obama Czars

[incarcerated]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...teen-sex-case/

Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar Admits He Poorly Handled Underage Sex Case

By Maxim Lott
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
President Obama's "safe schools czar," under fire from critics who say he's unfit for his job, acknowledged Wednesday that he "should have handled [the] situation differently" years ago when he was a schoolteacher and didn't report that a 15-year-old boy told him that he was having sex with an older man.

Kevin Jennings, the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, was teaching high school in Concord, Mass., in 1988 when the boy, a sophomore, confessed an involvement with a man he had met in a bus station bathroom in Boston. Jennings has written that he told the boy, "I hope you knew to use a condom."

In a statement issued Wednesday, Jennings said: "Twenty one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities."

Jennings, director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, said he believes his office can now help keep other new teachers from making the same mistake....

Jennings was appointed to his job because of his longtime record of working to end bullying and discrimination in schools. But his critics say he is not qualified for the job, saying he has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, written about his past drug abuse and expressed contempt for religion....

[Gypsy]

Yeah, another fox guarding the hen house.

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by Gypsy

Yeah, another fox guarding the hen house.

Gypsy, I'm the first one to call a guy a dirtbag should the shoe fit, and this guy definitely did not handle the situation well, but personally while I hate the ideas of czars, this to me looks a little like a bit of a witch hunt. The guy made a mistake 20 years ago when he was young. If he was the guy sleeping with the 15 year old, then by all means I've got it and would say hang him, but this guy, who IIRC was a young/new teacher tried to counsel a troubled teen who was knowingly and willingly involved in dangerous activity. Should he have taken it farther than just trying to help the kid himself, absolutely he should have, but this to me sounds like an error in judgment rather than a character flaw. I know when I was in my early 20's I tried to help allot of people, and sometimes I bit off more than I could chew and at the time I didn't have the wisdom to know where and when to go for the help I needed to help those around me. One of my coaches in soccer would call this an error of enthusiasm, he wasn't trying to do the wrong thing, just made a mistake in trying to do the right thing.

Again I'm all for going full bore and both barrels against dirtbags, but if we get caught up going after everyone with any mistake in their past I think we weaken at least the appearance of our convictions and it makes us all (conservatives) look like we're just out to burn everyone to the ground. Just something to think about.

Just my .02 as I know I've made more than my fair share of errors of enthusiasm.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Defender968

Gypsy, I'm the first one to call a guy a dirtbag should the shoe fit, and this guy definitely did not handle the situation well, but personally while I hate the ideas of czars, this to me looks a little like a bit of a witch hunt. The guy made a mistake 20 years ago when he was young. If he was the guy sleeping with the 15 year old, then by all means I've got it and would say hang him, but this guy, who IIRC was a young/new teacher tried to counsel a troubled teen who was knowingly and willingly involved in dangerous activity. Should he have taken it farther than just trying to help the kid himself, absolutely he should have, but this to me sounds like an error in judgment rather than a character flaw. I know when I was in my early 20's I tried to help allot of people, and sometimes I bit off more than I could chew and at the time I didn't have the wisdom to know where and when to go for the help I needed to help those around me. One of my coaches in soccer would call this an error of enthusiasm, he wasn't trying to do the wrong thing, just made a mistake in trying to do the right thing.

Again I'm all for going full bore and both barrels against dirtbags, but if we get caught up going after everyone with any mistake in their past I think we weaken at least the appearance of our convictions and it makes us all (conservatives) look like we're just out to burn everyone to the ground. Just something to think about.

Just my .02 as I know I've made more than my fair share of errors of enthusiasm.

You need to do a little more reading about his background. "he has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, written about his past drug abuse and expressed contempt for religion...." just touches the surface.

He reminds me of the creepy uncle type, which would be bad enough in your kids' school, much less in an appointed position to be making policy.

If you look up scumbag (also see pervert) in the dictionary, I suspect that Jennings' picture is there. Probably a NAMBLA member to boot.

TR

[jw74]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

"he has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, written about his past drug abuse and expressed contempt for religion...."

TR

These things used to disqualify a person from employment, let alone high office.

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

You need to do a little more reading about his background. "he has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, written about his past drug abuse and expressed contempt for religion...." just touches the surface.

He reminds me of the creepy uncle type, which would be bad enough in your kids' school, much less in an appointed position to be making policy.

If you look up scumbag (also see pervert) in the dictionary, I suspect that Jennings' picture is there. Probably a NAMBLA member to boot.

TR

My apologies TR and Gypsy, I'll do more research on him. All I've really heard/read about is this one incident with his student, and I can see how what was presented could be a difficult situation for a new/young teacher. I will admit I didn’t do my due diligence and dig deeper into him as it appeared on the surface to me that what he had done wasn’t really all that bad compared with some of this administrations other freekshows in positions of power.

