120 Comments

1. Pastorius:

Roger Simon asks: “Are others as extreme as Mr. Jones? Who knows?”

Pastorius comment: We do know the answer to that question, Mr. Simon. The answer is an emphatic yes.

http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2009/09/david-horowitz-on-real-president-obama.html

Sep 5, 2009 - 1:59 pm 2. David Thomson:

I am somewhat taken aback that Van Jones has yet to tender his resignation. It would be foolish for Obama to allow him to still be employed by Tuesday morning. Is the president starting to become unglued? Obama’s present predicament could be the first major crisis of his entire adult life. He may not be able to handle it when things start going south. The satirical website Onion.com has done a piece on Obama. It makes fun of the possibility that he might lose his sanity. I actually think this spoof could soon become reality:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/white_house_reveals_obama_is

Sep 5, 2009 - 2:25 pm 3. Phineas:

I’m sympathetic to what you’re saying, Roger, but I also have a couple of points of disagreement.

With Clinton, I think lying under oath was impeachable, especially as it was over so minor a matter as sex. What may be excusable for Joe in Peoria is unacceptable for the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, who swears to protect and defend the Constitution – he should be held to a higher standard. Lying to serve the higher interests of the nation is one thing, and even then we should be very suspicious. Lying under oath to cover up private peccadilloes is another thing altogether.

Regarding the practice of appointing special assistants, it’s an old and, I think, necessary one in the Executive Branch. Sometimes a president needs someone to coordinate policy who isn’t trapped by the bureaucracy (as cabinet secretaries can be) and who can “knock heads” when needed. FDR had Harry Hopkins and at least a couple of others whose names I forget, but they were crucial to his administration.

The problem comes, as you allude, when the president uses the special adviser (”czar”) to avoid constitutional norms and slip free from congressional oversight. I’m not sure if Nixon was the first to do this, but Obama, following his “Chicago instincts,” has taken the practice and exploited it to the hilt. The czars not only have the power to coordinate policy, but control over tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars, all without congressional oversight. Under Obama, the “czar system” now represents a threat to constitutional government, but not yet one that merits impeachment.

It does however bear close watching and, probably, statutory reform when the Republicans regain control of Congress. (I can’t expect the Democrats ever will when they hold the White House, barring a crisis.)

Sep 5, 2009 - 2:29 pm 4. David Thomson:

“FDR had Harry Hopkins and at least a couple of others whose names I forget, but they were crucial to his administration.”

Harry Hopkins and these other “special assistants” did enormous damage to America’s economy—and the Constitutional rights of its citizens. FDR was trying to impose a quasi-Fascist regime. He even went so far as to try controlling the U.S. Supreme Court. Are you sure you wish to continue with this line of argumentation?

So-called special assistants might be justified during wartime. They are, however, to be shunned in a time of peace. Such power granted to these individuals is very dangerous. I keep thinking, for instance, of the example of General Leslie Groves who commanded the Manhattan Project. He was provided with near dictatorial powers and even unilaterally risked the lives of citizens of New Mexico’s citizens to test the newly developed atomic bomb—and I am glad that he did so. Nonetheless, This sort of behavior must be prohibited except for extraordinary threats to our country’s very existence.

Sep 5, 2009 - 3:06 pm 5. Charlie (Colorado):

Harry Hopkins and these other “special assistants” did enormous damage to America’s economy—and the Constitutional rights of its citizens. FDR was trying to impose a quasi-Fascist regime. He even went so far as to try controlling the U.S. Supreme Court. Are you sure you wish to continue with this line of argumentation?

What line of argumentation, David? That with precedents going back 75 years it would be a little hard to suggest now that having “czars” is an impeachable offense?

In any case, Roger, I think I agree with Phineas: it would be pretty damn difficult, in the face of this much precedent, to make the case for this being a “high crime and misdemeanor.”

Sep 5, 2009 - 3:31 pm 6. Pastorius:

cont.
I am a case in point. Ever since April of 2002, when I realized the BBC ,and the British CNN was charging Israel with the war crime of slaughtering 1000’s of Palestinians and burying them in mass graves in what they called the “Jenin Massacre”, I have been writing on the subject of anti-Semitism.

One can not get me to shut up. And, this is particularly strange, because I am not a Jewish person. I am a Christian who sees that anti-Semitism is a barometer of the relative sanity of a culture.

A culture which promotes anti-Semitism is a dangerous culture and thus, I believe we have dangerous times ahead of us. Actually, we’re already seeing the truth of that become manifest.

Van Jones has provided nothing of the story of his conversion, and he certainly does not renounce his former beliefs or cohorts.

He is not a converted Black Nationalist. He is a Black Nationalist, and he is Obama’s trusted advisor.

If we had a President appointing David Duke to his White Staff, we would appropriately believe that he was a dangerous President.

The same is true of Barack Obama.

Sep 5, 2009 - 3:34 pm 7. Pastorius:

Testing – 1, 2

Sep 5, 2009 - 3:34 pm 8. Pastorius:

My comment #6 makes no sense, without the context provided by the first comment, which I have attempted to post five times so far.

Sorry about the trouble. It looks like I’m off topic, but I just can’t get my comment to post.

Sep 5, 2009 - 3:37 pm 9. Steve:

At the very least it should be possible to find out who the czars are and investigate their backgrounds. I would be surprised if Van Jones is the only radical in the lot. It may be difficult to impeach Obama over this but evidence that convinces the public he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing will hurt his chances at enacting legislation and getting reelected.

Sep 5, 2009 - 3:47 pm 10. David Thomson:

“What line of argumentation, David? That with precedents going back 75 years it would be a little hard to suggest now that having “czars” is an impeachable offense?”

I never said it was impeachable—but it should never become the norm. The option should be employed only in extraordinary circumstances. How many “czars” have been appointed by Barack Obama? I have literally lost count. This is not the sign of a healthy democracy. No, it is too remindful of a fascist dictatorship. Even Democrat Senator Robert Byrd is greatly concerned. Barack Obama adheres to the quasi-Marxist ideology of Saul Alinsky. He has every intention to become our benevolent dictator presumably for our own good. Also, I might add that roughly 75 years ago is when the Progressives were running wild. They explicitly had contempt for the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution.

Sep 5, 2009 - 3:49 pm 11. Professor Guvinoff:

I’m no constitutional scholar, but I think impeachment proceedings are a prerogative of congress, so this is essentially out of the question right now, whatever the severity of the offense. It only increases the desirability and the urgency of a determinative congressional shift in 2010.

