Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Obama's Dancing with the Czars and Giving the Boot to the Auto Franchises

In the dumbed-down culture of the United States, citizens are likely to spend more time thinking about American Idol and Dancing with the Stars than our Constitutional form of government and the threats coming from the Obama administration on all levels. Consider just two items for today: The Obama czar-making machine and the auto industry takeover.

Part 1 - Dancing with the Czars:
As Rep. Michele Bachmann states in the video in the post below, the administration is making an end-run around Congress by naming czars to run just about everything. Consider that cabinet posts are subject to the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Who is consenting to these czars? Obama! He is creating a massive parallel government of elitists who are unelected and unaccountable to the American people. There is absolutely no Congressional oversight of these unelected and, in at least some cases, unqualified people.

Using the word "czar" certainly fits the effort because these positions create an imperial group who answer to no one but the president/king. Some have more authority than cabinet posts. Obama didn't begin the practice and it may not be unconsitutional since presidents can appoint advisers. However, former presidents dating back to FDR, had only one or two. Obama has taken the practice to new heights with over three dozen (so far). Obama's list of czars is mind-numbing. He has an "infotech" czar, a "faith-based" czar, an "energy" czar, a "terrorism" czar, a "TARP" czar, an "urban" czar, a "Guantanamo closure czar, a "health reform czar...and on and on. There is even a "non-proliferation" czar who is obviously not working on the non-proliferation of czars! (My nephew is out of work and available to serve as the "unemployed" czar.)

Each "czar" is making between $100k and $180K a year and has a support staff ballooning the costs. Has anyone examined these appointments in depth? You can pay off a lot of political debts with such a crony system. Here are a few examples of these "czars": "Pay Czar," Kenneth Feinberg, a lawyer with no executive experience, has the power to set the wages of the executives of any company getting bailout money. "Science Czar" John Holden has advocated for compulsory abortion and mandatory population control. Some "czars" like Cass Sunstein, are spouses of other Obama advisors -- keeping it in the family so to speak. There's even a former "czar," "car czar" Steve Rattner who resigned in what looks like a brewing financial scandal. (Will we be surprised?) One things for sure, this violates at least the spirit of Obama's promises to the American people about running an ethical and transparent administration. There is virtually no public scrutiny of these appointments.

Americans not outraged over this are probably working for one of the czars. Keep in mind that none of these folks had to apply for the job under Civil Service Rules. They are all patronage appointments, pure and simple. While a few are in positions confirmed by the Senate, most were not. They are new jobs set up by the administration in one more government expansion. Congress, of course, ostensibly has oversight of the Executive branch of government but with a Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress there is currently NO CONTROL. The Obama/Pelosi team will fund whatever our liberal president wants and the taxpayers be damned.

Part 2 - Stealing businesses:
Michele Bachmann (again in the video below) illustrates how the government is taking over and destroying small businesses in the the auto industry. Chrysler executives say they didn't make the decision about which dealerships to close; a White House task force did. Many in the car industry say there appears to be no rhyme nor reason to the closings. Some franchieses that were doing well were targeted which led to concern that closings were politically motivated. Since most car franchises are small businesses the owners are likely to be Republican. Regardless, once government is involved in decisions about which businesses stay open and which close politics gets into the act. Who benefits when the government decides what businesses can operate? When politicians, like Barney Frank, influence which franchises survive (He saved at least one in his district.) what happens? Will the politician who took big bucks from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (and let his boyfriend run a gay prostitution ring in his Capitol Hill home) expect something for his help? What if he doesn't get it? Does the franchise close next year?

Running businesses is not the responsibility of government and the potential for corruption and cronyism when they do is significant. It is interesting that the first "czar" to resign was the one involved in making these decisions over GM and Chrysler. An in-depth investigation of the hundreds of dealerships closed, the political contributions of their owners, etc. would make fascinating reading I'm sure.

With the 2010 elections coming up, a sensible strategy would be CHANGE! Kick out the liberals who have increased the national depth, taken over a large percentage of the private sector with the prospect of gobbling up even more, and have adopted policies driving us into double-digit unemployment.

Throw out liberalism and adopt conservatism. America has problems, but she has a lot that's worth portecting and defending. Don't let liberalism destroy her!


Turfsuper said...

Don't worry about Obamma, your republican senators will kill the business by killing the cash for clunkers. As for Michele Bachmann she is a certified wing nut. She is only trying to protect those who refused to negotiate and the courts separate the car manufacturers from the intransient debt holders. Larry Kudlow as always like Michele never ever get it right.

Turfsuper said...

Conservatism and the republicans brought this on us. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 was introduced by three Republicans but passed by the Democratic congress and then the Republicans pass The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. President Bush instead of basing the economy on a sound footing and wanting to win the 2004 election permitted in 2003 the 40 to 1 leverage. It is this ratio of leveraging which undermined the banking system and ultimately the economy. Now we need strong leadership.

Michele Bachmann like Larry Kudlow have yet to be right about anything.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

You're funny.... Michele Bachmann is a "wingnut" but lesbian activist Rachel Maddow with her leftwing agenda is a credible source that you referred to in another post. It's hard to take you seriously, Turfkiller. (Actually, your user name contributes to that. I keep imagining you on a golf course replacing divets or reading fertilizer bags at Lowe's.)

As for "strong leadership" we've seen that before. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the current crop of dictators. They all provide "strong leadership." Thanks but I'll take our messy constitutional republic, thank you.

Turfsuper said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Hey Turfkiller, It's interesting that you removed your recent post which had some really silly statements in it like criticizing Michele Bachmann for saying "carbon dioxide is a harmless gas." Duh! If it isn't we all better stay far away from each other when we're exhaling.

As for the Hitler comment -- there are many things being said and done in this administration that are reminiscent of the philosophy of the third Reich. That's simply a fact. I'll just give one example although I could give dozens of horrible statements from Obama's cabinet/czar picks advocating the elimination of those considered unfit to live.

Ezekiel Emmanuel, brother of chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel (of dead fish fame), has publicly advocated denial of medical care to those with dementia, among others. This is the identical philosophy promoted in the book The Release of the Destruction of Life Devoid of Value published in 1920 in Germany which profoundly influenced Dr. Karl Brandt who became the head of the Nazi killing program. This murderous philosophy took the lives of the mentally ill, the retarded, WWI amputees, and others before it was applied to the "defective" race. At Nuremburg some of those on trial tried to blame the book for their evil actions.

Ideas have consequences. Evil is first conceived in the mind before it is acted on. Those who are willing to kill the helpless, have no real respect for anyone. Do you really think a society that has accepted the murder of 55 million innocent babies with unlimited potential (future taxpayers) will balk at killing off millions of "useless" baby boomers?

Turfsuper said...

You argument against the facts is the ad hominem attack against Rachel. These arguments are false and misleading.

I listen to what Michelle and Rachel say. Both have made mistakes but Michelle has yet to get anything right where Rachel publicly apologizes for every error.

As for comparing Obama to Hitler I refer you to Joe Scarborough who on MSNBC, January 12, 2004 being critical of stated: "And political hate speech. An activist group posts political ads that compare our president to Adolf Hitler. . . ."
Your beliefs based on fear cannot flourish on their own so off you go to making Obama into a Nazi dictator devil. All you have though the fear of fear itself.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Excuse me, but history is full of men who believe they are supermen. You try to dismiss it as if Hitler was the only bad man. Look at some of the documentaries. There were dozens of his underlings who believed exactly as he did. And there are tyrants today. You act as if evil pops out of the clouds. It comes from people who espouse evil ideas.

MSNBC is full of ideologues who get a thrill up their leg every time a liberal offers another "compassionate" sounding plan no matter how many rights it violates.

As for Rachel Maddow - what "ad hominem attack?" She is a self-professed outed lesbian promoting MSNBC's radical left agenda. MSNBC stopped reporting news ages ago. They are a full-time editorial lineup masquerading as journalism. How is stating that fact an ad hominem attack? You need to review your terms.

Turfsuper said...

Rachel being a lesbian is not a valid reason to believe that she doesn't get the facts right. That is the justification you use to ignore her. Thus ad hominem.

Comparing Obama to Hitler or the nazis is an argument that is really not relevant to health insurance and the obscene profits they are bleeding from the care of patients.

Comparing Bush to Hitler was wrong also because to was not relevant to the fraud of invading Iraq.

It is your characterization of "imperial group who answer to no one but the president/king" that deflects from the real issue. Why did Congress not stop Bush back when he started the process and why won't they stop Obama now?

The presidency has assumed way too much power. and if you recall it was Chaney who said that the vice presidency was not a branch of any American government and as it turns out he wasn't even subject to the President.