Calling all Czars
Posted by Editor on September 16, 2009 · 13 Comments
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are calling on the Obama White House to explain their top policy makers, also known as “czars,” and to clarify what exactly these men and women in such high positions are doing in the government, particularly as some fall outside of congressional oversight.
House Republicans have introduced three resolutions aimed at forcing the President to fully disclose how the advisers were vetted and to explain why they shouldn’t be subjected a full Senate confirmation process. Texas Representative Ted Poe (R) asks, “Are these czars advisers or are they policy makers?” Poe says the distinction is important and ultimately mandates whether or not the lack of a Senate confirmation amounts to a violation of the U.S. Constitution. A number of Republicans say their constituents are voicing concerns about possible unchecked power. “They see these czar positions being handed out as candy suckers and they wonder what kind of accountability and transparency comes with these czars,” Representative Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) said Wednesday.
Post your COMMENT in the FORUM below:
I know one of Obama’s czars (Scott Gration), personally. I haven’t spoken with him in probably 20 years, but we worked together (in the military) for years back in the late ’80s.
I always knew him as a TOTALLY honest and upstanding guy. To see that he’s now an Obama czar just blows me away.
I have no idea what got in to him that he would hitch his wagon to a loser like Obama. From what I can see, they have absolutely NOTHING in common. I am at a loss to explain it.
Basic question….
Why should a president have to explain the people he is getting advise from on issues and have them vetted?
What president in history had to have congress OK the people he is talking to to seek advise on any issue.
Hell Bush got energy advise from ENRON when ENRON was commuting UTILITY FRAUD against 36 Million americans in California and all their investors.
Didn’t hear 1 single republican say JACK about that.. actuality what I heard was how Enron was a good company and was just doing good business when it STOLE 83 BILLION from the california economy.. and still california has to pay 40 B to that firm thanks to the regulators that ENRON appointed.. the czars of Bush.
So . . . . your point is that the czars screwed up under Bush, and Bush didn’t know what he was doing, so . . . we should trust Obama THIS time that HE will get it right? What are the odds ANY politician knows 100% what is going on 100% of the time? The secret is we don’t give ANY of ‘em the power to do squat. Then they can’t hurt us.
Here’s a motto to live by: “Follow the money.” Except right now there’s too much to follow! It’s flying out of DC and into all kinds of pockets as fast as we send it in. We cut the Federal government to the bone and turn all powers back to the States, where they are supposed to be, and then the citizens of each State can watch their own state’s government. How’s that for a plan?
Yeah, great question….
Why SHOULD Obama have to explain appointing a self-avowed COMMINUST to his advisory staff?
And why SHOULD Obama have to explain appointing someone to his advisory staff who thinks YOUR DOG deserves legal representation?
And why SHOULD Obama have to explain appointing someone to his advisory staff who thinks we should sterilize people through their drinking water?
And why SHOULD Obama have to explain appointing someone to his advisory staff who thinks that upon your death YOUR ORGANS should automatically become the property of the STATE?
Yeah, why should AMERICANS have the right to ask a few questions of the president’s advisory staff???
In other words, according to jimbo, Americans should just SHUT UP AND STOP ASKING STOOOOPID QUESTIONS!!!!
You know jimbo, I have often wondered why left-tards like you don’t just pack up and move to Russia. Why stay here when you have such a hard time with things like freedom and liberty? Just move!
However, now I think I understand why you stay here. The Communists aren’t fascist ENOUGH for you. Complete and total state control isn’t really ENOUGH for you left-tards, is it?
You want to go even further into the twilight zone where someone’s GOLD FISH can get legal representation and sue the owner. They don’t even allow that in Russia. Plus, in Russia, they won’t even know what you’re talking about when you start whining about how Bush and Halliburton are responsible for every problem (both real and imagined).
Now I know why you don’t move. Russia isn’t far enough into the twilight zone for you.
Acknowledging the past, dealing with the present; from Websters’ Dictionary:
ADVISOR – (one who) offers advise to; suggests or recommends; informs or notifies.
CZAR – an autocrat (one person with unlimited power); one having authority.
AUTOCRACY – government by one person with unlimited power. Leading to:
AUTOARCHY – complete control or power (autocracy); a country under autoarchic rule.
