He says they recruited him for "safe schools czar"

It makes sense to me, they would be the ones to do it.
CNSNews.com
Obama Administration Specifically Recruited Homosexual Activist to Be 'Safe Schools Czar'
By Fred Lucas
Kevin Jennings, the long-time homosexual activist who is now the Obama administration’s safe schools czar, never sought public office. Rather, he said, the Obama administration recruited him.
Jennings became a lightning rod of controversy last year because he was the co-founder and president for a decade of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which promoted homosexual clubs in high schools.
Read more.

Folks, This is Even Worse Than it Looks

And more than a little bit on the embarrassing side to report. Somehow this has to be stopped.  It is all over the blogs today and really, really distressing. It is hard enough in schools today to keep our children safe from predators but to have this taught is just over the top.
First we read this: (all from Gateway Pundit)

Obama’s Safe Schools Czar Promotes Child Sex Books & Praised Man-Boy Sex Leader

Barack Obama’s Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings is not exactly a child advocate. Jennings has a record of promoting child porn books to school children and praising NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) leaders.

Then today we got this further information:

Breaking: Obama’s Safe Schools Czar’s Question to 14 Year Olds: “Spit vs. Swallow?… Is it Rude?” (audio-video)

Barack Obama’s Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings founded the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). Recently he was appointed by the Obama administration to run the Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools in the US Department of Education. In 2007 Kevin Jennings was paid $273,573.96 as the executive director of GLSEN.

In 2000 GLSEN held an anniversary conference. From the content of the workshops it was clear that the organization was not so much about tolerance as it was about teaching children about sex. This conference was fully supported by the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Safe Schools Program, the Governor’s Commission on Gay & Lesbian Youth, and some of the presenters even received federal money.

In this clip one of the activists asks 14 year olds, “Spit or swallow?… Is it rude?”

If you can stand it, watch the video, I can't, I haven't.

Who are the Czars?

Politico has a complete list. Just their names and titles, no background information. the list:

Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke
AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley
Auto recovery Czar: Ed Montgomery
Border Czar: Alan Bersin
California Water Czar: David J. Hayes
Car Czar: Ron Bloom
Central Region Czar: Dennis Ross
Domestic Violence Czar: Lynn Rosenthal
Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske
Economic Czar: Paul Volcker
Energy and Environment Czar: Carol Brower
Faith-Based Czar: Joshua DuBois
Great Lakes Czar: Cameron Davis
Green Jobs Czar: Van Jones (resigned)
Guantanamo Closure Czar: Daniel Fried
Health Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle
Information Czar: Vivek Kundra
International Climate Czar: Todd Stern
Intelligence Czar: Dennis Blair
Mideast Peace Czar: George Mitchell
Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg
Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein
Science Czar: John Holdren
Stimulus Accountability Czar: Earl Devaney
Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration
TARP Czar: Herb Allison
Terrorism Czar: John Brennan
Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra
Urban Affairs Czar: Adolfo Carrion Jr.
Weapons Czar: Ashton Carter
WMD Policy Czar: Gary Samore
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26779.html#ixzz0QMjEMjGS

Eugenics? Yes or No?

A Wall Street Journal article (27 August) reviewed the President’s health adviser (commonly called czars) Emanuel’s recent publication in the Lancet on health care needs. A graph showed where the relative amount of health care by age should be allocated. It started very low at age 0 rising steeply to maturity, decreasing slowly until the early 50's, then steeply declining until 60, then continuing slowly down past age 70. It may roughly be a maturity/menopause model.

As a biologist this seemed peculiar to me and it was pointed out that this was the serfdom/slavery model, where you are more concerned with your serfs/slaves through their most productive years, throwing them away in old age. Reproductive age individuals are especially important to produce more young and product. Ethical considerations aside, if it has a scientific basis, as claimed, that is one thing, but if not, it is thrown into the social/political realm.

First, old age. Of course, diminishing abilities produce less physically, but in general, animals and plants are quite variable in what could be called natural survival. We have very old trees, occasional old fish, but in general there are many less older individuals, partly due to the fact that any age group can only decrease in numbers, if only by accident. Why keep the old? They are less productive, cannot reproduce, and consume things that younger individuals could use. Without getting into what an old tree might do, mammals generally use elders in a very complicated way. Is the wisdom of accumulated experience and care available to the family more valuable than the costs of keeping the old alive and, at least mentally, contributing? Emanuel’s curve values a 65 year old about the same (in terms of their right to medical care) as a four year old and a 75 year old about the same as a two year old. Peculiar.

Second, youth. Trees and fish produce lots of acorns and larvae. Very few can survive, otherwise filling the earth. Parental care is rare and when it occurs the number of young produced is small. In mammals, parental care is the rule, making each juvenile tremendously more valuable numerically than single acorns or larvae. In humans the juvenile stage is greatly extended, and some would say, now much beyond sexual maturity. Emanuel’s graph does not acknowledge the necessity of protecting this long maturing process. Peculiar.

Modern Eugenics is often thought to have begun with Charles Darwin’s cousin, Sir Francis Galton, who, if he had a political agenda, it is not apparent. Neither did Darwin’s ideas, however later used. Apparently conscripted by later geneticists and activists, eugenics is sometimes identified as a contributor to the development of the social democratic movement, part of it leading to the holocaust. After WWII it seems to have retreated into more statistical demographic treatments, except for the modern environmental movement, which actively still promotes birth and population control.

It seems fair to identify a scientific eugenics, merely a genetical/demographic analysis, and an advocacy/activist portion using at least some of the data for social/political purposes. Which is the Emanuel curve? First it is very simplistic and second it seems directly contradictory to human biology, which places especial value on birth and adolescence. Put in evolutionary biology terms, what is termed the probability that a newborn will survive to a given age, often reproductive, is used by actuaries to determine the expectation of further life. This also can be used to determine what evolutionists call the “Net Reproductive Rate” and “Reproductive Value,” which is what determines the potential for replacement of the population. Reproduction does not occur until maturity, so these values, a somewhat complicated formula, depends heavily on the survival of these non-reproductive individuals. In most animals, including humans, these are relatively high mortality years, especially early. Parental care is highest here, again especially early. The Emanuel curve is the opposite.

Therefore, it is difficult to see the biological basis of the Emanuel curve, especially for the young, perhaps less so for the old. Although other factors (medical, economic) could be involved, the evidence seems to force the conclusion that the curve has little scientific basis, again ethics aside. A maturity/menopause model could be argued as biological, but only in the strict individual physiological sense, ignoring all surrounding factors. The surrounding factors are what the model claims is important as a basis for the ration of medical care, as is also the potential survival of the individual. Therefore, this curve must lie outside the strict eugenics scientific basis, although some argue that control of populations are ecologically necessary.

That is another question.

Obama's 32 Czar's

A Washington Post Op-Ed by Eric Cantor hits the president's Czars.
By Eric CantorThursday, July 30, 2009

"The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States." -- Sen. Barack Obama, March 31, 2008
To say President Obama failed to follow through on this promise is an understatement. By appointing a virtual army of "czars" -- each wholly unaccountable to Congress yet tasked with spearheading major policy efforts for the White House -- in his first six months, the president has embarked on an end-run around the legislative branch of historic proportions.
To be sure, the appointment of a few special officers to play a constructive role in a given administration is nothing new. What is new is the elevation of so many czars, with so much authority on endless policy fronts. Vesting such broad authority in the hands of people not subjected to Senate confirmation and congressional oversight poses a grave threat to our system of checks and balances.
At last count, there were at least 32 active czars that we knew of, meaning the current administration has more czars than Imperial Russia. Read it all.

In spite of this having been done in the past, I do wonder has no one has questioned the constitutionality of it.?