I’m afraid the only defense mechanism we have at this time against the swarm of czars is the sheer ineptitude of the white house: Normally, anyone serving the president signs a provisional letter of resignation first, just in case…

Are they amateurish enough to have skipped that step? If they serially maneuvered around the FBI baground checks and the security service’s objections, who’s to say they did not manage an end-run around common sense in the bargain? The present illumination of Van Jones (Good work Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin and others) is probably making it hard for the president to sleep at night. Throw Jones under the bus, and you look bad, do not throw Jones under the bus, and you look even worse. If a hot head like Van Jones did not sign a provisional letter of resignation, and digs his heels, the process might get interesting, all by itself.

Even more interesting is the employment prospects of the other other czars who would also have easily failed a FBI check, not to mention the congressional approval that would have been required for legitimate cabinet members. I would not be too surprised if more than half of the czars are already wondering whether their names is written somewhere on the underside of the bus.

Impeachment may come later, but there are more practical tools in the short term. God bless the first amendment, and those who know how to use it!

Sep 5, 2009 - 4:21 pm 12. Terrye:

I think it is a matter of degree. Since the days of FDR there have been czars, but never so many as now. Bush did not have this many.

Sep 5, 2009 - 4:52 pm 13. joanbob:

So these people don’t have to undergo FBI background checks?

Sep 5, 2009 - 5:03 pm 14. Professor Guvinoff:

@ 13. Joanbob

Good question!

Everyone working for the white house should go through a very rigorous background check, by the FBI, for the secret service. The only way this requirement could be waived is by someone very high up (Not sure how high, but president and chief of state is probably high enough)

Remember, the first thing Obama did when he came into the WH was to negociate for the privilege to use his blackberry, which makes a joke of all the communication security precautions a POTUS would want. I have no idea how in the world they resolved this gaping security hole, but he he complained in public that he had to fight for over a week to keep his blackberry. After that, we can only wonder how many other liberties he took with other serious requirements.

In his first week, the man managed to alienate the secret service, 9 months later, he demoralized the CIA! How much longer until he alienates the whole electorate?

Sep 5, 2009 - 5:21 pm 15. Professor Guvinoff:

Whoops, my proofreader tells me that I should have said “chief of staff”, not “chief of state”. This guy is merciless!

Sep 5, 2009 - 5:23 pm 16. myna:

Citizens should keep the pressure to make Obama a lame duck president for the next 4 years and keep his cronies away from stealing the 787Billion TARP money and keep his czars away in installing a fascist regime that would eventually destroy this country.

Sep 5, 2009 - 6:59 pm 17. James:

Hi Roger,

Its all very complicated, but I would point out one small quibble.

Clinton was prosecuted for violating a law which said that: “any person who is accused of sexual harassment must reveal under oath all of his sexual partners”

You might think that is a terrible law. But it was signed into law by none other than Bill Clinton.

I think that increases the reason why he should have been impeached. But you may disagree.

James

Sep 5, 2009 - 8:35 pm 18. Phineas:

Honestly David (#4), I think you’re taking too narrow a view of the constitutional prerogatives of the Executive and, frankly, getting hysterical. Have some chamomile tea and breathe deeply.

Our government is in many ways informal and flexible, and that’s been one of its strengths. But it also calls for restraint on the part of all involved, in order not to abuse that informal flexibility. Obama has clearly gone too far, but the solution is statutory restraint, not impeachment.

Sep 5, 2009 - 11:04 pm 19. Fen:

“With Clinton, I think lying under oath was impeachable, especially as it was over so minor a matter as sex”

Yah, lets nip that real quick – it wasn’t about sex, it was about the violation of a citizens rights. Under the 1994 Crime Bill, the plantiff has a right to any and all information that establishes a pattern of sexual predatory behavior in the workplace on the part of the defendant. What that means to you is: if you get sued for sexual discrimination or harassment, and you’re boffing your intern, the accuser has a right of discovery. She has a right to interview your girlfriend-worker to determine if she was also coerced to “earn” her job. If you perjure yourself under oath, suborn others to perjure themselves, or obstruct justice.. you are denying her civil rights.

You can claim the whole mess doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment, but lets not pretend it was “just about sex”.

Sep 5, 2009 - 11:48 pm 20. California Dreamer:

And let us not forget that whether the intern was consenting or coerced is irrelevant as she was an employee with a dramatically different, lower status in the organization so by definition (ref: Barbara Boxer) this was “harassment”. California employers get reminded of this in their annual, government-mandated training (ref: Barbara Boxer). If anyone forgets this they can, yes ma’am, ref: Barbara Boxer.

Sep 6, 2009 - 12:27 am 21. Pajamas Media » Is Obama’s ‘Czar System’ Grounds For Impeachment?:

[...] Read the entire piece here. [...]

Sep 6, 2009 - 1:34 am 22. Terry Gain:

One of the reasons America has descended into the hell of the Obama Presidency is the naive view that lying under oath is not serious enough to warrant impeachment.

Sep 6, 2009 - 1:55 am 23. ambisinistral:

The Van Jones resignation might be a more damaging hit on Obama than meets the eye.

Just about a week ago Holder announced reopening the CIA investigations. Regardless of what an FBI agent may think of the CIA, I imagine they can put two and two together and figure the same fate likely awaits them under the politics of somebody like Johnson.

They surely did security checks and have information about who works in the White House. They also now know there are other avenues for leaks. I think this might get very ugly.

Sep 6, 2009 - 2:14 am 24. Delia:

It’s definitely time for the non-vetted 0bama and gang to have some ‘impeachable moments’.

“You’re FIRED!”

Sep 6, 2009 - 2:47 am 25. patmanshardt.blogspot.com:

Of course there are FBI checks. I’ve had to go through FBI checks just to attend some Washington cocktail parties.

Sep 6, 2009 - 3:05 am 26. Cindy Sue Causey:

Knock heads or not, those tsars are still accountable to the taxpayers who are their employers..

Or wait, no, jumping the gun there.. This brings to Mind yet again to wonder = So who IS actually paying all these unvetted folks to basically puppet string our country..???

Sep 6, 2009 - 3:07 am 27. Brian Richard Allen:

Mr Simon might be advised to employ a minute or two of his time to have a look at just what the treasonous, recidivist, lying, looting, thieving, mass-murdering co-serial-rapist Cli’ton was up to when his gang slipped a Lewinsky into the mix and distracted us long enough for Gorelick and Berger and Reno and the rest of the activist “Democrats” who own, operate and control the machinery of the feral gummint to pull the series of swifties that got the Cli’tons off the hook. And saw to it that we were delivered September 11 2001’s bloody atrocities.

And then he might reflect on the Lewinsky called Anthony Von Jones, who is distracting us from the reality. That the unmistakeably National Socialistic Herr Von Jones and Frau and Herr B Hussayn bin B Hussayn bin Hussayn 0zero are ideological triplets.

