and collective commitments, aimed at reaching a framework for cooperative relationships.” But it said that to achieve success in future negotiations the six countries should abandon “futile and illegal demands of the past years” that include suspending Iran’s enrichment program.

Obama said the resolution reflects the nuclear agenda he outlined in his April speech in Prague when he declared his commitment to “a world without nuclear weapons.”

The president called in that speech for the slashing of U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, adoption of the treaty banning all nuclear tests, an international fuel bank to better safeguard nuclear material, and negotiations on a new treaty that “verifiably” ends the production of fissile materials for atomic weapons.

He also strongly backed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, which requires signatory nations not to pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for a commitment by the five nuclear powers to move toward nuclear disarmament. States without nuclear weapons are guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear technology for electricity generation.

All those measures are included in the draft resolution.

The resolution suggests that the Security Council consider taking firmer actions in the case of a country withdrawing from the NPT—as North Korea did—and stresses that countries that pull out are responsible for all violations before withdrawal.

Iran in its statement reaffirmed its commitment to the NPT, saying it takes its responsibilities under the treaty “seriously.”

In its opening paragraph, the resolution reaffirms the council’s commitment “to seek a safer world for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons.”

Obama warned Thursday against violations of the NPT saying, “We must demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced.”

But global differences remain.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said that “our main shared goal is to untie the problem knots” among nations seeking nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament.

“This is complicated since the level of mistrust among nations remains too high, but it must be done,” he said.

Chinese President Hu Jintao focused on a late addition to Thursday’s resolution: a call for all nuclear-weapon states to commit to “no first use” of those weapons, and to not using them against non-nuclear states. China has long proclaimed such a policy, which the U.S. has never embraced.

“All nuclear-weapon states should make an unequivocal commitment of unconditionally not using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states,” Hu said.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon saluted the national leaders for joining in the unprecedented Security Council summit on nuclear arms.

“This is a historic moment, a moment offering a fresh start toward a new future,” he said.

Among the invited guests were U.N. nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei, former U.S. Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry, media mogul Ted Turner, former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and Queen Noor of Jordan—all campaigners against nuclear weapons.

Nunn, a Georgia Democrat who heads the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a Washington-based group designed to fight the global spread of nuclear materials, said the most important thing about the resolution “is the high-level visibility that will be taking place … with world leaders gathering to remind both themselves and the world that we are at a nuclear tipping point.”

As Obama left the Security Council chamber, he told the Associated Press: “It was an excellent day.”


Associated Press Writers John Heilprin and Charles Hanley contributed to this report from the United Nations.

Netanyahu at his best

Netanyahu at his best

Even those who aren’t  particularly sympathetic to Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, could get a  good measure of satisfaction from this interview  with British Television during  the retaliation against Hamas’ shelling of  Israel.
The interviewer asked him: “How come so many  more Palestinians have been killed in this conflict than Israelis?” (A  nasty question if there ever was one!)
Netanyahu: “Are you sure that you want to  start asking in that direction?”
Interviewer: (Falling into the trap) Why  not?
Netanyahu: “Because in World War II more  Germans were killed than British and Americans combined, but there is no  doubt in anyone’s mind that the war was caused by Germany’s aggression. And in  response to the German blitz on London,  the British wiped out the entire city of Dresden, burning to death more German civilians  than the number of people killed in Hiroshima. Moreover, I could remind you  that in 1944, when the R.A.F. tried to bomb the Gestapo Headquarters in  Copenhagen, some of the bombs missed  their target and fell on a Danish children’s hospital, killing 83 little  children. Perhaps you have another  question?”
Apparently, Benjamin Netanyahu gave another  interview and was asked about Israel’s occupation of Arab  lands. His response was, “It’s our land”. The reporter (CNN or the like)  was stunned – read below “It’s our land…” It’s important information  since we don’t get fair and accurate reporting from the media and facts  tend to get lost in the jumble of daily events.
“Crash Course on the Arab-Israeli  Conflict.”
 Here  are overlooked facts in the current & past Middle East situation. These were compiled by a  Christian university professor:

BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISRAELI CONFLICT TODAY…  (It takes just 1.5 minutes to read!)
It makes sense and it’s not slanted. Jew and  non-Jew — it doesn’t matter.

