Okay. Carve this turkey up.

OBAMA'S CZARS

CZAR
Czar Position
Summary

Richard Holbrooke
Afghanistan Czar
Ultra liberal anti gun former Gov. Of New Mexico. Pro Abortion and legal drug use. Dissolve the 2nd Amendment

Ed Montgomery
Auto recovery Czar
Black radical anti business activist. Affirmative Action and Job Preference for blacks. Univ of Maryland Business School Dean teaches US business has caused world poverty.. ACORN board member. Communist DuBois Club member.

Jeffrey Crowley
AIDS Czar
Radical Homosexual.. A Gay Rights activist. Believes in Gay Marriage and especially, a Special Status for homosexuals only, including complete free health care for gays.

Alan Bersin
Border Czar
The former failed superintendent of San Diego . Ultra Liberal friend of Hilary Clinton. Served as Border Czar under Janet Reno – to keep borders open to illegal’s without interference from US

David J. Hayes
California Water Czar
Sr. Fellow of radical environmentalist group, “Progress Policy”. No training or experience in water management whatsoever.

Ron Bloom
Car Czar
Auto Union worker. Anti business & anti nuclear. Has worked hard to force US auto makers out of business. Sits on the Board of Chrysler which is now Auto Union owned. How did this happen?

Dennis Ross
Central Region Czar
Believes US policy has caused Mid East wars. Obama apologist to the world. Anti gun and completely pro abortion.

Lynn Rosenthal
Domestic Violence Czar
Director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. Vicious anti male feminist. Supported male castration. Imagine?

Gil Kerlikowske
Drug Czar
Devoted lobbyist for every restrictive gun law proposal, Former Chief of Police in Liberal Seattle. Believes no American should own a firearm. Supports legalization of all drugs

Paul Volcker
E conomic Czar
Head of Fed Reserve under Jimmy Carter when US economy nearly failed. Obama appointed head of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board which engineered the Obama economic disaster to US economy. Member of anti business “Progressive Policy” organization

Carol Brower
Energy and Environment Czar
Political Radical Former head of EPA - known for anti-business activism. Strong anti-gun ownership.

Joshua DuBois
Faith Based Czar
Political Black activist-Degree in Black Nationalism. Anti gun ownership lobbyist.

Cameron Davis
Great Lakes Czar
Chicago radical anti business environmentalist. Blames George Bush for “Poisoning the water that minorities have to drink.” No experience or training in water management. Former ACORN Board member (what does that tell us?)

Van Jones
Green Jobs Czar
(since resigned).. Black activist Member of American communist Party and San Francisco Communist Party who said Geo Bush caused the 911 attack and wanted Bush investigated by the World Court for war crimes. Black activist with strong anti-white views.

Daniel Fried
Guantanamo Closure Czar
Human Rights activist for Foreign Terrorists. Believes America has caused the war on terrorism. Believes terrorists have rights above and beyond Americans.

Nancy-Ann DeParle.
Health Czar
Former head of Medicare / Medicaid. Strong Health Care Rationing proponent. She is married to a reporter for The New York Times.

Vivek Kundra
Information Czar
Born in New Delhi, India. Controls all public information, including labels and news releases. Monitors all private Internet emails. (hello?)

Todd Stern
International Climate Czar
Anti business former White House chief of Staff- Strong supportrer of the Kyoto Accord. Pushing hard for Cap and Trade. Blames US business for Global warming. Anti- US business prosperity.

Dennis Blair
Intelligence Czar
Ret Navy. Stopped US guided missile program as “provocative”. Chair of ultra liberal “Council on Foreign Relations” which blames American organizations for regional wars.