You’d think a couple of the ones picks wouldn’t have skeletons in their closets just on probability alone, I mean at least a few should be relatively clean, then again I guess he did come from Chicago.

[Surgicalcric]

Originally Posted by Defender968

...could be a difficult situation for a new/young teacher...

I dont understand whats so difficult about the situation.

It was a student (underage) having sex with an older man. I am pretty sure that it was unlawful 20 years ago.

The lack of appropriate action (reporting the crime) on the part of this POS in criminal in itself...

Crip

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by Surgicalcric

I dont understand whats so difficult about the situation.

It was a student (underage) having sex with an older man. I am pretty sure that it was unlawful 20 years ago.

The lack of appropriate action (reporting the crime) on the part of this POS in criminal in itself...

Crip

Crip here is the way I imagined that situation went down and why I say it could have been a difficult situation. Let’s say you have a student who I'm guessing was struggling class, probably getting picked on by other students, appears to be depressed (don't know this for a fact but I'm guessing this is how he became involved) the teacher tries to befriend said student to try to help. Student begins to confide in the teacher, a little at a time, teacher is trying to build rapport with the student, is getting a little info at a time (as I don't know too many kids who just spill the beans all at once on something they know they shouldn't be doing, they normally tell little parts at a time and try to make things sound as good as they can) Student probably initially tells teacher he's involved with someone or several someone’s (and leaves out ages and gender) teacher tries to give advice, then teacher eventually either puts together what's going on or student actually tells the whole story, young teacher doesn't want to lose the rapport he's built and thinks that if he goes to school administrators/police/parents the students trust will be destroyed and the student may do something drastic, commit suicide or run away, student may have even illuded to such behavior, so teacher foolishly tries to take the situation on by himself to save the student. Now I'm not saying that way of thinking is right but I've seen similar situations with young idealists who think they can save someone else when they should be reporting the behavior. Perfect example is I had a troop in the desert on my last rotation who having serious problems at home, and started seriously considering suicide, two of her friends knew about her thoughts but tried to talk to her about them rather than reporting them to leadership or the chaplain because they didn't want to jeopardize the friendship or push her over the edge (again in their minds). They were totally ill-equipped to handle what was going on but because of lack of experience and a misguided sense of obligation to said troop they failed to act as they should have. In the mean time she continued to be armed every day. As soon as an NCO got wind of the situation it was handled totally differently, again because of the age/experience and the situation was resolved.

In both cases the thinking was wrong without a doubt and that becomes much clearer with age and wisdom, and even more so in the teachers situation as he's a in a position of authority and should have sought help in handling the situation and in going after those who were taking advantage of the kid, but I wasn't ready to crucify him for that one mistake again because what I had read about the situation led me to believe as I said before he made a mistake while trying to help although a very stupid one in hindsight.

[PRB]

Bottom line up front...from a Miltary POV
An individual went to a person in authority and described a situation that was
1. unlawful by the State Statuates as to adult/child sex.
The person in authority makes a decision to UNDERWRITE the activity of the perpetrator by advising the individual to 'use condoms' due to HIV issues.
In the eyes of the young man he has now shared/confessed his issue and found that in the eyes of an authority figure it is OK now.
The Czar in question has only been troubled by this because it's recently been discovered.
If you underwrite illegal activity when in authority then you have made a decision to be a part of that activity.

[Gypsy]

I'd like to think something will come of this. Once again the "transparency" of this administration is at question...having chosen not to send a representative to the hearing. Why, I'm shocked.


http://www.gopusa.com/news/2009/octo...hallenge.shtml

Sen. Feingold questions use of administration 'czars'
By LARRY MARGASAK
Associated Press
October 7, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A liberal Democratic senator questioned the roles of Obama administration policy "czars" Tuesday, but the White House denied it is using these officials to evade congressional scrutiny.

Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said Congress needs to know whether some of the czars make policy but have no obligation to submit to congressional questioning.

While the Obama administration is hardly the first to name high-level advisers to handle issues like health care and climate change, Feingold said, "It's not good enough to simply say, 'Well, George Bush did it too.'"

Prior to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing that featured academic experts, Feingold released a letter from White House counsel Gregory Craig that defended the officials.

Craig said some presidents have used such special advisers, or czars, to undermine Congress, but "that is simply not the case in the current administration."

Feingold also was critical of the administration for declining to send a witness to the hearing.

"The White House decided not to accept my invitation ... to explain its position on the constitutional issues we will address today," Feingold said, referring to the Senate's role in confirming top officials.

"That's unfortunate. It's also a bit ironic since one of the concerns that has been raised about these officials is that they will thwart congressional oversight of the executive branch."

Craig's letter broke down the roles of 18 officials questioned by members of Congress.

Eight are in federal agencies whose employees testify regularly before Congress. This group includes Richard Holbrooke, the Afghanistan czar and Ron Bloom, the car czar.

Four more are in the National Security Council, individuals who have no independent authority and whose sole function is to advise the president.

Another four are in the president's and vice president's offices and function as senior White House advisers on health, energy and environment, urban affairs and domestic violence. They are Lynn Rosenthal, domestic violence; Carol Browner, energy and environment; Adolfo Carrion Jr., urban affairs and Nancy-Ann DeParle, health.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said the administration has created doubt about its promise of transparency. However, neither Coburn nor Feingold would criticize any specific official.

It's not even clear what constitutes a czar.

"'Czar' is not an official government title of anybody; it is a vernacular of executive branch public administration," said Bradley Patterson, a hearing witness who has served on the White House staff under Republican presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

"It is a label now used loosely hereabouts, especially by the media," Patterson said.

Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[incarcerated]

A School Safety Czar update, with video:
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/10/10/h...ercover-agent/

Hannity “Hamers” Safe School Czar’s NAMBLA Problem with Legendary FBI Undercover Agent

2009 October 10
by David Forsmark
Wednesday night, Sean Hannity opened his show with a terrific guest—and even let him talk. Bob Hamer was an FBI undercover agent who infiltrated the Russian mob posing as an arms dealer, made the famous bust of the North Korean super-counterfeiters, and spent five skin-crawling years infiltrating the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

Despite the made for TV-type danger posed by the first two assignments mentioned above, Hamer’s decided his first superb book, The Last Undercover: The True Story of an FBI Agent’s Dangerous Dance with Evil, should be about his NAMBLA case, because he felt the most urgency to expose this conspiracy of pedophiles that’s given cover by the courts and defended by the ACLU.

[Interview video here: http://newsrealblog.com/2009/10/10/h...ercover-agent/ ]

Photo caption:
"Harry Hay, NAMBLA Supporter and “Inspiration” to Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings"

[Mitch]

FYI Y'all
The first "Czar" I remember was the so called "Drug Czar" - apparently that one has been arround since 71.

It would appear that Obama is, among other things, expanding on tradition!

The list is subjective and imprecise, since frequently individuals or offices might be referred to by the nickname "czar" by some publication or a political opponent, yet the actual governmental official, a majority of publications and others do not use the term.

Summary table - Number of czars per administration, President's name, In office: Number of "czar" jobs; Number of appointees.

Franklin Roosevelt 1933–1945: 12; 19
Harry Truman 1945–1953: 6; 6
Dwight Eisenhower 1953–1961: 1; 1
John F. Kennedy 1961-1963: ?; ?
Lyndon Johnson 1963–1969: 3; 3
Richard Nixon 1969–1974: 3; 5
Gerald Ford 1974–1977: 1; 1
Jimmy Carter 1977–1981: 2; 3
Ronald Reagan 1981–1989: 1; 1
George H. W. Bush 1989–1993: 2; 3
Bill Clinton 1993–2001: 7 ;10
George W. Bush 2001–2009: 31; 46
Barack Obama 2009: 32; 35

The numbers are based upon the sortable list below. Please see it for details and references. Note that what is measured is the popularity of the word czar, rather than an objective measure of authority. Also note that under George W. Bush only 31 Czar titles had been currently found, thus only 31 Czars. For example, there has been an Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health since the passage of the Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, but the phrase "mine safety czar" was only applied to the position since the controversial appointment of Richard Stickler to the post in 2006. Similarly, there has been a director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs since the office was created by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, but the term "regulatory czar" was not applied to the post until 2001.

See the list:

[incarcerated]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1255..._sections_news

Czar Blocks BofA Chief's Pay

OCTOBER 16, 2009
BUSINESS
By DEBORAH SOLOMON and DAN FITZPATRICK
WASHINGTON—The Treasury Department's pay czar pushed outgoing Bank of America Corp. Chief Executive Kenneth D. Lewis into giving back about $1 million he received so far this year and forgoing the rest of his $1.5 million salary for 2009, say people familiar with the matter.

The move makes Mr. Lewis the biggest target so far of Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury's "special master" for compensation. He also asked that Mr. Lewis pass up any 2009 bonus from the Charlotte, N.C., bank....

[jcb4]

*

[T-Rock]

Who’ll be the internet Czar?

FCC Gives Government Power to Regulate Web Traffic

WASHINGTON—Federal telecommunications regulators approved new rules Tuesday that would for the first time give the federal government formal authority to regulate Internet traffic, although how much or for how long remained unclear.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories