". . . little shall I grace my cause

In speaking for myself. Yet, by your gracious patience,

I will a round unvarnish'd tale deliver . . ."

(William Shakespeare's Othello, I.iii.88-90)

Monday, July 13, 2009

Czars

Last night on his Fox show Mike Huckabee invited members of his audience to play a game called "Dancing With the Czars." The game consisted of his showing a picture of one of Obama's czars to the contestant, providing the czar's name and clues as to his position, and seeing if the audience member could identify the czar's area of responsibility. If so, he won $100. (One contestant was actually successful.) But the point was to demonstrate that some of the most powerful people in government are people who were not elected, are not recognized by the American public, and are not accountable to them.

In the course of the segment I discovered how many czars Obama now has. Do you know? I was stunned to hear that the number is now over 30. (I can't remember exactly--I think Huckabee said 31 or 32.)

Does this send up warning bells for anyone else? This concerns me greatly. Who are these people? And what gives Obama the power to appoint them? Is his behavior even constitutional? Not only that, how much are these people costing us?

This president is out of control. I hope and pray that we can vote him out before he does irreparable damage. But I fear it may already be too late for that.

13 comments:

Working man said...

Hi,

I really do agree with you about the czar appointments, but do you recognize any of these; cybersecurity czar, regulatory czar, aids czar, manufacturing czar, intelligence czar, birdflu czar,or the Katrina czar? I would guess you probably have never heard of these either. They are people appointed by the previous President.

My issue is that the same people who decry Obama's appointee's overlooked them in the previous administration.

PMagness said...

Working Man,

I don't understand your logic. Are you saying that people who oppose fascism (i.e. Obama) are an "issue" (hypocrits?) because many of us overlooked the lesser degree of national socialism incipient in the modern Republican party when we supported Bush over Kerry or Gore or endorsed McCain over Obama?

If you agree the czars are a bad thing, then clearly Obama is much worse than Bush on this particular issue!

I actually did know about 3 of the czars you mentioned, and actually thought having Don Powell serve as "Katrina Czar" was a good idea at the time. Unfortunately, these positions tend to outlast their usefulness, much like the programs they oversee.

So here's an illustration that I hope will enlighten you as to why the Dems and their ilk are so much worse than the conservatives:

IMAGINE THE HEADLINES if Bush had tried to sunset the czar once the crisis had passed. And imagine the outcry from the Democrats.

Who's really worse, the person who has a good doctrine but sometimes compromises his principles for pragmatic reasons, or the person who is a true believer in bad doctrine.

"Hypocrisie est un hommage que la vice rend à la vertu." - La Rochefoulcauld

("Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue")

PMagness said...

To be clear, in the above, when I wrote "those who oppose fascism (i.e. Obama)", I should have said "those who oppose fascists like Obama" or "those who oppose Obama's fascism".

I apologize for the poor English. People who know political philosphy would still have understood my point immediately by context, but those who have been catechized by the public schools and mainstream media to believe that fascism is somehow a right-wing phenominum would be confused.

Given that means most if the country, I thought a clarification was in order - even though I am sure VERY FEW of the RoundUnvarnished's reader's needed it! ;)

Since I'm writing at length now, let me go on to make a parallel between this Left Kingdom topic and the travails of our Lutheran churches in the US. Bush and the GOP are sort of like the LCMS. Good on paper, but riddled with false doctrine. Obama and the Dems are like the ELCA. A few pockets of sanity, but a church body that has abandoned historic core principles and totally embraced an alien agenda.

Hopefully the conservatives in the temporal sphere will be able to purify and renew the GOP like we did under Reagan.

And, more importantly, hopefully those who cling to the pure doctrines of the Augustana will succeed in electing Matt Harrison the next President of the LCMS, so that the Missouri Synod can be a truly confessional, and hence less hypocritical church body!

Kelly said...

So many days I shake my head and consider moving to Texas. There's talk of secession there. Nothing will change unless individual States begin to take back the rights that they have yielded to the Federal government.

Deirdre said...

Do you think we might be able to slow some of the Congressional bobble-head voting if we vote in some opposing Senators and Representatives this fall? That's what I hope for!

(And also why I am trying to be a confessional lay delegate to the LCMS convention next July!)

Cheryl said...

Deirdre, I am dearly hoping that the 2010 Congressional elections will put the brakes on this president a bit, either by replacing some Congressmen or by cooling their support for Mr. Obama (our elected representatives watch the polls, and Obama's numbers are slipping).

Kelly, if Texas secedes, I just might be convinced to move back there! (There's just that small matter of a job . . . )

PMagness said...

So many liberals from the West Coast and the Northern cities have moved to Texas that I doubt she'll secede - though I'm there to join the rebellion if ever she does!

That's the problem with rich liberals: they do their damage but then don't learn. They just 'move on' to new places but keep their old voting habits, thinking somehow that "this time it will work." No amount of reality is going to shake their faith in "THE DREAM". (cue to Lennon's "Imagine" song)

They ruined a perfectly good state in Vermont. Now they've taken over New Hampshire and Colorado and are working on Montana and Arizona; Virignia & North Carolina. Soon Florida and then Texas will be run by them, too.