Sep 6, 2009 - 3:27 am 28. John "birther" Samford:

Impeachment is whatever the House of Representatives say it is. Impeachment is a political act, not a criminal one. Clinton was impeached because he was a lying SOB, not because he was playing hide the cigar with some barely legal bimbo.
Clinton regularly broke promises he made to politicians. He would promise them something for their vote, then blow them off after they voted. The Perjury was just an excuse.
Remember ALL those Representatives that voted to impeach him were liars themselves. Politicians lie to the voters, but they don’t like it when other politicians lie to them. That is a major No-No.
The only thing that keeps the system running is “I’ll vote for your bill if you vote for mine”.
Clinton violated that all the time. So when the people he screwed over had a chance to stick it in him, they did.
Besides, ALL Congress has to do is pass a motion demanding the Usurper produce a valid birth certificate that will pass muster with a team of Forensic Document Examiners. He can’t do that, which will mean he is not POTUS. No need to impeach him.
Biden steps in, and Congress has to re-do all the legislation the Usurper signed.
I like Joe as President. Joe is a liberal, but he is an American Liberal, not some Marxist stooge with a plan to destroy America.

Sep 6, 2009 - 3:28 am 29. RE:

I don’t beleive the czar abuse merits impeachment in and of itself, but it does contribute significantly to the sentiment that Obama needs to get tossed out based on incompetence and malice towards all thing American. He is harmful to America.

The ‘One Big Awful Mistake, America!’ acronym seems more fitting with each passing day.

Regardless, all the ‘czars’ need to go. Let’s restore some fidelity to our Constitution.

Sep 6, 2009 - 4:18 am 30. Ed Wallis:

OK, so Van Jones resigned.

NOW, whoever recommended and approved him has to go too.

#13 had a good question. Here’s another good analysis of the “situation” with more:

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/04/the-real-van-jones-scandal-why

• What did the Obama White House know about Van Jones and when did they know it?

• Who on the White House staff cleared Van Jones?

• What was that person’s connection to Van Jones or Mr. Jones’s political sponsor?

• Who, exactly, was Mr. Jones’ sponsor for this job? How much money did he/she contribute to the Obama campaign?

• Did the Secret Service notify anyone on the White House staff — or the President or First Lady or Vice President Biden — that Mr. Jones had an arrest record on file with police in two cities?

• Did the Secret Service protest any of this, objecting to Mr. Jones’ clearance?

• If the Secret Service did object, who overruled them? The President? The Chief of Staff? Someone else?

• If the answer to this last question is yes, and the Secret Service was overruled by the President or someone else, why did this happen?

Sep 6, 2009 - 4:36 am 31. Mie:

The reason lying about sex was impeachable was that it was WITH AN INTERN.
It was abuse of position, sexual harassment by definition and an offense that would have anyone in the country immediately walked to the door. My employer does not care who I sleep with if I keep it outside the workplace.

Sep 6, 2009 - 4:44 am 32. Jack’s Newswatch » Blog Archive » Grounds for impeachment? (1):

[...] [More] Related: [...]

Sep 6, 2009 - 5:18 am 33. canuck:

Impeachment no, but the legislative branch needs to establish some rules and tie funding of any contribution to the executive branch to specific funding…or defunding.

While establishing the rules, “volunteer” czars (funded by Soros or Wall Street or whomever) need to be included under any legislative oversight.

Sep 6, 2009 - 5:34 am 34. e:

I’m gonna have to disagree with you Roger. Appointing Czars isn’t an impeachable thing. Congress or the SCOTUS should call him where it becomes unconstitutional or directly conflicts with law. But just because its legal doesn’t make it good or right.

Sep 6, 2009 - 6:10 am 35. wildman:

No, the congress wont do a thing. The czars provide cover for the spineless congress just as the courts have provided the same for years.

Sep 6, 2009 - 6:22 am 36. Morry Rotenberg:

#30 Your list of questions need to be asked and answered but will never be asked by the totally biased “third estate.” They have and will continue to protect their man. And if anyone asks those questions, they will be accused of being a racist in our allegedly post racial society.
It matters not that our president my be the most hypocritical man ever to have been elected to that office as evidenced by just this one example that applies in the context of our current discussion:
“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
(from John Stossel’s 20/20
Meet the New Boss; Same as the Old Boss
07/30/2009 12:19 PM)

Sep 6, 2009 - 6:46 am 37. The Cranky Parkinsonian:

Did you impeach Bush for HIS czars? His daddy for HIS czars? Reagan for HIS czars? Nixon for HIS czars?

Nope.

Sep 6, 2009 - 6:51 am 38. waterrat:

I thought the B.J. Clinton was impeached for Perjury and Suborning perjury, not being serviced by an intern. You have been quoting democrat talking points.

Sep 6, 2009 - 7:15 am 39. DoctorT:

As for whether or not others are “as radical as Van Jones?”, there has been much discussion on radio about these Czars , and from what I hear, some of them are. But, the issue of czars is, I believe, only one little piece of what is going on with this administration.

I believe the Democratic Party, “lead?” by President Barack Obama, is truly trying to remake America. Czars, the creation of “a civilian military force, with training equal to or better than our military”, the redistribution of wealth policies, the wholesale takeover of industries that this administration appears determined to accomplish at all costs, and the demonization of anyone who speaks out against these policies suggest we are heading down a path of Fascism or Communism. The press appears to have been suborned or subjugated by this administration as they appear adverse to discuss these issues.

This Administration I believe is also “dividing and conquering” this country in order to accomplish these goals and that is not in the interest of our society.

1. During the primaries the Obama cadre demonized anyone who ran a business or made more than 250,000 dollars per year as a means of getting elected.

2. I believe he tried to use the Unions to help run the auto companies into the ground with the intent of taking them over, possibly by promising the Unions part ownership in the companies, which is hardly justifiable under our “free market syatem”.

3. This administration is trying to divide physicians by promising some of them with higher incomes while simultaneously promising cuts of 20-40% for specialists in Healthcare. The supposed support by organizations such as the AMA, pharmaceutical companies, some insurance companies, and the AARP, do not, I believe sound genuine. And I would hope my colleagues would realize how false such promises sound. Even if he did fulfill any such promises to begin with, and I do not believe he will if he gets contol of healthcare, it would not last long. I myself, a radiologist, do plan on retiring if the government Healthcare takeover comes to fruition. I still remember Reader’s Digest articles about a physician in the Sovet Union when I was a kid, who became a prostitute in addition to being a physician because she could not make enough to live on as a Doctor.

Sep 6, 2009 - 7:17 am 40. BC:

Since Bush and Cheney were not impeached, then logically by that standard, anything short of being caught on camera in act of murdering someone with a knife or gun is not an impeachable offense. Oh wait….Obama is not a Republican, so a different standard applies: in that case, he’ll be impeachable if he’s caught glancing at a girl’s butt for more than 1.2 seconds.