Our concern is that Obama is not using these people as “advisors”; they truly are “czars” by the definition of the word. It would be different if Obama were using them as “advisors” and then taking their suggestions to Congress or the appropriate Cabinet Dept.; instead he has supplanted other bodies of the government with them, given them unrestrained and unsupervised powers to make and enact policy, and given them access to government funds (OUR tax dollars) to spend as they will. I don’t believe ANY President should, or does, have that authority. One example of the redundancy of a “czar” is the “safe schools czar” who was appointed outside the supervision of the Dept. of Education, the Secretary of Education, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the Senate Committee on Health, Education and Labor. Since the “czars” are not vetted by Congress (and in Van Jones’ case, he didn’t even fill out the 56 question application that Obama’s transition team compiled for all government positions), we are finding out these people’s backgrounds after they are already in position, hence our objections after the fact. I mentioned the “safe schools czars”; here’s some of his background from his books and speeches: as a former drug user, he wrote about the coolness of it, never said he regretted it, and because of it can empathize with what teenage drug users are dealing with (what about discouraging it or advocating rehab?); as a homosexual (his business) he thinks that homosexuality in schools should not just be accepted but encouraged (told of an encounter with a 15 year old boy involved with an older man and only advocated the use of condoms, ignoring the pedophilia issue). This is not my idea of making America’s schools “safe”. All of Obama’s “czars” are either socialists, communists, or radical leftists who feel the government should have unlimited power; which leads me to believe his ultimate goal is autoarchy.
Righton, please stop with the personal attacks! Let’s discuss the issues without the 5th grade name calling, can we? Good!
My issue with “czars” is NOT that they are there, they’ve been in administrations for a long, long time. FDR had them and they were called the “kitchen cabinet” if I remember my history correctly! So it’s not that they are advising the president, it’s WHO THEY ARE and WHAT THEY BELIEVE. The current crop of advisors to Obama seem to be, by their own admission in writings we can all reference the most HARD Left, radical individuals I have EVER seen. Obama told us that we could learn who he is by who he surrounds himself with. and the people he has surrounded himself with, both in and out of government are some pretty radical folks! So, I have to conclude that he (Obama) is a radical, or at least believes in radical thinking to shape his agenda. Just a thought!
I love the fact that the leading statement on this comment board refers to the editors belief in the 1st Amendment…that’s nice. However, the First Amendment doesn’t refer to citizens calling each other morons or offending each other with sppech ….. the First Amendment refers to the prohibition of the Federal and State governments restricting speech.
Yeah, and tell that to ACLU when they try to stop prayer in schools using the 1st Amendment, when schools are neither Federal or State governments.
Basically I agree with you because the 1st Amendment has been applied to many situations which don’t follow from what it actually says, as you stated.
CZAR! CZAR! CZAR! CZAR! Did Anyone Not worry When that WORD ENTERED THE WHITE HOUSE TO BEGIN WITH?
Really…….Are we the only ones who knew that that was a SIGN OF WORRY WHEN THE WORD…CZAR…ENTERED “WE THE PEOPLE’S WHITE HOUSE”……..
Where? When? Why would someone use or want to use that particular WORD CZAR?
Think about it people…………
Think……..think………….think………..think………
Research……..look it up on google………
You are already being trained like a dog…do you like it? We do not and are not dogs…we are people who are Free in this great United States of America…
CAN WE PLEASE VOTE TO GET RID OF THE TERM “CZAR” ….”Counsultant” paid by the hourly wage is better. DO WE HAVE A VOTE ON THIS?
A REVEREND
God Bless America and the World in Health and Happiness to all-Amen!
It was your idol Rayguns, he of Bonzo fame, who first brought czars to the white house and it’s been a republican tradition ever since. See what happens when you get informed?
It may have been so. However it is Obama who has taken the concept to it logical conclusion and beyond that to insanity. Did Reagan hire a Communist czar like Van Jones? Did he or either of the Bushes appoint a czar that wrote a book about putting sterilants in drinking water? How about a czar that has advocated that anyone should be able to sue on behalf of an animal? Never mind that we have robust cruelty laws and if you doubt that ask Michael Vick. Its time that we question why the czars exist and put them under the advice and consent of the Senate. They are a shortcut and like many shortcuts sometimes lead to places better not traveled.
righton: Acctually, no.
Quoting Wikipedia:
“The earliest known use of the term for U.S. government officials was in the administration of Franklin Roosevelt (1933-1945), during which twelve positions were so described. The term was revived, mostly by the press, to describe officials in the Nixon and Ford administrations. Subsequently, until the George W. Bush administration (2001-2009), the term was little used.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars)
If you have another source, please submit it.
If not, then please consider Yourself “informed.”