George Mitchell
Mideast Peace Czar
Fmr. Sen from Maine Left wing radical. Has said Israel should be split up into “2 or 3 “ smaller more manageable plots”. (God forbid) A true Anti-nuclear anti-gun & pro homosexual "special rights" advocate

Kenneth Feinberg
Pay Czar
Chief of Staff to TED KENNEDY. Lawyer who got rich off the 911 victims payoffs. (horribly true)

Cass Sunstein
Regulatory Czar
Liberal activist judge believes free speech needs to be limited for the “common good”. Essentially against 1st amendment. Rules against personal freedoms many times –like private gun ownership and right to free speech.

John Holdren
Science Czar
Fierce ideological environmentalist, Sierra Club, Anti business activist. Claims US business has caused world poverty. No Science training.

Earl Devaney
Stimulus Accountability Czar
Spent career trying to take guns away from American citizens. Believes in Open Borders to Mexico . Author of statement blaming US gun stores for drug war in Mexico .

J. Scott Gration
Sudan Czar
Native of Democratic Republic of Congo. Believes US does little to help Third World countries. Council of foreign relations, asking for higher US taxes to support United Nations

Herb Allison
TARP Czar
Fannie May CEO responsible for the US recession by using real estate mortgages to back up the US stock market. Caused millions of people to lose their life savings.

John Brennan
Terrorism Czar
Anti CIA activist. No training in diplomatic or gov. affairs. Believes Open Borders to Mexico and a dialog with terrorists and has suggested Obama disband US military

Aneesh Chopra
Technology Czar
No Technology training. Worked for the Advisory Board Company, a health care think tank for hospitals. Anti doctor activist. Supports Obama Health care Rationing and salaried doctors working exclusively for the Gov. health care plan

Adolfo Carrion Jr..
Urban Affairs Czar
Puerto Rican born Anti American activist and leftist group member in Latin America . Millionaire “slum lord” of the Bronx , NY. Owns many lavish homes and condos which he got from “sweetheart” deals with labor unions. Wants higher taxes on middle class to pay for minority housing and health care

Ashton Carter
Weapons Czar
Leftist. Wants all private weapons in US destroyed. Supports UN ban on firearms ownership in America.. No Other “policy”

Gary Samore
WMD Policy Czar
Former US Communist. Wants US to destroy all WMD unilaterally as a show of good faith. Has no other “policy”.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the USA is using the term Czar considering what it actually means?
Tsar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chambers dictionary

tsar, czar or tzar noun 1 historical the title of the former emperors of Russia. 2 a despot or tyrant. tsardom noun. tsarism noun. tsarist noun, adj.
ETYMOLOGY: 16c: Russian, from Latin Caesar the family name of the earliest Roman emperors.

---

Yes it is a misnomer of sorts. Given that they are given marching orders from the President ;but keeping in the spirit of the Russian model ;the President's flunkies should really be called 'Commissars'.

Quote:

---

A political commissar was a high-ranking functionary at a military headquarters who held coequal rank and authority with the military commander of the unit. Political commissars were established to control the military forces by the Communist party. No military order might be issued which did not have the prior approval of both the commander and the commissar.

---

Commissar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The President's purpose in using these individuals is to bypass the Constitutional authority of Congressional oversight. They are not subject to the same"advise and consent" provisions that cabinet officers are subject to and the President can indeed withhold their testimony from relevant Congressional committees if he so chooses.

Of course personal envoys and advisors have been used many times in our history . But ,as is typical of this President ,he uses the precedence to a point of distortion... a clear abuse of power. edited below

I dispute the characterization of Paul Volcker . He was instrumental with the Reagan economic team in ending the vicious stagflation that was prevelent in the 1970s. It was Paul Volcker who fixed Jimmy Carter’s mess.

Here's where galveston gets his material, word for word, copy/paste: Nobama Network - Dedicated to Unity Democrats, Republicans, Independents who want to save our country from power drunk Democrats on a spending spree
What a nasty little website.

What part of the content do you dispute ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Curlyben

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the USA is using the term Czar considering what it actually means ??
Tsar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

It strikes me odd that Ronnie "raygun" had the first US czar. Maybe shows his true colors.