1. Nationhood and Jerusalem: Israel became a nation in  1312 BC, two thousand (2000) years before the rise of  Islam.
2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying  themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after  the establishment of the modern State of Israel.
3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BC, the  Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand (1000) years with  a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300  years.
4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest  in 635 lasted no more than 22 years.
5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been  the Jewish capital.  Jerusalem has never been the capital of  any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they  never sought to make it their capital, and Arab  leaders
did not come to  visit.
6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in  Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures.  Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the  Koran.
7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem.  Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.
8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem.   Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.
9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: in 1948 the Arab  refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge  the land  of Jews.   Sixty-eight percent left (many in fear of retaliation by their own  brethren, the Arabs), without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. The ones  who stayed were afforded the same peace, civility, and citizenship  rights as everyone else.

10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee  from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and  pogroms.

11.  The number of Arab refugees who left Israel  in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees  from Arab lands is estimated to be about 800,000.
12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not  absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite  the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War  II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been  absorbed or integrated into their own people’s lands. Jewish refugees  were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the  state of New  Jersey.

13. The Arab-Israeli Conflict: the Arabs are  represented by twenty two separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five  wars and lost.  Israel defended itself each  time and won.
14. The PLO’s Charter still calls for the  destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given the  Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and  has supplied them.
15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites  were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship.  Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved  and made accessible to people of all  faiths.
16. The UN Record on Israel and the Arabs: of the 175 Security  Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against  Israel.
17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions  voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.
18. The UN was silent while 58 Jerusalem
 synagogues  were destroyed by the Jordanians.

19. The UN was silent while the Jordanians  systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.
20. The UN was silent while the Jordanians  enforced an apartheid-like a policy of preventing Jews from visiting the  Temple  Mount and the  Western Wall.
These are incredible  times. We have to ask what our role should be.  What will we tell  our grandchildren about what we did when there was a turning point  in Jewish destiny, an  opportunity to make a difference?
START NOW – Send this to  other people you know and ask them to send it to others, Jew  and non-Jew – it doesn’t really  matter

Andersen Book Blows Ayers’ Cover on ‘Dreams’ (updated)

Andersen Book Blows Ayers’ Cover on

 ‘Dreams’ (updated)

Jack Cashill
In his new book, “Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage,” Best-selling celebrity journalist, Christopher Andersen, has blown a huge hole in the Obama genius myth without intending to do so.

Relying on inside sources, quite possibly Michelle Obama herself, Andersen describes how Dreams came to be published — just as I had envisioned it in my articles on the authorship of Dreams.  With the deadline pressing, Michelle recommended that Barack seek advice from “his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.”


To flesh out his family history, Obama had taped interviews with various family members.  Andersen writes, “These oral histories, along with a partial manuscript and a truckload of notes, were given to Ayers.” Andersen quotes a Hyde Park neighbor, “Everyone knew they were friends and that they worked on various projects together.  It was no secret. Why would it be? People liked them both.”


Andersen continues, “In the end, Ayers’s contribution to Barack’s Dreams From My Father would be significant–so much so that the book’s language, oddly specific references, literary devices, and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers’s own writing.”


More to come!

Update: Ron Radosh takes up the case. 

Finally, Christopher Andersen concludes: “In the end, Ayers’s contribution to Barack’s Dreams From My Father would be significant – so much so that the book’s language, oddly specific references, literary devices, and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers’s own writing.”

See also:

Who Wrote Dreams From My Father?

Evidence Mounts: Ayers Co-Wrote Obama’s Dreams

The Odd Story of Romance in Dreams from my Father

The Improvised Odyssey of Barack Obama

Who Wrote Dreams and Why It Matters

Breakthrough on the Authorship of Obama’s ‘Dreams’

Who Wrote Audacity of Hope?

Obama, Ayers and the Knowledge ‘Too Big’ To Handle

Did Ayers Help Obama Get Into Harvard?

Page Printed from: at September 24, 2009 – 11:58:24 AM EDT

“Mmm mmm mmm:” New details about the Dear Leader song video

Lead Story

“Mmm mmm mmm:” New details about the Dear Leader song video

By Michelle Malkin  •  September 24, 2009 09:04 AM

Photoshop: Leo Alberti

In case you were wondering which school taught kids that “Barack Hussein Obama mmm mmm mmm” rap that I posted yesterday afternoon, here are some new details.

