Democratic Senator Robert Byrd wrote a letter to Barack Obama back in February of this year expressing his disapproval of all the Czars.
“The rapid and easy accumulation of power by white house staff can threaten the constitutional system of check and balances.”
-Robert Byrd
Czars are executively appointed by Obama and aren’t subject to public scrutiny or congressional oversight. Many of these Czars have radical views, especially the recently outed Van Jones. Obama is the company he keeps. The views and beliefs of these Czars are also Obama beliefs. To think he didn’t know of the socialist and communist views of Van Jones is crazy. Van Jones and Barack Obama are one in the same. When you see Van Jones you should see Barack Obama as well. Is Obama creating his own government on the side? No Present has ever had as many self appointed advisers in the history of this country.
He plans to force the change he campaigned about so passionately. The problem is the change he was talking about is socialism and communism. I don’t think a lot of Obama voters really knew what the change entailed. Obama’s change will be the death of American. If you’ve been an Obama supporter, now is the time to question if he really has your back or if he’s using you like a pawn to change our government system, constitutions, beliefs, and freedoms. I know democrats, independents, and republicans have different views but I believe with all my heart that Freedom is a value shard by all. Barack Hussein Obama is not a democrat, independent or republican. He is a socialist that doesn’t believe in freedom.
September 6th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Its easy to get caught up in the fake-outrage over some guy’s past statements and loose associations, but you’re going a little off the deep end here. If you REALLY believe that he is a socialist that is using people as pawns for some master power agenda, its time for YOU to step back and really look at things. You need to spend less time on right-wing talking-points sites and more time using your head to sort out the noise.
September 6th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
The only thing we have to asses someone is their past statements. Some of Van Jones’ statements were made this year. I’m not going off the deep end. I’m trying to evoke people to think as I have made you think. The right-wing statement is a joke, I’m not a registered republican and feel a lot of republicans want just as much power as Obama does. I’m a true conservative and believe in protecting and preserving the constitution, morality and freedom.
Ian you’re a good man, you have to have some bit of doubt of Obama’s intentions with all the radical ties that are being exposed. Just because Bush wasn’t a great president doesn’t mean we need to throw everything our fathers have worked to build. Believe me, I wish Obama would stand up and be a servant to the people instead of working to make us his servants. Many people have doubts of Obama now, who knows what else will come to light.
Imagine one day when your children are grown and they ask you, “Dad what was it like to be a free man, to choose your own occupation, to own a business, to fail, to believe in the god of your choice”? This is one of my greatest fears. It goes beyond right and left. It is worth preserving. It’s worth sounding like I’ve gone over the deep end to make people think.
September 6th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Hey Ian, Nobody cares about your little tantrum fit. Go take your little racist political idols and jump off a cliff somewhere. YOU suck!
September 7th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Ok, the dude said some stupid stuff, and now he’s gone. The problem is that you transition right from that into Obama taking away freedom, restricting capitalism, and somehow forcing one religion on us. You make assertions with no supporting evidence, not even circumstantial. That is what I mean about going off the deep end.
Its one thing to take exception with specific policy points and bring arguments against administration officials, and its another to say that they are actively trying to destroy the country. The latter, in my book, reduces your credibility when you move on to doing the former.
How can I objectively say ‘He has a point here when he argues that the takover of the auto-industry has negative long-term consequences on the American manufacturing base’ when two posts earlier he is asserting that the government is collectively and actively trying to dismantle capitalism, force religion, and force job choice on the people? Doesn’t the insanity of the latter bring into question the credibility of the former?
September 7th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Health Care reform restricts freedom and will be a huge tax burden on a lot of business owners thus stifling jobs.
Cap and Trade will force taxes sky high and kill jobs. It’s a government re-engineering of the American economy.
The fairness doctrine violates First Amendment free speech principles.
The administrations spending is off the charts. Throwing more debt at the problems isn’t going to solve them.
This is just a few examples of how the structural integrity of the American system is being compromised.
Some of what I’ve said in my post is my opinion as well as many others but I’m trying to express the implications of opening pandoras box.