Sep 6, 2009 - 7:25 am 41. Jerry:

Re Morry Rotenberg #34: The comparison of the quote from Senator Obama and the reality of President Obama’s behavior is emblematic of our problematic President. No one who writes for this blog believes that words do not matter, but true far left Communist-Fascists do indeed believe that the end always justifies the means and so such a person can say anything that promotes the current political goal. If the goal changes, then the words can change. Truth is a dead concept to the far left and until we realize that and take it into our hearts there will be no understanding of what the challenges are that we face here.

For those of you who have not slogged through “The Road to Serfdom” by F.A. Hayek, your education will be incomplete in the extreme. It shows how Fascism and Communism are essentially equivalent and how they differ in perspective, but I must say that each paragraph is so packed with insights that I reel each time I sit down to review its contents.

Sep 6, 2009 - 7:32 am 42. katablog.com:

the percentage of men who have lied about sex, many of them under oath, is astronomical.

and the percentage of men and women who have killed someone due to a love triangle is pretty high too – so because everyone does it, let’s not prosecute a criminal act?

As far as impeachment, I would think subverting bankruptcy law by threatening senior creditors into standing behind unions is an impeachable offense.

I would think taking over two auto maker companies (and then watching them export jobs overseas) is impeachable.

I would think handing Brazil $2 billion for oil exploration while refusing to drill here, drill now is an impeachable offense.

Lying to the American people about health control is an impeachable offense.

Heck – tell me how IWon got elected and not prosecuted for running a campaign collection site that allowed anyone under the sun to contribute and hide their contributions!

Sep 6, 2009 - 7:41 am 43. Cybergeezer:

Impeachment; Recall; Whatever gets the attention of these blatant thieves. But do not stop at Obama; There are many in Congress that flaunt their criminal activity, and display their contempt for the laws of our country, which IS impeachable.
The Obama Cartel must be eliminated.

Sep 6, 2009 - 7:43 am 44. cybergeezer:

Ha, ha, ha; I can’t believe, people here, are questioning whether these people Obama is selecting are getting security/background checks;
WHERE IS OBAMA’S SECURITY/BACKGROUND CHECK?
The White House (Obama/Emanuel) decide what security checks are to be applied to anyone they desire.
Wake the f**k up!

Sep 6, 2009 - 7:54 am 45. ~Paules:

I’m with Roger where the czars are concerned. It’s a deliberate attempt by Obama to rule by executive fiat. Can the maneuver be construed as an impeachable offense? That depends on two factors:

1. Will congressmen have the gumption to protect their personal prerogatives? Yes. Look for someone like Harry Byrd to lead bi-partisan opposition.

2. Will the Republicans have sufficient strength to pull off an impeachment? No. Even a worst case scenario for Democrats in 2010 will not result in the necessary math.

What I do see is a prolonged constitutional crisis should Obama attempt to usurp congressional authority. The result will be civil disorder and economic chaos. The next question is entirely speculative.

3. Will Obama voluntarily step down when called to do so by constitutional mandates?

Unknown. If yes, we’ll see an orderly restoration of (small “r”) republican rule. If no, anything can happen. Some scenarios too horrible to contemplate.

God save the Republic!

Sep 6, 2009 - 8:04 am 46. Jamie Irons:

Well, it appears that Van Johnson is out.

I know this is a recession, but I wonder what the used czar market is like?

Jamie Irons

Sep 6, 2009 - 8:13 am 47. Jamie Irons:

Sorry, Van Jones…

(Too many czars on the road.)

Jamie Irons

Sep 6, 2009 - 8:17 am 48. Bender:

Let’s get the history right — the conduct that Mr. Clinton engaged in, for which he was disbarred from the practice of law, did not merely consist of “lying about sex,” and it did not merely consist of “lying about sex under oath.” Clinton went far beyond that, no matter how incompetent the Congress was in the impeachment proceedings (especially the Senate under the buffoon Trent Lott).

Rather, Clinton went to far and extreme lengths and used the power of his office to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE, not merely the investigation, but obstructing justice by the DENIAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS to a citizen in litigation. Clinton did everything that he could to destroy a litigant in a law suit, so as to prevent her from ever receiving a fair day in court, much less the justice that she deserved.

Perverting the office of the president to private purposes in this way is a gross violation of the office. And it is a hell of a lot more than merely lying about sex.

Sep 6, 2009 - 8:20 am 49. oldguy:

You can’t impeach Obama until you impeach this congress.

Sep 6, 2009 - 8:33 am 50. Kim:

Thank goodness!!!!! Someone has finaly put to print, that question! I have been voicing this for quite a while. Of course the correct answer is YES YES YES YES YES and Hell YES!!! He and his cohorts are bringing the US to her knees. It is time to take him to the curb, and quickly!!!

Sep 6, 2009 - 8:45 am 51. AmericanMade:

Lets get this party started!

Sep 6, 2009 - 8:51 am 52. Chris:

“Are others as extreme as Mr. Jones? Who knows?”

Who knows?? Yeah, that’s a real stumper. I’m just brainstorming here, but maybe, since ALL of Obama’s associates are extremists, that’s a clue? Or maybe you could, you know, look their names up? On the interwebs? Anyway, good luck!!

Sep 6, 2009 - 9:14 am 53. krakatoa:

How many Czars can you have, who in the *hail is paying for all this. What budget does it come out of, and Congress has to approve all monies right? So what’s up?

Sep 6, 2009 - 9:50 am 54. Insufficiently Sensitive:

If lying about sex were an actionable offense, our courts would be in terminal gridlock.

If lying under oath, to a US Court, is an actionable offense, it’s actionable and should be acted on – severely. Calling it ‘lying about sex’ is a red herring, a diversion. Most diversionary lying about sex doesn’t occur in court, either. However tortured the excuse, lying under oath constitutes severe damage to the justice system that we all depend on.

Cutting an exemption in law for lying to a court about sex is simply a demand for special treatment to celebrity cocksmen. It’s similar to the non-enforcement Tim Geithner and Charles Rangel receive from the IRS for their egregious lying about unreported income, or to the breathtaking slack Teddy Kennedy received from the Massachusetts authorities for his conduct at Chapaquiddick.

Sep 6, 2009 - 9:59 am 55. Grover:

Glenn Beck is right: this country of ours is in serious trouble. I fear for our freedom under Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Soros, especially Soros with the deep pockets. If he were to offer me a million to do something for him *or else) would I turn it down? Only by God’s grace!

Sep 6, 2009 - 10:08 am 56. Michael Smith:

Yes, the czars are a violation of the seperation of powers doctrine and are thus unconstitutional. However, Congress long ago abdicated its position of being soley responsible for the creation of laws in this country. It did this when it granted the Executive Branch the power to issue regulations that have the force of law.

So now OSHA, the EPA, the FDA, the FHA, the DOJ, the USDA, the HUD, the HHS, the DOT, the ED, the DOI — a whole vast list of federal regulatory agencies, go here for a complete list: http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml — this whole collection of Executive Branch agencies has the power to issue regulations that carry the power of law and that completely circumvent the Congress.

It’s ALL unconstitutional.

Sep 6, 2009 - 10:16 am 57. Dred Scott:

Glad Glenn was finally mentioned. They went to take Glenn out but the bus backfired. The harder they come. Another one bites the bus…

Clubber Lang: Hey fool! You ready for another beating? You shoulda never came back!

Sep 6, 2009 - 10:17 am 58. Mike:

the percentage of men who have lied about sex, many of them under oath, is astronomical.>>

Just as many women as men and maybe even more ie about sex. Just think of all women that have faked an orgasm to please their lovers.

However, I agree that Clintons sexual behavior should not have been grounds for impeachment however, Hillary’s action of kissing Arafat’s wife should have prevented her from ever holding any political office in the U.S. on any governmental level.

Sep 6, 2009 - 10:22 am 59. clear mind:

Steve, they probably vetted all of them using wikipedia – the same site that can be scrubbed at-will by anyone choosing to do so.

The process of side-stepping the Congressional oversight should be obvious to all. That’s not the way they do it in Chicago.

Oh, as for firing anyone? What a joke! In his entire adult life Barry has never had personnel responsibility hence doesn’t have a clue as to how to manage people. He’ll wait for someone else to secrete the message and see if it sticks… if that doesn’t work, they can use the Chicago mob techniques.

But, then I forgot. Van-baby is in that elite class of Yale Law grads that fill the White House – must be an easy job for the Yale Law placement folks… hello White House, got any openings? We’ve got 300 grads that can’t find a job elsewhere.

Sep 6, 2009 - 10:45 am 60. pjean:

Remember, this is not just about Van Jones, but rather the bigger picture of loosely-vetted advisers who are appointed by the president and free from congressional oversight.

Bill H.R. 3226 Czar Accountability and Reform Act of 2009 needs press and our support.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill…/111-h3226/ show

Sep 6, 2009 - 10:51 am 61. clear mind:

hey, Krakatoa… it’s paid for out of the WH budget… Check the budget bill and you’ll find that is over $100 million for staf and events inside those hallowed walls… doesn’t cover the cost of travel and Secret Service coverage – which with all of Barry’s travel, he’s stretched the SS personnel beyond reason. Too many extra aircraft needed to move gear to so many places and do site-prep ahead… recently 4 cities in 3 days took most SS agents in the West to cover the publicity tour – agh!

Sep 6, 2009 - 10:51 am 62. Ask Me How I Really Feel:

It is TIME for US to CLEAN HOUSE! This is just the beginning, Obama, Congress…. ALL need to be IMPEACHED!

Sep 6, 2009 - 10:54 am 63. Give'em a GOLD STAR:

pjean comment #60….That is 100% correct! You have hit the socialist nail on the head!

Sep 6, 2009 - 10:58 am 64. Meryl:

Finally.

Now if we can just get some elected “representatives” to care about the Constitution, we might be getting somewhere.

Sep 6, 2009 - 11:01 am 65. AdrianS:

Considering the “bigger picture”, could it be that Van Jones is simply a “whipping boy” for Obama? Recall that Obama is just as radically caustic as Van Jones, Obama as well as Van Jones was NOT vetted, and criticism has been falling especially hard on Obama now that voters realize the “hopy-changy” Obama was really referring to was COMMUNISM.

Question: Is Obama hoping you’ll see Van Jones as taking the fall for Obama? Or, (attention birthers) is Obama hoping you’ll now let off of Obama’s not qualified status?

Check this out:

Attorney Orly Taitz has filed:

Hearing: Motion for Discovery of records showing relevance to eligibility

Location: Federal Court building in Santa Ana, CA

Time/Date: 8:00 AM Pacific Tuesday, September 8th 2009 (THIS COMING TUESDAY!)*

Judge: David O. Carter

*The day Obama is suppose to go before the Kiddie Tribunal and plead for HELP.

The above news of hearing was reported on KFI 640 on September 5th, 2009. She (Orly) claims Obama is a fake and that she has in her possession, what she calls, the original, genuine, certified Barrack Hussein Obama birth certificate from KENYA.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/

Sep 6, 2009 - 11:10 am 66. TQ:

Hasn’t everything done in the US since Hamilton been an end run around the Constitution? The last nail was put into our coffin a long while ago–the czar system is just throwing more dirt onto the grave. The history of the executive branch is, by and large, about assuming extra-Constitutional powers. So sure, it’d be swell to impeach him over this, but you’d just get another President who would assume more power in a different way. The resolution of this problem, of course, lies with getting Congress to neuter the Presidency such that it is returned to it’s rather limited, Constitutionally enumerated powers. Of course, if we were to somehow convince Congress to do that, what’s to stop us form demanding Congress likewise returns to it’s enumerated powers? Pols tend to not give up hold of the levers of power once they have them….

Sep 6, 2009 - 11:13 am 67. John:

It’s not impeachable at this time because there’s been no overt defiance of Congress, in large part because with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge, Congress has made no effort to hit back and make its case for not subverting the vetting process on what basically are cabinet level officials.

What Obama’s done is taken an ill-defined position used in the past by both Democrats (Jimmy Carter’s energy czar James Schlesinger) and Republicans (Ronald Reagan’s drug czar Bill Bennett) in very limted situations and expanded it and staffed it with people to the point that it can reasonably been seen as an attempt to get around the Senate confirmation vetting process. But it’s up to the Senate to make its claim for oversight as part of the powers of the Legislative Branch. I have no expectations that Harry Reid is going to challenge Obama, barring some sudden scandal where one of his czars threatens the Dems’ 2010 midterm hopes. But if there are major changes in Congress after 2010 and the new leaders do call Obama on his attempted end-around on the Senate and then he refuses to abide by the Constitutional checks and balances, then you’re getting closer to impeachment territory.

Sep 6, 2009 - 11:35 am 68. Luke:

Impeachment would be sweet, but not with this Congress. They won’t even slap Charlie Rangel on the wrist for his obvious crimes let alone ever daring to reproach their beloved Leader.

Sep 6, 2009 - 11:38 am 69. arhooley:

Something of tangential interest to me is the salaries of these people. How much were taxpayers shelling out for Jones’s livelihood? And who sets the pay rates?

Sep 6, 2009 - 11:40 am 70. happy1ga:

I guess Jones can go on Dancing with the ex-Czars?

Sep 6, 2009 - 11:55 am 71. Kingston53:

Don’t look for any help from the democrats in keeping the radicals at bay. However, aside from the pure entertainment vaue of being able to apply the lefts favorite attack tactics against them, barak obama, in his arrogance, has handed us the the weapon that will cause his administration to lose the support of the inatentive middle. Next week should be fun as Beck and Rush and Hannity move down the list of progressive nut jobs and expose barack for who he really is.

Sep 6, 2009 - 11:58 am 72. John Marshall:

I recommend that Obama publish on the internet a list of all Czars, their budgets, and their duties. If he does not do so, I recommend that Congress require him to do so. If he does not do so, I recommend that he be impeached for withholding from Congress information vital to its functions.

Sep 6, 2009 - 12:31 pm 73. Poor Citizen:

I agree about Clinton as well. The religious wild eyed right decided to marry the “we just dont like Clinton gang” on that one and decided to drag the american political system down, their cause turned out a failure because it was based on 90% emotion and 10% intellect.

Unfortunately, some of them became neocons five years later and we all know how messed up everything became after that fiasco.

Now I know the word “Czar” is not very popular, but many issues we face might now require a position that is above politics, especially when it comes to things like energy and the environment (and maybe a couple of others). Historically, things like the base closure commissions accomplished good things, unlike politicians. Just something to think about.

Sep 6, 2009 - 12:32 pm 74. Cybergeezer:

Name or show ONE associate/appointee of Barry Soetoro (Obama) that will stand up for the United States as the Republic it is supposed to be………………………..??????????????????? I didn’t think so;
He will NOT appoint anyone of ANY significant intelligence, because HE is AFRAID of anyone of significant intelligence out-performing HIM and getting the attention.
Some people never, EVER, grow up. Truly sad; But inevitable.

Sep 6, 2009 - 12:48 pm 75. Calvin Ball:

Roger, a friendly suggestion: before you put yourself out there on matters constitutional, maybe it would be a good idea to run the piece by Glenn Reynolds. The way Obama uses “czars” may be a political issue, but constitutional is something else entirely.

Sep 6, 2009 - 12:51 pm 76. Libertyship46:

I think what most people are worried about is nobody seems to know what these “czars” really do and what types of power they really have? Do they speak in the name of the President and, if so, are they allowed to threaten or coerce ordinary citizens and other public officials? If we don’t know who they are and what powers they have, why should anyone in Congress talk to them at all? Can they force members of Congress to answer their questions without a court order or subpoena? What if one of these czars has a conflict of interest in their past that would prevent them from doing their job (whatever that may really be)? Would you really want somebody who worked for Goldman Sachs to be the Wall Street Regulatory Czar?

The whole “Czar” system should be eliminated immediately. No Czars, period. The president has a cabinet and they should be responsible for supplying him with any information he needs to make a policy decision. He should not work outside the cabinet to get his agenda passed. Czars were never a good idea in the past under any president and they have never really proved that they are effective in any way (how many drug czars have we had and do we consume less drugs because of them?). Congress now has an opportunity to do away with all of these unelected and seemingly ill-vetted officials. Do it now, or we’ll find a lot more Van Jones’ in our future.

Sep 6, 2009 - 1:44 pm 77. elaine fox:

RE:”But what is interesting is that they do note (twice) that Van Jones escaped the normal Congressional vetting process.”

Everybody is standing around watching this happen…other that ranting about it on blogs and twitter and vowing to vote this way or that when the next election comes, what can a citizen do about this unfolding travesty?

EFox

Sep 6, 2009 - 2:02 pm 78. pjean:

Does anyone know if any of the new czar positions overlap any Cabinet duties? I’m sure of it, but it would be interesting to see where such an overlap occurs and push the subject with the Cabinet members. Why should either czar or Cabinet member receive full compensation when their duties are shared with another?

Sep 6, 2009 - 2:30 pm 79. whyyeseyec:

The Constitution prescribes impeachment for `high crimes and misdemeanors`. The word misdemanor means bad behavior. Clinton lying under oath is bad behavior at the least and probably a felony. If Clinton, a president. governor, lawyer and supposedly a Rhodes Scholar, can`t understand that then too bad for him.

What BHO is doing is usurping (to seize and hold illegally) the Constitution by hiring policymakers without the advise and consent of the Senate. The marxist dems know full well and choose to do n-o-t-h-i-n-g. If the republicans don`t speak up then they are just as guilty….

I believe unvetted czars are an impeachable offense……

Sep 6, 2009 - 4:10 pm 80. Still Bill:

Roger: I agree that what Obama is doing with these countless czar appointments is an end run around the Constitution. What you are now seeing is Hugo Chavez lite. If Robert Byrd is still alive, what the hell is he doing? If a Republican president was doing this, Senator Byrd would be pontificating on the Senate floor about a blantant abuse of power in the White House. Senator Byrd: If you can no longer handle your job, get the hell out of there. And that goes for the other 99 senators too.

Sep 6, 2009 - 4:17 pm 81. Bob:

“Now I know the word “Czar” is not very popular,…”

What we’re seeing is an extension of the Chicago political model. The czars are nothing more than mafiosa capos. And Obama is the capo de tutti capo — “the boss of all bosses.”

Sep 6, 2009 - 4:29 pm 82. Meryl:

73 Poor Citizen said,”Now I know the word “Czar” is not very popular, but many issues we face might now require a position that is above politics…”

a position that is “above politics”…..????? and this has WHAT to do with obama?

This year he has taken our health political, our armed forces have been taken political, the Iraq war was taken political, Grandma’s hip replacement has been taken political, the census has been taken political, vegetable gardens have been taken political….gee, why we would be concerned about czars “making things political”…

The garbage about the base closures was only handled that way because none of the stars we’d elected to Congress had the courage to personally disappoint or displease anybody. It had nothing to do with “czars” being a “better idea”.

You need to read some history. Just a little bit of history.

Sep 6, 2009 - 4:46 pm 83. bibio44:

‘Is Obama’s “Czar System” grounds for impeachment?’

No, Roger, but keep asking questions. It’s the only way you’ll learn.

Sep 6, 2009 - 4:46 pm 84. Maggie:

Why was an unelected person such as Van Jones in charge of allocating (30 billion dollars of?) taxpayer money?

Sep 6, 2009 - 5:56 pm 85. Spartan79:

“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” July 4, 1776

Sep 6, 2009 - 6:10 pm 86. David Thomson:

“Now I know the word “Czar” is not very popular, but many issues we face might now require a position that is above politics”

You are unwittingly calling for a benevolent dictatorship—which is not at all surprising. Today’s Left seeks a powerful leader to run things. Such sentiments inevitably lead to the empowering of a Mussolini or Mao. There is truly no such thing as being “above politics” and still preserving a viable republican government.

Sep 6, 2009 - 6:52 pm 87. Whoa!! Impeach Obama already...?? - AllDeaf.com:

[...] [...]

Sep 6, 2009 - 7:12 pm 88. scott:

Phineas,

“The czars not only have the power to coordinate policy, but control over tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars, all without congressional oversight. Under Obama, the “czar system” now represents a threat to constitutional government, but not yet one that merits impeachment.”

Oh hell yes it does. In fact its the only really impeachable offense from a POTUS since RMN erased that tape.

Sep 6, 2009 - 7:29 pm 89. deguello:

BIBIOT#83 Is a guy who posts his IQ (44)credible?Of course not, but his specialneeds teacher, who writes his posts,disagrees.

Sep 6, 2009 - 7:37 pm 90. Annie:

What does our constitution say about Obama’s actions with appointing the Czar’s?
They are in very important positions. Have they been vetted? Obviously Jones was not…
AND..I do not believe Obama was vetted by the FBI,if so, his records need to be made public. If this had been Bush, there would be hell to pay with the MSM!! Strangely quiet about real facts aren’t they???

If the Czar appointments pose a threat to our constitution and American in any way, they need to go and impeachment seriously considered for Obama.

Sep 6, 2009 - 8:29 pm 91. Linguist:

@ #78. pjean – go here and have a look: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29391/?ck=1

Nicely-compiled list of brief “resumes” that also notes which positions could be covered elsewhere.

Obama is allegedly only doing what other administrations have done before him. But having one “drug czar” does not give license to add 31 others. Not with such sweeping power over the lives of Americans. And certainly not without any proper investigation of their suitability to be counseling someone who has sworn to “protect and defend the Constitution”. That Van Jones was hired at all should scare the bejesus out of anyone but the most hardened entitlement derangement syndrome types.

Sep 6, 2009 - 8:42 pm 92. Harold:

Finally, someone has commented about Obama’s breaking his oath to support the Constitution. We should also blame Congress for breaking their oath about upholding the Constitution.

This is all grounds for impeachment; Obama and Congress.

Sep 6, 2009 - 8:57 pm 93. Jettboy:

1. Afghanistan Czar – Richard Holbrooke
2. AIDS Czar * – Jeffrey Crowley
3. Auto Recovery Czar – Ed Montgomery
4. Border Czar * – Alan Bersin
5. California Water Czar – David J. Hayes
6. Car Czar – Ron Bloom
7. Central Region Czar – Dennis Ross
8. Climate Czar – Todd Stern
9. Domestic Violence Czar – Lynn Rosenthal
10. Drug Czar * – Gil Kerlikowske
11. Economic Czar * – Paul Volcker
12. Energy and Environment Czar – Carol Browner
13. Faith-Based Czar * – Joshua DuBois
14. Government Performance Czar – Jeffrey Zients
15. Great Lakes Czar – Cameron Davis
16. Green Jobs Czar – Van Jones (One Down)
17. Guantanamo Closure Czar – Daniel Fried
18. Health Czar * – Nancy-Ann DeParle
19. Information Czar – Vivek Kundra
20. Intelligence Czar * – Dennis Blair
21. Mideast Peace Czar – George Mitchell
22. Pay Czar – Kenneth R. Feinberg
23. Regulatory Czar – Cass R. Sunstein

Remember these names. Pay particular attention to numbers 1, 4,5,8, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 23.

Sep 6, 2009 - 9:01 pm 94. EdGi:

Roger, this was settled in the failed Andrew Johnson impeacement episode. Sep/equal means the president appoints his own assistants to carry out his legal legal duties, and congress has approval rights only when they have passed a law and the pres has signed it, giving congress approval rights. Congess has approval rights for all kinds of presidential appointments today, but if congress is allowing the assistant loophole, then it is their own fault.

Sep 6, 2009 - 9:08 pm 95. Paul of the beach:

Official White House photo. Obama as Saint.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Photostream-Business-and-Pleasure-in-August/

Sep 6, 2009 - 11:12 pm 96. Ellen K:

Let’s see, over thirty people have been gifted with positions that have virtually no oversight. Their missions, their budgets, their staffing are all matters of mystery. While nobody begrudges any president a council of advisors, to do so in such a quasi-official role without some sort of security clearance smacks of trying to circumvent Congress and create a defacto shadow government. Given the many claims against President Obama, and given the media’s claims of his inherent “smartness” this is a really stupid act. Did he actually think we wouldn’t notice? Or did Soros not pay enough to buy off all of the media? I would imagine that the bill for buying off ABC and MSNBC pretty much drained the bank.

Sep 6, 2009 - 11:29 pm 97. vivo:

““Green Czar” Van Jones, a onetime “9-11 truther” who calls Republicans “assholes” on television – is an entirely different matter.”

The lesson from here?

Calling Reps “assholes” really piss them off.

Is that a truther?

Sep 7, 2009 - 12:03 am 98. vivo:

“Reason: the percentage of men who have lied about sex, many of them under oath, is astronomical. I am certain that accounts in part for the ubiquity of no fault divorce. If lying about sex were an actionable offense, our courts would be in terminal gridlock.”

G W Bush is gay?

http://gaygeorgewbush.tripod.com/

Sep 7, 2009 - 12:12 am 99. vivo:

45. ~Paules:

“3. Will Obama voluntarily step down when called to do so by constitutional mandates?

Unknown. If yes, we’ll see an orderly restoration of (small “r”) republican rule. If no, anything can happen. Some scenarios too horrible to contemplate.”

This people-hater’s nightmare. Paranoia getting worse. Pitiful.

Sep 7, 2009 - 12:20 am 100. vivo:

http://gaygeorgewbush.tripod.com/

Sep 7, 2009 - 12:22 am 101. vivo:

The previous post is a response to

“Reason: the percentage of men who have lied about sex, many of them under oath, is astronomical. I am certain that accounts in part for the ubiquity of no fault divorce. If lying about sex were an actionable offense, our courts would be in terminal gridlock.”

I was directed to this website by a conservative post.

Sep 7, 2009 - 12:27 am 102. Redball6:

Vivo, you need to get back on your meds! really, isn’t “O” going to pay for them anyway! Geez man take your meds! cheers “O” clock counting merrily away to 11,2,10
check 6

Sep 7, 2009 - 12:37 am 103. Joseph:

Mr. Simon,

President Clinton’s lies about sex when under oath were a matter of state because the Department of Justice under Clinton had successfully prosecuted and jailed people for lying about sex, under oath, in civil cases. Clinton, as chief magistrate, was bound by the same laws as the rest of the country. If the president is above a law he enforces against other people, a line has been crossed in our system.

Sep 7, 2009 - 6:33 am 104. davod:

Czars no!

KOMISSARS -Yes

Sep 7, 2009 - 7:33 am 105. gracie:

Obama will not be impeached. There is too much money and time invested in this man by the powers that be.

He is the Manchurian Candidate..no background, no friends, (okay radicals like Ayers) but kids he ran around with,no immunization records for kindergarten, no “nuttin” ….he is the Candidate and there has been much invested in this man and he will not be impeached, unless someone can find someone from his past that will talk and can give facts. Wow, wouldn’t that person need 27 hr a day guards..

Maybe they are prepping for a civil war, or martial law nation wide..hhmm conspiracy theories abound!!! But something is going to happen. Americans are waking up slowly…slowly but surely.

Sep 7, 2009 - 7:55 am 106. AdrianS:

The sarcasm of massive czarism is due “souly” to the gross lack of experience on the part of Barrack Hussein Obama and his ilk. Obama’s repugnant “experience” lies mostly in communist socialism. Obama has spent a lifetime surrounded by shady socialists and grotesque figures — it’s no wonder American voters are resoundingly rejecting Obama altogether.

Sep 7, 2009 - 8:14 am 107. watcher:

“83. bibio44:

‘Is Obama’s “Czar System” grounds for impeachment?’

No, Roger, but keep asking questions. It’s the only way you’ll learn.”

Agreed, questions are good. Just don’t expect an obamatron to provide any answers.

Sep 7, 2009 - 8:34 am 108. Steynian 381 « Free Canuckistan!:

[...] IS OBAMA’S ‘CZAR SYSTEM’ Grounds For Impeachment?, by Roger L Simon …. [...]

Sep 7, 2009 - 10:24 am 109. Cybergeezer:

This, I believe, is an atrocity, and is impeachable;
Obama’s oath of office means no more to him than the Constitution.
Throw the bum out!

Sep 7, 2009 - 2:31 pm 110. John "birther" Samford:

The question is ‘Will he go?’
The man has no respect for the Constitution, which means he has no respect for the law. He will have to be dragged, in cuffs, kicking and screaming from the White House. He has armed guards protecting him 24/7. Some elements of the worlds most powerful military will support him. That means weapons. Used by both sides.
The technical term is ‘Civil War’.
A Civil War begats Civil Wars. Once bullets replace ballots, it is hard to go back. America died on Tuesday, January 20, 2009. It will keep on kicking for a while. Any society 300 million strong with the resources of the USA doesn’t stop or turn on a dime.
It might be another generation before the USA is totally dead, but history will record it dying on Tuesday, January 20, 2009. The death throes will be horrible and bloody.

Sep 7, 2009 - 6:20 pm 111. Ben:

G.W. Bush had 45 czars. How do you not check these things? Wouldn’t it be important to find out whether it was Obama or Bush or whomever else that set the precedent for using czars more numerously?

Don’t worry. The United States is not dying. We’re redefining ourselves after a decade of corporate greed, fear-driven politics, and economic inequality. America’s middle class is threatened, and yet that same middle class is being told by the Glen Beck’s of the world that a great communist conspiracy is threatening our values.

I don’t know at what point so many people confused the word patriotism. To set the record strait, it means love of country, not love of party. You prophesize the death of America. Very well. But you will forgive me for saying that if that’s so, your country no longer has any need of you.

Sep 7, 2009 - 6:49 pm 112. B Dubya:

111.Ben:

You and the other useful fools and fellow travellers have been saying this crap since the ’30s.

It was the purpose of the American communists then, and it is the purpose now (read Saul Alinsky)to use the very fabric of liberty in this country to subvert and destroy it.

Where today is the Worker’s Paradise that Stalin promised you?

No, Ben, Stalin no longer needs you, or Pete Seeger, or the other fools. He’s dead and so is the system he for which he attempted to poison us with.

Sep 8, 2009 - 4:51 am 113. Obama’s stealthy coup « Diary of a Mad Conservative:

[...] czar thing is an end run around congress and an attempt to shift all power to the executive branch. Roger Simon thinks so too and he puts it in much better words and perspective than I [...]

Sep 8, 2009 - 2:09 pm 114. Beckwatcher:

Thank God I watch Glen Beck and his accurate description/videos about the thirtysomething Obama Czars. He has provided his viewers with insight as to many unsavory/radical Czar-characters including Van jones. Since many questions are posed here about who are the rest, how about asking Glen Beck?…he has done a better job than the government has and has detailed the affiliation/radicalism of some of them for us to see who is advising Obama. I am surprised that many of your readers are well informed but are not aware of Beck’s call for scrutiny of these Czars going back for quite a while. GOOD JOB DONE HERE.

Sep 8, 2009 - 6:21 pm 115. scientific socialist number two:

How are these people and their staffs paid without congressional appropriation?

Sep 10, 2009 - 7:58 am 116. Number Six:

#93 Jettboy:

Not to quibble with your list, but some of the “czars” you list occupy statutorily created offices and were confirmed by the Senate, so they really can’t be compared with the other “czars.” For example:

# 10-Gil Kerlikowske, Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy; established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and subsequent legislation. Kerlikowske was confirmed by the Senate in May 2009.

#20-Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence; established by Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Blair was confirmed by the Senate in January 2009.

# 23-Cass Sunstein, Director, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. Sunstein confirmed by the Senate in September 2009.

Otherwise, a great list.

Sep 10, 2009 - 6:22 pm 117. Republicans Are From Earth, Democrats Are From Pluto : The Pink Flamingo:

[...] [...]

Sep 20, 2009 - 10:27 am 118. nancy:

Why isn’t SOROS DEPORTED? ISN’T FRANCE LOOKING FOR HIM TO THROW HIM IN JAIL??

Sep 21, 2009 - 11:36 pm 119. Arby:

“Yet agreement that planning is necessary, together with the inability of democratic assemblies to produce a plan, will evoke stronger and stronger demands that the government or some single individual should be given powers to act on on their own responsibility. The belief is becoming more and more widespread that, if things are to get done, the responsible authorities must be freed from the fetters of democratic procedure.”

– F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom

Sep 28, 2009 - 1:14 pm 120. Roger Fike:

When the a newly elected President of the United States takes the oath of office he swears to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both forgein and domestic. I stongly believe the our current President has not kept his oath as evidence by agreeing to pull our defensive weapons out of Europe, leaving our Allies for now open to attack and leaving us defenseless against our enemies.He has apologized for our history to the world.He has not acted Presidential. He is now the first President to be on the United Nations General Assembly (I think this is correct). My question to him is where does his alligence lie. There are still questions unanswered regarding his place of birth. The longer we as a nation to take action, the more entrenched he becomes. Hopefull the people of this great country will speak loud enough for their voices to be heard at the next election in 2010.

Oct 2, 2009 - 6:41 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: