Buy ativan online. Ativan -buy -buying -online -cheap. Buy ativan online free usa dr consultation. Buy ativan fed ex no prescription. Buy ativan drug online. Buy ativan online from discount pharmacy store. Mamboxchange guestbook detail buy ativan. Buy …

Synthroid vs levothyroxine. Side effects levothyroxine. Levothyroxine….

Here’s some non NYT news.

Mary Nichols, the chair of the California Air Resources Board, has confirmed that Browner was the lead White House negotiator in establishing new automobile emissions standards, which for the first time rely on EPA’s presumed authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the 1970 Clean Air Act. Nichols told The New York Times that Browner quietly orchestrated private discussions from the White House with auto industry officials. “We put nothing in writing, ever,” Nichols said.

Browner was made a czar so that her powers could be more sweeping than they would be in any single official appointment—witness her cross-agency role in the secret automobile emissions regulations—and to avoid the scrutiny of Senate confirmation, which would have been difficult for Browner.

Now I gave you a start, look for yourself and open your eyes. CZARS are telling Cabinet Sec’s what to do and when.
Why do you think they’re there and no one has even glanced at them, media-wise. (i.e. Van Jones)

On October 7th, 2009 at 12:23 pm, Major O said:

Show me the money.

On October 7th, 2009 at 11:37 am, Red State Skeptic said:
Browner already made policy? And this is your evidence?
…
Seriously, is this the best y’all can do?

So you really DON’T believe there is anything to this already? Apparently, it always was a partisan “us vs them” issue and not a search for the truth in this situation, no matter where the truth leads.

When you view the amazing diligence and care with which Michelle has documented so many things that have yet to be answered by her detractors (except with ad hominem attacks) and then to come here and try to insinuate that there is “nothing here” reminds me of the staggering boxer who is one punch away from being downed still trying to mock his opponent. You still haven’t learned the worth and abilities of your opponent.

So what happens when more proof is given to you? Are you going to retract the “so this is the best you can do?” smack talk? My guess is not. My guess is that you’ll move the goalposts and deny–basically denying everything brought to you as proof, because you are clearly invested in “your side” winning.

One thing I will always give the conservative movement–when our guy messes up (think Harriet Miers, immigration policy, securing the borders, massive spending, or corruption) we are the first to point it out and demand action. Many people who back the Democrat party seem incapable of this precisely because it’s not about principle first–it’s about “winning power” and if that means ignoring what your side is doing, then “principle” be damned.

White House energy and climate adviser Carol Browner and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson criticized Murkowski’s approach of using the EPA spending bill as a vehicle for limiting the agency’s regulatory power (E&ENews PM, Sept. 22).

…

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) had crafted a more contentious amendment that would bar use of funds in the spending bill for implementing policies “at the direction” of White House climate and energy adviser Carol Browner. The debate comes as conservative activists and Republicans launched a political attack on Obama’s use of czars.

Seriously, is this the best y’all can do?

And there is more to surface.

On October 7th, 2009 at 9:41 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

They’re making policy where they have no authority.

Can you be more specific? It’s not that I don’t believe there’s a problem, there’s just no way to devine it here.

Red State Skeptic said:

So tell me: what is it that the “czars” are actually doing that is a problem? MM is obviously unable to articulate an answer to that question, or she would have in this post.

You have a pay czar usurping the Sec of Labor, a green czar taking the place of the Sec of Energy, a couple of different czars (Pali/Israel czar, Afghanistan czar) taking authority of Sec of State.

That’s three instances right off the top of my head.

Oh wait, the car czar doing things the fed government has no authority to do anyway, i.e. nationalizing the Auto Industry, firing employees of privately owned companies, giving preferential treatment to unions, interfering with bankruptcy proceedings, etc, etc.

These guys are doing much more than “advising” the President.

“No one disputes that the president is allowed to hire advisors and aides. In fact, the president is entitled, by statute, to have as many as fifty high-level employees working for him and making top salaries. . . ”

Yep, it is a law, and yep, laws can be modified and/of revoked.

So, the statute concerning advisors to the President obviously must be addressed.

And, when doing so, my hope is that the process concerning appointments that must be consented to by the Senate is addressed, too. Changes there should include, but not be limited to, no more ‘holds’ and time limits on the time it takes.

The one open question is whether advisors to members of Congress should be publicly vetted, too.

On October 6th, 2009 at 10:18 pm, gunslingerpatriot said:
I am not a constitutional scholar, but if I recall; Congress controls the purse strings (something about “Checks and Balances”)it would be good time to go through an obama budget and strike out anything that shows needless duplication.

This was exactly what I was thinking. Defund the positions until Obama ponies up their purpose, their plan and evidence of their effectiveness.