I hate to say it, but I think our only chance of seceding may be Alaska. It is much less attractive to 'limosine liberals' and much more defensible, too.

Hopefully it will never come to that. I still think that Obama won a surprisingly close election because people were duped by his temperament into believing he was more moderate than he really is. Now that people are learning that he is "not your grandfathers' Democrat", I think he's going to fall.

And liberals fall HARD. The Left is about "unity" and "community" working together for "social justice". They really don't talk policy much in their circles. That's why they are such great coalition-builders. As long as they all believe they share the same "heart" and are behind the same leader/personifier of the greater cause, the various groups (unions, greens, feminists, racialists, gays, pacificsts etc.) all just work on their own 'issues' and let the others have theirs. So, the union guy ignores the green & gay stuff he doesn't like and the feminazi doesn't worry too much about how the pacifists enable Muslims to oppress women, etc. You see, it's all about "the DREAM". And so they cling to their leader, excusing and ignoring the facts as long as they can. (See Clinton Impeachment, for example)

But if things get so bad that the leader can't be upheld and the music stops (cut the sound of Lennon in the background), then Teddy runs against Jummy in the Dem primary, or a guy like Gary Hart is never heard from again. There are no second acts in left-wing politics!

So, the real quesiton is, will he fall in time? Or is the Republic done for?

Casual Observer said...

Stepping back to the czar issue. By and large the term "czar" won't be found in any official government paperwork. It's mostly a term used to focus attention on the fact that yes, there's someone out there with a major focus on some major issue.
It's a lot easier to digest than a title with a long name.

Many of the people considered "czars" are people with already existing jobs who over the course of the administration will handle new and especially complex duties, like the Undersecretary of State who will "lead the charge" on examining Guantanamo Closure issues.
Logically these people have already gone through Congressional confirmation hearings.

Others like the White House Chief Technology Officer are new and require staffs, but are pretty much the same. They report to the President,or their Cabinet head and are subject to Congressional confirmation.

Finally for those who play a largely advisory role as outside folks with unique experience, there is no pay, and no Congressional hearing. One example of this would be Kenneth Feinberg, they guy who helped determine compensation for the "9/11 families" and was tapped to provide advice to the Treasury Secretary on Executive Pay.

I guess czar is sort of a scary word, but given the controls and limited powers involved I guess I'd like to hear more of what the potential pitfalls could be.

Steve Martin said...

If Texas goes it's own way...I would seriously consider moving there.

The Democrats and their union masters have ruined California.

The only thing here that is still decent is the weather and the "global warming" crowd wants to ruin that too!

Working man said...

pmagness Your quote on being hypocritical is a nice way of excusing those guys. I like this better.


Hypocracy is the human attempt to lie about our morality by pretending to be one way when we're really another way. People pretend to be virtuous (vice does not pretend to do anything) people pretend to be virtuous to win the acceptance of other people

PMagness said...

Ah, Working Man,

Sadly you do not understand the New Man we have put on in Christ.

Otherwise you would not like such a quote so much. It talks of morality as "our morality" rather than accepting morality as something 'extra nos' (outside of ourselves).

But an alien righteousness has descended upon us in Christ Jesus!
And so while we are still living in this fallen world with our fallen flesh, there is a warring within us. We are simultaneously sinners, and yet saints - and so it is not hypocritcal to uphold that which is good, even as we do not achieve that goal until Christ completes us in our death.

But you may be blind to this. Can I appeal to your baptism in this discussion, or are you one who walks apart from the Word?

Working man said...

PMagness

We seem to be discussing two different issues. I am trying to convey my displeasure with hypocrites. It is a very simple concept. When one espouses one thing and acts another that is hypocritical.

You seem to want to justify some of these people because of their political leanings. Well fine, that is your prerogative. My main problem with your arguments, is that you seem to be engaged in subtle form of proselytizing. When someone does this kind of thing I assume you're dealing from a closed mind. I read your previous comments, and you seem to have issues with many different groups of people, again your choice. I actually have sympathy for you. I know this is your life, and I am sad that your world is black and white. The world is made up of so many different shades that you will never see.

PMagness said...

Working Man,

There is no "seeming" here. Words mean what they say.

I pray you the Spirit that draws you to read RoundUnvarnished and Indiana Jane will continue to draw you into the world of orthodox Christianity.

Then by the truth of God's Word you may learn that you are just as condemned as the people you call hypocrits. I know that is as frightening propsect, Working Man, but take heart: a merciful God has already paid for your sins, and so new life is all yours for the taking.

There's nothing to be afraid of, Working Man. The truth will set you free!

(And this is far more important to you than the side benefit of then being able to understand that nowhere was I or anyone at RoundUnvarnished justifying hypocricy. Chrsitians just understand the fallen nature of man, and so aren't as quick to judge as you are. Your solution to the gap between yourself and the true & the good is to define morality down to man's level. How cheap! We who understand that the bar is set high - perfection - so that NO ONE can achieve it realize that we ALL are hypocrits, and so therefore have compassion in our jugments. In your world, you approve of the demon who's perfectly consistent with his amorality and therefore approve of him because he is 'true to himself'. But we don't judge ourselves in the end. God judges us. And so therefore your worldview simply isn't sustainable in the end.)