The video was originally posted in June 2009 here by YouTube user “brandnuwords.” Update: She has now removed the video sometime this morning. Here is the screenshot:

“Brandnuwords” is the YouTube account of Charisse Carney-Nunes. More on her in a moment.

YouTube user “alteredbeat” re-posted the video on September 6 here.

Alteredbeat e-mailed Carney-Nunes to inquire about the location of the school. She told him it was a school in South Jersey.

This screenshot from the video…

…matches up with this picture of the auditorium at B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington Township, NJ:

I have e-mailed the principal of the school with the following questions:

Did Ms. Carney-Nunes have permission to videotape the performance?

Were parents notified that their children would be participating in this activity prior to the lesson?

Was Ms. Carney-Nunes invited to the school to teach the children the song and about her book, “I am Barack Obama?”

Was the principal aware of this event and taping?

Back to Charisse Carney-Nunes. Via ModernConservative, Carney-Nunes is senior vice president of The Jamestown Project, “the award-winning author of the children’s books, I Am Barack Obama (2009),” and according to her biography, “a graduate of Harvard Law School, where she was a schoolmate of President Obama.” I have e-mailed Carney-Nunes for comment as well.

The Obama school song video that she taped shows her book featured on an easel next to the children hailing Dear Leader. She promotes her book as a tool that “allows children to see themselves through the inspirational story of President Obama growing up as an ordinary child asking, Who will change the world? Ultimately, he realizes that he will.”

She has spread this creepy cult message to schoolchildren across the country.

Coming to a classroom near you?


We already know what the response will be to critics of this elementary school agitprop: Raaaaaacist!


Mark Tapscott at the Examiner has a related warning on the driving force behind the progressive movement.

Guess he’s just another “kook,” too.

Shock video: Schoolchildren indoctrinated to praise Obama

Shock video: Schoolchildren indoctrinated to praise Obama

Thomas Lifson
A YouTube video currently featured on Drudge shows school children being coached to sing praise of “Barack Hussein Obama.” According to the poster, it was shot a round June 19, 2009 at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ. Decades of entrenching leftists in the education establishment has led to this.

Watch it and weep for our country. Lyrics below.

Lyrics (hat tip: Cliff Thier)

Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand [?]
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be clear today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said Red, Yellow, Black or White
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

segue to

Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all [do? doth??] say “hooray!”
Hooray Mr. President! You’re number one!
The first Black American to lead this great na-TION!
Hooray, Mr. President something-something-some
A-something-something-something-some economy is number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we’re really proud of you!
And the same for all Americans [in?] the great Red White and Blue!
So something Mr. President we all just something-some,
So here’s a hearty hip-hooray a-something-something-some!
Hip, hip hooray! (3x)

Page Printed from: at September 24, 2009 – 11:44:39 AM EDT


By: Jacob Laksin
Thursday, September 24, 2009


Obama reaffirms stale hopes for a failed institution.

“I am not naïve,” President Obama insisted yesterday, as he delivered his first speech to the United Nations General Assembly. And, indeed, some components of his remarks – including his call for sterner action to halt Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs – were reasonable enough. But nothing more corroded the seriousness of the president’s appeal for a new era of global security and cooperation than the fact that it was addressed to a body that, whatever the high-minded principles of its founding, has long been an obstacle to both.


It is an insight into the animating convictions of the modern UN that one of the more applauded parts of the president’s speech was a backhanded condemnation of his predecessor. Obama announced that his administration had rejected the supposed unilateralism of the Bush era in favor of a new “engagement.” In a disparaging reference to the Bush administration’s decision to withhold some payments to the UN, Obama boasted, “We have paid our bills.”


The boast was hardly warranted. Contrary to Obama’s implication – and much to the dismay of the UN’s critics – the United States has been the largest financial contributor to the UN since its 1945 founding. It is true that the Bush administration canceled aid for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFP), but it did so to protest the UNFP’s support for population control programs, most notably China’s program of forced abortions. Precisely why restoring U.S. funding for such controversial initiatives should be considered a sign of progress, Obama never made clear.


Obama’s rebuff of unilateralism was similarly misplaced. After all, the Bush administration’s most “unilateral” decision – the 2003 invasion of Iraq – was in fact anything but, coming as it did after the United Nations failed to enforce 17 resolutions that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had violated. Bush’s real sin, in this sense, was to make it all too plain just how ineffectual the world’s premier human rights body really was.


In fairness, Obama seemed to grasp this critique of the UN. He made a point of stressing that rogue states like Iran and North Korea “must be held accountable,” urging the world to “stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise.” Yet Obama missed an opportunity to emphasize that his promise of accountability was more than empty rhetoric. Instead, he fell back on the familiar chestnut that he is “committed to diplomacy.” An impassive Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sitting in the fifth row, was visibly unimpressed.


And no wonder. Since 2006, the U.N. Security Council has three times imposed sanctions on Iran for its failure to freeze uranium enrichment. How has that worked out? According to the UN’s own International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran now has the knowhow to “design and produce a workable” nuclear weapon made up of enriched uranium. It’s still possible, as some experts counsel, that a new round of stiffer sanctions could stall Iran’s drive toward nuclear capability, but the recent record underscores one point: Diplomacy isn’t getting it done.

That’s particularly the case when the diplomacy is carried out by an organization whose commitment to international peace leaves so much to be desired. One need look no further than the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Less despicable than its predecessor, the singularly sinister UN Human Rights Commission, which counted such human rights beacons as Libya and Sudan in its ranks (Libya, notoriously, even chaired the commission in 2003), the UNHRC can be considered an improvement only by the UN’s dismal standards. Saudi Arabia and Cuba are still members, and the agency has retained its tradition of singling out Israel for false and inflammatory censure bordering on anti-Semitism. All the more bizarre, then, that Obama used his UN speech to announce that the United States, as part of his re-engagement strategy, was joining the UNHRC.

Such illogical pronouncements had the effect of muddling Obama’s more sober-minded observations. Although the president was unbecomingly partisan and needlessly apologetic about America’s role in the world – a pronounced tendency in his speeches at home and abroad – he did not spare the UN from criticism. He denounced the “almost reflexive anti-Americanism which, too often, has served as an excuse for collective inaction,” an apt enough description of the UN’s perennial failures. Elsewhere, he chided that “it is easy to walk up to this podium and point fingers and stoke divisions,” pointing out that, “Anybody can do that.”


On the last point, unfortunately, the president was all too correct. Thus, Obama was followed at the podium by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Libya’s Moammar Qadaffi. Ahmadinejad, having recently reaffirmed his denial of the Holocaust, proceeded to launch a routine diatribe against Israel. Qadaffi, for his part, took the occasion to offer a characteristically lunatic rant whose highlights included a demand that George Bush and Tony Blair be put on trial for the Iraq war and an assurance that swine flu was a biological weapon created in a military lab. All that was left was to conjecture about JFK’s true killer, and Qaddafi obliged. When he ripped up a copy of the UN charter at the podium, it was almost gratuitous: The mere fact that someone like Qadaffi could be invited to address the UN was a measure of how far it had fallen from its ideal.


Obama successfully avoided an embarrassing photo op with Qadaffi, but his enthusiastic support for an organization that welcomes the likes of the Libyan dictator nonetheless spoke volumes. Never mind that the UN has repeatedly failed to prevent human rights abuses. Never mind that it has empowered regimes that kill, torture, and oppress their populations with impunity. Despite this history, Obama still seems to believe that the UN remains a force for good in the world. There’s a word to describe people who hold such astoundingly credulous beliefs. And the president is not going to like it.

Jacob Laksin is managing editor of Front Page Magazine. His email is jlaksin -at-

Environmentalists Seek to Wipe Out Plush Toilet Paper — Treehugger logic

Environmentalists Seek to Wipe Out Plush Toilet Paper
Soft Toilet Paper’s Hard on the Earth, But Will We Sit for the Alternative?

By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 24, 2009


ELMWOOD PARK, N.J. — There is a battle for America’s behinds.

It is a fight over toilet paper: the kind that is blanket-fluffy and getting fluffier so fast that manufacturers are running out of synonyms for “soft” (Quilted Northern Ultra Plush is the first big brand to go three-ply and three-adjective).

It’s a menace, environmental groups say — and a dark-comedy example of American excess.

The reason, they say, is that plush U.S. toilet paper is usually made by chopping down and grinding up trees that were decades or even a century old. They want Americans, like Europeans, to wipe with tissue made from recycled paper goods.

It has been slow going. Big toilet-paper makers say that they’ve taken steps to become more Earth-friendly but that their customers still want the soft stuff, so they’re still selling it.

This summer, two of the best-known combatants in this fight signed a surprising truce, with a big tissue maker promising to do better. But the larger battle goes on — the ultimate test of how green Americans will be when nobody’s watching.

“At what price softness?” said Tim Spring, chief executive of Marcal Manufacturing, a New Jersey paper maker that is trying to persuade customers to try 100 percent recycled paper. “Should I contribute to clear-cutting and deforestation because the big [marketing] machine has told me that softness is important?”

He added: “You’re not giving up the world here.”

Toilet paper is far from being the biggest threat to the world’s forests: together with facial tissue, it accounts for 5 percent of the U.S. forest-products industry, according to industry figures. Paper and cardboard packaging makes up 26 percent of the industry, although more than half is made from recycled products. Newspapers account for 3 percent.

But environmentalists say 5 percent is still too much.

Felling these trees removes a valuable scrubber of carbon dioxide, they say. If the trees come from “farms” in places such as Brazil, Indonesia or the southeastern United States, natural forests are being displaced. If they come from Canada’s forested north — a major source of imported wood pulp — ecosystems valuable to bears, caribou and migratory birds are being damaged.

And, activists say, there’s just the foolish idea of the thing: old trees cut down for the briefest and most undignified of ends.

“It’s like the Hummer product for the paper industry,” said Allen Hershkowitz, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We don’t need old-growth forests . . . to wipe our behinds.”

The reason for this fight lies in toilet-paper engineering. Each sheet is a web of wood fibers, and fibers from old trees are longer, which produces a smoother and more supple web. Fibers made from recycled paper — in this case magazines, newspapers or computer printouts — are shorter. The web often is rougher.

So, when toilet paper is made for the “away from home” market, the no-choice bathrooms in restaurants, offices and schools, manufacturers use recycled fiber about 75 percent of the time.

But for the “at home” market, the paper customers buy for themselves, 5 percent at most is fully recycled. The rest is mostly or totally “virgin” fiber, taken from newly cut trees, according to the market analysis firm RISI Inc.

Big tissue makers say they’ve tried to make their products as green as possible, including by buying more wood pulp from forest operations certified as sustainable.

But despite environmentalists’ concerns, they say customers are unwavering in their desire for the softest paper possible.

“That’s a segment [of consumers] that is quite demanding of products that are soft,” said James Malone, a spokesman for Georgia-Pacific. Sales figures seem to make that clear: Quilted Northern Ultra Plush, the three-ply stuff, sold 24 million packages in the past year, bringing in more than $144 million, according to the market research firm Information Resources Inc.

Last month, Greenpeace announced an agreement that it said would change this industry from the inside.

The environmental group had spent 4 1/2 years attacking Kimberly-Clark, the makers of Kleenex and Cottonelle toilet paper, for getting wood from old-growth forests in Canada. But the group said it is calling off the “Kleercut” campaign: Kimberly-Clark had agreed to make its practices greener.

By 2011, the company said, 40 percent of the fiber in all its tissue products will come from recycled paper or sustainable forests.

“We could have campaigned forever,” said Lindsey Allen, a senior forest campaigner with Greenpeace. But this was enough, she said, because Kimberly-Clark’s changes could alter the entire wood-pulp supply chain: “They have a policy that . . . will shift the entire way that tissue companies work.”

Still, some environmental activists said that Greenpeace should have pushed for more.

“The problem is not yet getting better,” said Chris Henschel, of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, talking about logging in Canada’s boreal forests. He said real change will come only when consumers change their habits: “It’s unbelievable that this global treasure of Canadian boreal forests is being turned into toilet paper. . . . I think every reasonable person would have trouble understanding how that would be okay.”

That part could be difficult, because — in the U.S. market, at least — soft is to toilet paper what fat is to bacon, the essence of the appeal.

Earlier this year, Consumer Reports tested toilet paper brands and found that recycled-tissue brands such as Seventh Generation and Marcal’s Small Steps weren’t unpleasant. But they gave their highest rating to the three-ply Quilted Northern.

“We do believe that you’re going to feel a difference,” said Bob Markovich, an editor at Consumer Reports.

Marcal, the maker of recycled toilet paper here in New Jersey, is trying to change that with a two-pronged sales pitch. The first is that soft is overrated.

“Strength of toilet paper is more important, for obvious reasons,” said Spring, the chief executive, guiding a golf cart among the machinery that whizzes up vast stacks of old paper, whips it into a slurry, and dries it into rolls of toilet paper big enough for King Kong. He said his final product is as strong as any of the big-name brands. “If the paper breaks during your use of toilet paper, obviously, that’s very, very important.”

The second half of the pitch is that Marcal’s toilet paper is almost as soft as the other guy’s anyway.

“Handle it like you’re going to take care of business,” company manager Michael Bonin said, putting this reporter through a blind test of virgin vs. recycled toilet paper. Two rolls were hidden in a cardboard box: the test was to reach in without looking and wad them up, considering the “three aspects of softness,” which are surface smoothness, bulky feel and “drapability,” or lack of rigidity.

The reporter wadded. The officials waited. The one on the right felt slightly softer.

That was not the answer they wanted: The recycled paper was on the left.

GOP gets big bump of donors in August

GOP gets big bump of donors in August
By Fredreka Schouten and Matt Kelley, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Despite being in the minority in Congress, Republican campaign committees outraised Democrats by $1.7 million in August as they have aggressively collected political cash amid the rancorous debate over health care.Republicans also held an edge over Democrats in the amount of money available, when counting debts, as both parties set the stage for the 2010 elections, in which more than three dozen competitive House and Senate seats are at stake.


 POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES: How much money do they have?The GOP spike is a departure. In each of the past four years, the party in power — whether Democrat or Republican — raised more than the minority’s fundraising committees in August, a USA TODAY review of campaign records shows.


“Republicans have been able to tap into some of the anger against Democrats in power and translate that into fundraising,” said Nathan Gonzales of The Rothenberg Political Report. “There are a lot of Republicans who wish the election were this November, not November 2010, because they feel like the momentum is on their side now.”


In the Senate, where Republicans are far outnumbered, their fundraising committee collected $3.1 million last month, compared to $2.2 million by the Democratic committee. It was the second month in a row that the Senate GOP committee outperformed Democrats — bringing its fundraising total for the year to $26.5 million, just $1 million less than the Democrats.


Brian Walsh, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said the committee has attracted more than 70,000 first-time donors this year as voters grew alarmed by President Obama‘s policies. “There are a lot of independents who may have voted for Obama who are now saying, ‘This type of big government spending is not what we signed up for,’ ” he said.


The Republican National Committee (RNC) also had a fundraising bump in August, bringing in $1 million more than the Democratic National Committee. Only the House Democratic committee outraised the Republicans in August — by $200,000.


For the year, the three GOP committees have $28.3 million in available funds after expenses and debts — about $8 million more than the Democrats.


RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said the health-care debate that played out in town-hall meetings in August boosted fundraising. In the first three weeks in August, for example, the party averaged 2,000 donations a day from new donors, she said.


Democrats say they are on track for a strong showing in 2010. “We continue to raise the resources we need to accomplish our goals,” Democratic National Committee spokesman Hari Sevugan said. Eric Schultz, a spokesman for the Senate Democratic committee, said his group “will have more than enough funds to be competitive.”


Jennifer Duffy, who follows Senate races for The Cook Political Report, said the Republican surge is not a surprise. GOP “apathy turned pretty quickly into activism” after the White House and congressional Democrats moved swiftly this year to pass an economic rescue plan and work on health care and climate change legislation, she said.


“If the administration and Democrats in Congress were doing nothing, it might be harder to raise money,” Duffy said. “They have certainly given Republicans something to work with.”


She said GOP activists are focused on winning enough Senate seats to deprive Democrats of the 60 votes needed to avoid GOP filibusters of controversial measures.


Political cash


How much the three political action committees for each party have raised and how much they have left as of Aug. 31 (in millions):


Category Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Democratic National Committee Total Democrats
August receipts $2.2 million $3.3 million $6.9 million $12.4 million
2009 receipts $27.5 million $37.4 million $53.6 million $118.5 million
Cash on hand, minus debt $4 million $6 million $10 million $20 million
Category National Republican Senatorial Committee National Republican Congressional Committee Republican National Committee Total Republicans
August receipts $3.1 million $3.1 million $7.9 million $14.1 million
2009 receipts $26.5 million $23.8 million $59.9 million $110.2 million
Cash on hand, minus debt $5.1 million $2.2 million 21 million $28.3 million

Source: Federal Election Commission