Or was it "tricky d!ck"

That is not quite correct... not by a long shot. Reagan had one and was hardly the 1st .

Roosevelt had 12 positions he designated czars and 19 people filled those positions .

Truman had 6 ,Ike 1,LBJ 3,Nixon 3,Ford 1,Carter 2,Reagan 1,GHW Bush 2,Clintoon 7 .

I admit I have to retract my original comments about the number of appointments being unprecedented .
GW Bush also had too many appointees designated as "czars "(35) .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Richard Holbrooke
Afghanistan Czar
Ultra liberal anti gun former Gov. Of New Mexico. Pro Abortion and legal drug use. Dissolve the 2nd Amendment

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

what part of the content do you dispute ?

---

Hello tom and gal:

The very first one. It's just flat out WRONG. Doesn't bode well for the rest, does it?

excon

Did not have time to do the research on all the points. I contended the points about Volcker but did not search all them.
Given that Richard Holbrooke was never Governor of NM your point is well taken.

Tom, I stand corrected, I was relying on my memory (which may be a little cloudy from dodging one Czar back in the day). That's when I first recalled the hearing the term. "Drug Czar"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by parttime

That's when I first recalled the hearing the term. "Drug Czar"

---

Hello part:

It IS funny that the right wing makes a big deal out of Obama's czars. But, if they'da won the election, they could have put the torture fascist in, the spy fascist, the tax cut fascist...

But, they didn't win. They lost. So, all they can do is snivel...

excon

But they do it so well excon.

Repeat after me... it's Bush's fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

repeat after me ......it's Bush's fault.

---

repeat after me... I only whine when liberals do something I don't like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

repeat after me ......it's Bush's fault.

---

That's not quite correct. I place the blame on reagan, that was the start of the downward spiral

Yeah 20 years of prosperity and winning the Cold War that had been waged for 40 + years

What a slacker!

Tom, I don't know where your from, I remember in the 80's unemployment averaged a point or two less than it is now, and as for winning the war with russia, would'a happen if I had been in charge, turn over there ever few generations.

Part ,
A year before Reagan the Russians marched into Afghanistan ;they supported proxy wars in Africa ,Central American and Latin America.

It was the prospect of having to match Reagan's SDI funding (what you deride as "raygun" ) that broke the back of the Soviets.

BTW that raygun evolved into the Patriot missile system successfully used in the Gulf War and the anti-missile systems currently in development that will be the best defense against rogue regimes like North Korea with nukes.


NK

You conveniently forget the many times I was critical of the Repubilicans in the last decade..

Repeat after me... I ankle bite without providing any context or
substance to a debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello part:

the tax cut fascist....


excon

---

Now, what would be wrong with that??
Let those that work keep more of their money? Hmmmmm... sounds like a great idea :D



G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Now, what would be wrong with that???

---

Hello in:

If we were starting from scratch, it's a great idea. Be we owe zillions, and it's going to be paid one way or another. Take your pick: high taxes till we get it paid, or a debasement of the currency?

The problem isn't what's happening NOW. It's what happened... Tom talks about the prosperity Reagan created, but he created it out of whole cloth because he borrowed zillions... So did your buddy, George W. Bush.

Bummer... You don't mind borrowing for your wars, but it has to be paid back. No, we're not going to end unemployment benefits even though most of you, like the twinch Senator from Arizona, Kyle who thinks that those benefits keep the lazy bastards at home and not out looking for work. Starving would be the incentive you'd employ...

excon

Most communities are willing and able to take care of their most needy people.

When the feds do it, it's like carrying water in a very leaky bucket.

Anyway, what does that have to do with the OP?

Even if you find 20% error in the post, that still leaves 80%revolutionaries whose goal is the destruction of our constiltutional rights.

At this very time, there is a move to call a law passed that hasn't even been voted on.

Never mind that the Constitution is very clear that there must be a vote and every name must be recorded as to how that representative voted.

If allowed to stand, this kind of "representation" would shred the Constitution completely.

Hello gal:

You might be on to something... I heard about some unconstitutional legal trickery the Dems were planning to use to "ram" health care through. But, he never did explain the process. I guess his listeners take his word for it... Then tom mentions it too, but I still don't see the process which is unconstitutional. Just his statement... Now, you're saying it's so.

Can you explain the unconstitutional process?? Or, are you, like tom and Hannity, just taking somebody else's word, and repeating it for us?

excon

This is being called the 'Slaughter solution';
Named for House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter, the New York Democrat who came up with the idea.

The Dems will attempt to pass health care through the House by approving the Senate bill without voting on it. The rules committee is concocting a stunt that would allow them to write language into the reconciliation bill that would "deem the Senate bill passed " without the House actually taking a roll call vote on the Senate measure... a self-executing rule.
This will give political cover to the Reps who will have to face angry constituents when Obamacare becomes law. They can claim to never actually voting on the bill that is passed.

A neat trick ;but it is unconstitutional according to Article 1
Sec 7 paragraphs 1 and 2

Quote:

---

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law

---

The only way the Senate bill can be construed as originating in the House would be for a new conference committee bill being passed.Passing it inside a reconciliation measure doesn't pass constitutional muster.
And certainly passing the Senate version without a roll call vote is a blatant violation. The language in the article leaves no ambiguity at all . A bill is not passed unless the votes of all the members is recorded... and a bill is not eligible to be signed into law unless it is passed by both Houses properly.

The President has called on Congress to send a health care bill to his desk to sign with "an up or down" vote. Apparently the
House of Reps can't get it done legitimately ;so they invent new parlimentarian tricks to get around it . But I am sure there will be court challenges filed immediately after it is attempted .

Here is another reason why the slaughter option is unconstitutional

The Constitution reads

Quote:

---

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him…

---

article 1 sec7 clause 3

There is a principle called non delegation which judicially did in the attempt to get a line item veto.The principle says in this case that the House has a duty to send a bill for the President to sign that is voted on by BOTH houses of Congress as described in clause 2 .

To package the Senate bill into the reconciliation bill and deem it passed skirts the fundamentals of the non delegation principle.

Further , if the House votes on two bills at once, the President must approve that vote “before the same shall take effect,” because the vote at least partially requires the Senate's concurrence. The President cannot pick which part of the House vote to approve, and the House vote cannot have any effect unless the President approves it. Example ,the Senate has the "Nebraska compromise" aka the 'cornhusker kickback'tucked in the bill and surely the reconciliation bill will rescind it . The President will have a bill in front of him that both includes and excludes the Nebraska compromise. The same could be said for any aspect of the reconciliation bill. Why would you need a reconciliation bill if not to amend the Senate bill ? The President will be in a position where he both signs a bill and it's amendments concurrently .

The Heritage guide to the Constitution explains that Madison foresaw the day when Pelosi's of the world would attempt such a stunt.
The Heritage guide to the Constitution - Google Books
(page 92)

But let's hear it from the judge.
Michael W. McConnell: The House Health-Care Vote and the Constitution - WSJ.com

Hello again, tom:

That should thrill you. It'll be EASY to overturn.

excon

Law by fiat. If the Dems want a Constitutional crisis then continue along this path. I know for a fact that the challenges are already being drafted .

The irony of this ,as Michael McConnell says,is that when this issue last came up over the line-item veto in Clinton v. City of New York (1998),Pelosi and Slaughter both filed an amicus against the very thing she will be attempting .Pelosi was against the Slaughter solution before she was for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Pelosi was against the Slaughter solution before she was for it.

---

Wasn't Slaughter herself a part of that Amicus?

Those who use the "Slaughter solution" will be one-upping Lurch. They'll tell their constituents they were both for and against it simultaneously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Law by fiat. If the Dems want a Constitutional crisis then continue along this path. I know for a fact that the challenges are already being drafted .

---

Hello again, tom:

Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute (NOT a liberal institution), writes, "... I can’t recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now from congressional Republicans and their acolytes at the Wall Street Journal, and on blogs, talk radio, and cable news. It reached a ridiculous level of misinformation and disinformation over the use of reconciliation, and now threatens to top that level over the projected use of a self-executing rule by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of “deem and pass.” That strategy, then decried by the House Democrats who are now using it, and now being called unconstitutional by WSJ editorialists, was defended by House Republicans in court (and upheld). Dreier used it for a $40 billion deficit reduction package so that his fellow GOPers could avoid an embarrassing vote on immigration... "

He says it all. No?

excon

Hmm, reduce the deficit (a budget matter) - 2000 pages of health care takeover mandating every American purchase insurance against the clear wishes of the people... I can't see any difference can you?

Norm Ornstein wrote much of McCain-Feingold so perhaps he is familiar with unconstitutional legislation.

His body of work since straddles the efforts for nonpartisan/bipartisanship at both 'AEI ',the 'Future of American Democracy Foundation ,and 'Why Tuesday'? Dedicated to election reforms .Not exactly your run of the mill Conservative.

But that's only backround.

If you are going the route of "the Republcans did it" I say yes they have .

I'll say it again. It is unconstitutional and in fact in the Clinton V NYC case SCOTUS made it clear that the language of the bill that makes it to the President's desk has to be identical from both houses of
Congress. To do what they want to do constitutionally they need to vote and record a vote on the
Senate bill ;and then both houses have to approve a follow-up reconcilliation bill. Deem and pass is plainly unconstitutional. The house and the senate must pass the same bill for it to become law. That is in our Constitution, plain as day.

Perhaps Ornstein's taking his own political biases into account in his critique of the Republican opposition ?

What Failure Would Cost the Democrats
(pubished in the liberal 'New Republic')


YouTube - Schoolhouse Rock- How a Bill Becomes a Law

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello in:

If we were starting from scratch, it's a great idea. Be we owe zillions, and it's going to be paid one way or another. Take your pick: high taxes till we get it paid, or a debasement of the currency?

The problem isn't what's happening NOW. It's what happened... Tom talks about the prosperity Reagan created, but he created it out of whole cloth because he borrowed zillions.... So did your buddy, George W. Bush.

Bummer.... You don't mind borrowing for your wars, but it has to be paid back. No, we're not going to end unemployment benefits even though most of you, like the twinch Senator from Arizona, Kyle who thinks that those benefits keep the lazy bastards at home and not out looking for work. Starving would be the incentive you'd employ....

excon

---

Ever hear of the Laffer curve?

The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future | The Heritage Foundation

Basically raising taxes, raises revenues by collecting more cents per dollar, but this is more than offset by the negative economic impact of inhibiting or reducing economic growth overall.

The average person lives with the economic reality of a budget. One side is income and the other is expenses. Most of us try to keep that even and some, not enough, try to save.

Our government also has an income: tax revenue which is directly related to economic growth. No economic growth, no increase in tax revenue. A bigger slice of a shrinking pie does not mean it is actually bigger than a smaller piece of a larger pie. Show me where raising taxes causes economic growth??

Our government also has a major spending problem. Like a household budget, whether you make $ 40,000 or $ 400,000 if you spend more than your income, you are going into debt. The problem with the politicians is that they don't care or are ignorant of these simple economic realities. They can make promises to the sheeple, while it is the taxpayors that foot the bill. Worse yet, they use taxpayor dollars for their own political gains.

The other problem is that 50% of taxes are paid for by the 50% of the "wealthiest," while only 3% of taxes are paid for by the 50% that are not "wealthy." So those who don't pay into the system, don't really have any "skin" in the game. So there is no thought that, if congress spends and spends, I'm responsible for paying for it.

G&P