Thursday, July 16, 2009

The Czars...Constitutional?


Czar (or Tsar) is a term used to describe MONARCHS.

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "I have spoken of the Federalists as if they were a homogeneous body, but this is not the truth. Under that name lurks the heretical sects of monarchists. Afraid to wear their own name they creep under the mantle of federalism, and the federalists, like sheep permit the fox to take shelter among them, when pursued by dogs. These men have no right to office, anywhere, and it be known to the President, the oath he has taken to support the Constitution imperiously requires the instantaneous dismission of such officer; and I hold the president criminal if he permitted such to remain. To appoint a monarchist to conduct the affairs of the republic, is like appointing an atheist to the priesthood." (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, June 1803, 8:237)

If even Robert KKK Byrd is calling the Czars "unconstitutional", I'd say Obama has a growing problem.

America has been busy watching Michael Jackson tributes while Obama is up to 21 Czars (who are accountable only to him --not WE THE PEOPLE or even Congress), he's pushing a health Care bill through that even Obama-fan WashPo says is a bad idea, he's encouraging Congress to be as irresponsible with your health care as they've been with the stimulus and cap and Trade...

Meet one of Obama's Czars:

'Science Czar' John P. Holdren




Holdren views "capitalism as an economic system that is inherently harmful to the natural environment", but even more disturbing are quotes from his book that Zombietime was able to unearth:

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.

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. (Ecoscience, Holdren & Ehrlich 1977)


What Would Thomas Jefferson Do?!

No comments: