Mark Lloyd
Mark Lloyd

It appears as though Mark Lloyd, Obama’s new Diversity Czar, has been given his marching orders. He is charged with a back door effort to bring back the fairness doctrine.

Lloyd is a Senior Fellow from the far left Center for American Progress, which is an organization that already has their finger prints on much of Obama’s agenda.

Lloyd wrote in his book, Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America..

“The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded on a substantial level,”

“Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded,” Lloyd wrote. “This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. Funding should not come from congressional appropriations. Sponsorship should be prohibited at all public broadcasters.”

Along with this money, Lloyd would regulate much of the programming on these stations to make sure they focused on “diverse views” and government activities. link

It’s plainly clear that Lloyd wants government control over all radio content, thus  silencing free speech, specifically ideas with a conservative or libertarian viewpoint. Believe me, if radio was dominated by a progressive point of view from the extreme left, there would be no push to regulate free expression on the airwaves. This is just an attempt to back door the fairness doctrine and shut down dissenting views.

Lloyd, in a 2007 report for Center for American Progress, goes on to say

The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio, which concluded that 91% of talk radio programming is conservative and 9% is “progressive.

The report argued that large corporate broadcasting networks had driven liberals off the radio, and that diversity of ownership would increase diversity of broadcasting voices.

Here Lloyd he suggests it’s the lack of diversity in ownership and not the free market which is to blame for the failure of progressive talk radio. We know this is pure nonsense. Air America was well funded and highly promoted, yet it was a dismal failure. No one wants to hear the kind of hate that is regularly spewed forth by liberal kooks on the radio. Can you say “Randi Rhodes” without throwing up a little in your mouth? I think not.

Lloyd’s past work includes stints at the Center for American Progress (CAP) and vice president of strategic initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR). CAP is funded by the liberal financier George Soros and LCCR focuses on representing “persons of color, women, children, labor unions, individuals with disabilities, older Americans, major religious groups, gays and lesbians and civil liberties and human rights groups.”

In a blog post, LCCR praised the selection of Lloyd by saying that he will “help the FCC to develop communications policy that will increase media diversity and address the needs of low-income people, women, minorities, people with disabilities.”. link

What is this guy talking about and what concern is it of the government’s as to what kinds of programming a private radio station offers? The type of programming is dictated by the free market, a concept that seems to have escaped many leaders in Washington. Perhaps it’s because free market capitalism has been abandoned by our government, in favor of collectivism.

So, here we have another in a long line of dubious Obama appointees with far left credentials, this one insistent upon silencing free speech and trampling the first amendment.

Would you expect anyone chosen to serve in the Obama administration to not be a raging progressive liberal?  Well, don’t because they are.  Cass Sunstein, chosen by Obama to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), is a progressive “change agent” that prescribes to this outlandish doctrine of “Libertarian Paternalism”.  In other words, while we seem to have the freedom of choice, our choices should be guided by government.  Why?  Because according to Sunstein, humans will generally follow the path of least resistance and, in turn, make bad choices for themselves.  Therefore, the government should make available, as primary choices to its citizens, things they normally wouldn’t choose without some coaxing or nudging.  Sunstein is also an extremist animal activist, who argues animals should have the right to sue humans in a court of law.  To top it off, he also feels that the Internet, as currently designed, leads to extremism, and should be redesigned to incorporate a “fairness doctrine” allowing people to be exposed to a wide cross-section of opposing viewpoints.

In 2008, Sunstein and Richard Thaler wrote the book, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness.  It discusses how, through the use of  law, behavioral economics, psychology, political science, private institutions and government can “nudge” people toward choices that will make them healthier, wealthier, and happier.  In other words, the majority of people will take the path of least resistance in making important life choices and make bad choices.  His quote from the book sums it up pretty good:

Every day, we make decisions …Unfortunately, we often choose poorly…we often make bad decisions involving education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, the family, and even the planet itself.

Sunstein sees this nudging effect being beneficial in the areas of environmental regulation and mortgage regulation.  Since he feels most people do not have the capacity to make healthy decisions, the government should guide their hand.

Regarding the Internet, Sunstein contends that it creates too narrow of a focus on particular subject matter, leading to extremism.  This justifies that people should be exposed to opposing viewpoints they would not have sought, in order to consider the validity of those opposing viewpoints.  How does the Regulatory Czar really feel about the Internet?  Here are several quotes from an article Sunstein wrote in the Boston Review titled, The Daily We – Is the Internet really a blessing for democracy?

Group polarization is occurring every day on the Internet. Indeed, it is clear that the Internet is serving, for many, as a breeding ground for extremism, precisely because like-minded people are deliberating with one another, without hearing contrary views. Hate groups are the most obvious example.

It is also clear that the Internet is playing a crucial role in permitting people who would otherwise feel isolated and move on to something else to band together and spread rumors, many of them paranoid and hateful.

With respect to the Internet, the implication is that groups of people, especially if they are like-minded, will end up thinking the same thing that they thought before—but in more extreme form.

I want to raise a note of caution. I do so by emphasizing one of the most striking powers provided by emerging technologies: the growing power of consumers to “filter” what they see. As a result of the Internet and other technological developments, many people are increasingly engaged in a process of “personalization” that limits their exposure to topics and points of view of their own choosing.

Sunstein also feels that a mechanism should be in place to require a “cool-off period” or “time-out” regarding responding to emails involving contentious subject matter.  You know, instead of firing off that email in haste, with possible regret, just wait a day to see if you have changed your mind about sending that email.

If that’s not enough to raise a red flag on this guy, then this should.  He proposes introducing the 2nd Bill of Rights, as advocated by FDR.  Sunstein’s 2004 book titled: The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever advocates that Americans have a right to an education, a right to a home, a right to health care, and a right to protection against
monopolies.  I don’t remember those items being listed in our current bill of rights.  Seeing the way Obama’s administration has pushed for government control over our lives, it seems they have already initiated this “2nd bill of rights” without being explicit about it.

Anyone who adopts and promotes an idea of marrying the concepts of libertarianism and paternalism is a kook.  The American Heritage Dictionary defines libertarian as:

One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state

and paternalism as:

A policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them rights or responsibilities.

How and the world you reconcile those two as a single definition is beyond me.  This is what you call Frankensteinian behavioral engineering.  He obviously thinks people have a need and desire to be guided and nudged along to make better decisions that will benefit mankind as a whole.  I don’t know about you, but I call this “socialism-lite”.  Help yourself, but I think I’ll pass.

For more reading on Cass Sunstein:

2nd Amendment rights:

Though the Constitution has governed the nation for well over two centuries, its meaning is not stable over time. In 1970, the Constitution did not mean what it meant in 1950. In 2008, the Constitution is quite different from what it was in 1988 – and in 2028, we will probably be in for some major surprises.

Animal Rights:

Why we should celebrate paying taxes:

Compilation of Sunstein quotes here:

Quote from his animal rights activist mentor, Peter Singer:

…killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.  That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do.  It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.

John Holdren busy life with non-profits, think tanks, speeches, and the like, includes time he spent with a non-profit group Climate Central.  He resigned March 2009 after his Czar post conformation.   Climate Central’s board is staffed by financial experts, policy experts, government relations experts, science experts, and media experts.  Here’s part of their introduction:

Climate Central is an accessible one-stop source for timely, relevant, high-quality climate information through a variety of channels, targeting the media and leaders in business, government, and religion. A nonprofit organization, it operates without partisanship, bias, or lobbying.

This group was formed as a 501c(3), of course.  They formed in 2008 with seed money from The Flora Family Foundation, formed by the Hewlett family, of Hewlett-Packard.   Apparently, they put together this clip for the “Carbon Emissions Counter” grand opening, built and sponsored by Deutsche Bank’s Asset Management Group. LOL.

I don’t watch much TV, so I missed this. This is well produced piece of propaganda.

Carbon Counter L3 from Climate Central on Vimeo.

I thought the counter was actually the deficit counter.  Nope, it’s counting the emissions released into the environment.  What a joke.  Well, it’s not going to be too funny when they are using this to bet on carbon credit-based securities.  Well, your Science Czar was on the board of directors when this was produced.  Enjoy.

Van Jones is the latest Obama Czar appointment with radical roots and a checkered past. He was radicalized in prison, after being arrested during the Rodney King riots in San Francisco.

He is the founder of The Ella Baker Center, as well as a co-founder of STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement), a “multi-racial activist collective with Marxist influences”, with which Jones was involved.

In an article printed by the East Bay Express (now scrubbed but can be found here ), Jones opined…


“I met all these young radical people of color. I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, This is what I need to be a part of. I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary. I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th and then by August, I was a communist.”

“There is a green wave coming, with renewable energy, organic agriculture, cleaner production,” he said in an interview. “Our question is, will the green wave lift all boats? That’s the moral challenge to the people who are the architects of this new, ecologically sound economy. Will we have eco-equity, or will we have eco-apartheid? Right now we have eco-apartheid. Look at Marin; they’ve got solar this, and bio this, and organic the other, and fifteen minutes away by car, you’re in Oakland with cancer clusters, asthma, and pollution.”

“Before, we would fight anybody, any time,” he said. “No concession was good enough; we never said ‘Thank you.’ Now, I put the issues and constituencies first. I’ll work with anybody, I’ll fight anybody if it will push our issues forward. … I’m willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.”

As many of the progressives have done, Jones has attached himself to the so called “Green Movement”, which is actually just a tool for radicals like Jones to use in an effort to further their social and political agendas.

It should come as no surprise to those who are paying attention, that Obama would appoint a “Green Czar” who is schooled in the precepts of Alinski’s “Rules for Radicals“. He is just another in a long line of appointments with “dubious credentials and troubling backgrounds”.

Since being sworn in, President Obama has appointed as many as 34 czars to oversee and implement a wide array of his agenda ranging from the automobile industry to global warming to the Great Lakes.  With a salary of up to $172,000 in addition to staff, office and travel budgets, Congressman Jack Kingston (R/GA-1) sees the appointments as a growing problem costing taxpayers millions.

To make matters worse, Kingston says, only a very few of these czars have been confirmed by the United States Senate despite the Constitution’s requirements for Senate confirmation.  To address the matter, the Congressman has introduced legislation which would withhold funding from any czar not confirmed by the Senate.

“While the Constitution may be inconvenient to the Administration, Article II, Section 2 clearly requires the ‘advice and consent of the Senate,’” Congressman Kingston said.  “Why won’t the President use transparency and have these people come before the Senate and undergo the constitutionally-mandated process?  In 300 years, czarist Russia had just 18 czars.  It’s taken just seven months for President Obama to nearly double that number.”

While previous administrations had czars – Ronald Reagan had 1, George Bush had 1, Bill Clinton had 3 and George W. Bush had 4 – Congressman Kingston’s concern takes root in the number and speed with which they are being appointed as well as the vast policy areas they govern.

“At this rate, we’ll have 272 czars by 2012,” said Congressman Kingston.  “It seems President Obama is in the midst of forming a parallel government to push his policies.  Not only do they duplicate existing Senate-confirmed positions, they are completely unaccountable.  I serve on the Appropriations Committee which is responsible for overseeing every dollar spent by our government but I’ve yet to see a single one of Obama’s czars.”

That lack of accountability, Congressman Kingston contends, is what leads to waste.  Just last week, President Obama’s Stimulus Accountability Czar announced that the stimulus accountability website was getting an $18 million makeover.

“Eighteen million dollars to design a webpage?  Talk about stimulating the economy,” said Kingston.

For more information on Jack’s efforts on czars, please visit

Bill HR3226 Text on Thomas (LOC)

It’s about time a representative steps up to the plate and challenges what many believe to be a violation of the constitution, at least in spirit.

We need to convince all of our representatives to support this bill with letters, emails and phone calls. We, as constituents, should note all of our representatives who end up opposing this legislation and hold them accountable for doing so. The more quickly we sweep out of office those who would seek to circumvent the constitution, the better chance we have of returning our government to the people.

Of course, I would prefer to see legislation barring czars altogether but this is a good first step toward that goal.

There are 100’s of articles on Nancy Deparle’s revolving door routine from the Federal government health care posts to directorships in the health care industry and back.  Most of the companies she help direct started ramping up their Federal government lobbying efforts in 2006.  The minimal amount of lobbying data, publicly available, indicates their lobbyists got a lot more attention from our elected officials than you or I ever will.  If you saw all the congressional bills and laws these lobbyist hound our elected officials about, you wouldn’t question why Congress never seems to get much done.  Just think, this is merely five companies’ lobby activity.  So why does it seem our country is run by Corporate Amerika.  Well, it is.  Just follow the money.  It makes you wonder if Ms. Deparle was getting paid to show these companies where the money was.  She obviously knows.  Apparently, that investment of over $25 mil., in three years, paid big dividends.

Lobby Efforts By Companies Under Nancy DeParle’s Directorship

Sources Medco Medical Solutions, Medco, Boston Scientific Corp, Davita, Cerner

Want to look at the big bucks in Deparle’s financial disclosure that was submitted when she was named czar?