What is Obama’s top population control freak hiding? by Michelle Malkin

Creators Syndicate

Copyright 2015

The most transparent administration in American history is at it again — dodging sunlight and evading public disclosure.

Joining former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her secret servers, former IRS witch hunt queen Lois Lerner and her secret email accounts, former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and her Internet alter egos, and former Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and his non-public email account is White House science czar John Holdren.

President Obama’s top climate change adviser is defending his hide-and-seek game in federal court. Earlier this month, the Washington, D.C.-basedCompetitive Enterprise Institute appealed a D.C. district court ruling protecting Holdren’s personal email communications from Freedom of Information Act requests.

CEI argues that federal transparency law “applies to the work-related records of agency employees regardless of where they are stored. Many agencies routinely instruct their staff to preserve any such documents that they might have on their personal email accounts.” Yet, as head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Holdren has placed himself above the law and spirit of transparency that Obama fraudulently vowed to uphold.

“It makes little sense to claim that an agency is not ‘withholding’ documents when it refuses to produce documents held by its own chief executive that relate to ‘agency business,'” CEI’s legal brief rightly argues. “Even if OSTP had demonstrated that these emails were not within its actual control — which it did not — its failure to search its director’s personal account would still violate FOIA because any agency records in that account fall within the agency’s ‘constructive control.'”

The White House science czar’s private email account–which was uncovered when CEI unmasked former EPA head Lisa Jackson’s private email aliases, which were used to conduct government business–resides with his former employer, the Woods Hole Research Center. It’s a far-left eco-alarmist group that pushes radical anti-capitalist interventions (Remember “cap and trade”?) to eliminate the decades-long hyped “global climatic catastrophe.” Their ultimate goal? Establishing government rule by eco-technocrats who detest humanity.

To this day, Holdren has escaped questions about his freaky-deaky population-control agenda. Remember, this is the unrepentant sky-is-falling guru who joined fellow whack jobs Paul and Anne Ehrlich in co-authoring “Ecoscience,” a creepy tome that called for saving the planet by proposing that:

–Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not.

–The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or food.

–Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise.

–People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.

–A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy obstinately refused to answer my questions for Holdren on his views about forced abortions and mass sterilizations or on his continued embrace of forced-abortion advocate and eugenics guru Harrison Brown, whom he credits with inspiring him to become a scientist. Holdren’s mentor likened the global population to a “pulsating mass of maggots.”

These are not harmless dalliances of the past. Holdren’s insidious ideology — and his hidden policy communications — now have an untold impact on American taxpayers. He is the top strategist in Obama’s war on carbon, war on coal, war on the West and war on the economy. Holdren is the zealot “right at the heart” (as The New York Times put it) of devising White House climate change initiatives that reward environmental cronies, send electricity rates skyrocketing and kill jobs.

Who is Holdren conducting government business with, and what is he hiding from the public? What data is being doctored, what scientific evidence is being stonewalled in the name of rescuing the planet and consolidating power in the hands of the green elite? It’s time to turn up the heat.

Via: Michelle Malkin

Continue Reading.....

FORMER OBAMA CAR CZAR: BAIL OUT DETROIT

President Obama’s former car czar, Steven Rattner, now says that federal taxpayers should bail out the entire city of Detroit. In a Friday op-ed for the New York Times, Rattner writes, “neither the state nor the federal government has evinced any inclination to provide meaningful financial assistance. That’s a mistake. No one likes bailouts or the prospect of rewarding Detroit’s historic fiscal mismanagement. But apart from voting in elections, the 700,000 remaining residents of the Motor City are no more responsible for Detroit’s problems than were the victims of Hurricane Sandy for theirs, and eventually Congress decided to help them.”

Except, of course, that the citizens of Detroit have voted repeatedly for the same politicians who got them into this mess over and over. But Rattner continues, “America is just as much about aiding those less fortunate as it is about personal responsibility. Government does this in so many ways; why shouldn’t it help Detroit rebuild itself?”

The big problem with this proposal is that it puts the burden on federal taxpayers for bad local decisionmaking. But that doesn’t bother Rattner: “Given the depth of Detroit’s hole, no one should doubt that one of the important principles of the auto rescue — shared sacrifice by creditors, workers and other stakeholders — should be maintained.”

The only problem is that the sacrifice is consistently made by taxpayers, not by those who make policy or benefit from it.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading:

‘Top-Down’ vs. ‘Bottom-Up’

What does ‘top-down economics’ really mean? “We can’t afford more top-down economics. What we need are policies that will grow and strengthen the middle class.” — Barack Obama “Top-down economics” is a hijacked phrase. Objectively, it should be the label assigned to rule-of-czar capitalism steered by government officials. Instead, campaign rhetoric has been assigning it to rule-of-law capitalism driven by consumers and entrepreneurs—supposedly a system steered by the already-rich, in which money gradually trickles down to the middle class. As vivid as that image may be, it is a false depiction of what really happens in a properly functioning private sector. But once the false image captures the attention of enough voters, it’s a simpler step for political entrepreneurs to sell themselves as the better alternative—simpler, that is, than having to compete against the way a vibrant private sector actually works. Entrepreneurs cause money to gush outward, not to ‘trickle down’ There is little disagreement that today’s economy needs more private-sector jobs, and there should be little disagreement that private-sector entrepreneurs are more effective creators of new jobs than politicians are. But entrepreneurial success requires three ingredients: New ideas, sufficient drive, and adequate funding. With all three, entrepreneurs can develop new products and bring them to market, creating lasting new jobs when that process succeeds. Unfortunately, it’s the rule rather than the exception that the typical entrepreneur lacks the third necessary ingredient: Adequate funding. He or she may possess the idea and the initiative, but the necessary funding must come from an outside source. Should the government use higher taxation to forcibly extract additional money from the already-prosperous, then somehow allocate it back into the private sector as the bureaus and agencies see fit? At the macro level, solving the problem of creating millions of new private-sector jobs requires matching thousands of potentially successful entrepreneurs with the funding they need. When this match is made, the typical entrepreneur—far from starting out rich and then deciding to let money “trickle down”— starts by deciding to take on a big risk, then obtains the funding, and then dishes out a gusher of other people’s money to new suppliers and new employees. If unsuccessful, the entrepreneur is the first one to go broke; if successful, he or she is the last one to benefit. In short, the money gushes outward long before success or failure for the risk-taker becomes evident, and therefore long before the entrepreneur can be judged “rich” or “poor.” Via: The American Continue Reading...

Head Propaganda Czar Jay Carney: We “Haven’t Rejected” The Keystone Pipeline…

(CNSNews.com) – White House Spokesman Jay Carney said that the Obama administration had not “rejected” the Keystone pipeline, despite the fact that the president did, in fact, cancel the project after congressional Republicans forced him to make a decision.

“First of all, the Keystone Pipeline is a process. We haven’t rejected anything,” Carney told reporters Thursday.

Carney had been asked by ABC News’ Jake Tapper why the White House used the term ‘all-of-the-above’ to describe its energy policy when it had rejected Republican ideas like Keystone.

“It’s a process that is underway at the State Department that was delayed because – for two reasons – one because of concern by folks in Nebraska including the Republican governor about the original proposed route and then because of Congress’ [and] House Republicans’ insistence on including it as part of the payroll tax cut extension,” Carney continued.

However, the White House did reject the Keystone Pipeline in January, formally denying the application of TransCanada – the company hoping to build the pipeline – to begin work on the project. Federal permission was needed because the pipeline crossed national boundaries – running from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

Via: CNSNews

Continue Reading...