and these unelected officials who now will be given so much power are expected to be competent and expected to be well motivated and they are expected to do things consistent with the goals of the values who of course, of the people who are pushing to centralize power in their hands. so, that we have a group of leftists who believe in centralizing power should not surprise anyone. but what do we have here? as the leftist politicos in this country have been willing to go along and exaggerate and, yes, playing fast and loose with the facts in order to promote this notion of manmade global warming. but we didn't expect these people who have a motive of trying to centralize power or whatever the motive is of these alarmists and the radical environmental movement, we didn't expect them to act any other way. but we need to ask ourselves, why did it take prominent members of the science community so long to step forward and to be counted in the face of this massive and heavy-handed campaign of deceit? well, i traced the reluctance of our scientists to step up back to the abrupt dismissal of dr. wi

the top advisor at the state department supporting the idea that international bodies and unelected federal officials -- not the u.s. congress -- should be the ultimate law-making authority for the american people? i don't think so. now, this has manifested itself in a number of ways. for example, in a interview that dean koh gave on may 10 of -- for the "news hour" he said that he was asked about, for example, some of the interrogations that took place in places like guantanamo. and he basically said that the u.s. forces, including our commanders and presumably the intelligence officials that actually conducted interrogations and detentions, violated the geneva conventions and should be held accountable for that. does he really believe that u.s. officials should be prosecuted and perhaps convicted of war crimes because they did what the american people asked them to do, consistent with legal opinions from the office of legal counsel at the justice department? i think it, as "the wall street journal" points out today, in an article called "the pursuit of john yew." i'll read a couple of sentences fro

this would be giving a nominated, unelected official the ability to terminate something without any check or balance except ultimately coming around to an appropriation process here. i just -- i just -- i find it somewhat ironic in a sense that at a time when we're talking about the states and the communities having the ability to have a greater influence in the outcome of some of these issues that we would include a provision that would basically supercede anyone else's ability to impact this. i think this is one where, again, i think there is a difference between our responsibility of recommending ideas and certainly the secretaries of all the agencies, but i can't imagine us, and i think a good example was in the defense area. i can't think of anyone who would support a provision that would allow a secretary of defense the unilateral ability to terminate a program because they didn't think it was worthwhile without there being some sort of check on that power, and if we'd be unwilling to do it in that area or others, it seems we ought to be sensitive about empowering someone to unilate