Republican Representative Jack Kingston (GA) and 29 Republican co-sponsors filed legislation that would force Obama to actually be accountable by vetting his Czars. This is probably one of the most needed pieces of legislation that we will see in our lifetimes. Obama has a list of 34 Czars – some ‘positions’ that still need to be filled but of that number 27 have not been vetted by Congress. In 6 months Obama has taken it upon himself to bypass Congress and the American people by appointing his very own ‘shadow government’. The Czars report directly to him and are not held accountable to Congress; therefore, not held accountable to the American people – who pay their salaries.

From the United States Constitution - Article II, Section 2:

“[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”

This clearly states that what Obama is doing by appointing Czars left and right is a violation of the Constitution. I realize that Obama doesn’t seem to think much of our Constitution but we, the people, DO. The only government officials who can make policy are the members of Congress who WE nominate. The ‘Pay Czar’ cannot tell anyone what their salaries or bonuses will be limited to, it has to be legislated by Congress. Yet Obama seems to think that his Czars can do whatever they want and most people probably don’t understand that his ‘Yes we can’ is really our “Hell no you can’t”. Finally someone is standing up for us against Obama’s outrageous appointments.

I am currently researching Obama’s ‘Shadow government’ appointees and so far I am finding that some of these people are clearly radicals like Obama. There is at least one Socialist (Carol Browner), a fellow ACORN organizer (Adolfo Carrion Jr.), a complete nut job who wrote a book about sterilizing people to quash the growing population (John Holdgren) and his latest appointment Cass Sustein who believes that animals should have the same rights as people, including bringing lawsuits against people. These Czars are clearly not representative of America or Americans. They should not be anywhere NEAR the White House or Capitol Hill other than to attend one of Obama’s Wednesday night soirees.

Presidents in the past have had Czars but they usually act as advisors and do not make policy. Obama has specifically appointed these people to make policy. The most Czars in any administration was during George Bush’s reign who appointed 14 Czars in 8 years. Obama has appointed twice the amount of Czars in 6 months as Czarist Russia had in 300 years! As Kingston points out on his website: “At this rate, we will have: 272 czars in Obama’s fist term (48 months) 544 czars if he lasts two terms (96 months)”. This is obviously Obama’s attempt to bypass Congress to further push his radical agenda by appointing radicals to make policy.

We all must push for this Act to be brought to a vote and passed. This is for our present and our future. We cannot let the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee sit on this. After reviewing some of the representatives who are on the Committee, it is clear that this may be a battle as it is filled with partisan party-line-voting Democrats -Tierney, Maloney, Kennedy, Kucinich - are some examples. Email, call, write, fax every member of the Committee to let it be known that WE, THE PEOPLE, are aware of the Act and fully support it. The Republicans have brought this Act forward, it is now up to us to tell Obama “Hell no you can’t”.

http://www.examiner.com/x-9100-Boston-Conservative-Independent-Examiner~y2009m7d25-Republicans-file-the-Czar-Act-of-2009--its-time-to-tell-Obama-Hell-no-you-cant

Links for information in the article:
http://kingston.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=137527
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3226/text
http://kingston.house.gov/UploadedFiles/BKAC.pdf
http://www.opencongress.org/committee/show/281_house_oversight_and_government_reform

by Jordan and Michelle S

President Obama has taken his promise to “spread the wealth” for the sake of “fairness” and actually went through with it, much to the dismay of people who want the economy to recover. Since January, Mr. Obama has pretty much nationalized the auto industry, proposed a major increase in government participation in the health care industry and will change the rules of credit card companies so that those with good credit are subsidizing those who had bad credit. Not since the fascistic New Deal has an economy been chopped up and served so willingly to rabid, hungry bureaucrats by the elected representatives of the people. This is what is known as corporatism, and it will not bode well for those who want to prosper in America.

Corporatism and Cartels

Since the Second World War, the American economy has been one of a mix of private business and government intrusion. America's free market ideology went out of style when the anti-capitalist myths of the Great Depression took hold. Unlike World War One, when the socialized/nationalized wartime economy fell apart due to the reluctance of the American people to give their financial future the unsympathizing government, the Progressives of the New Deal ingrained it into the new American generation that the state is your friend, your father, your mother, your eternal watcher and caretaker. The Nanny State that emerged was so powerful that every Republican president up to Reagan refused to take it on.

The National Recovery Administration (NRA), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the War Industries Board (WIB ); all the alphabet soup agencies created by FDR did not simply nationalize the economy, though that did occur in some sectors. No, instead of simply taking control of the economy and running it through and through, the agencies regulated the economy into submission to fit the goals of the government. This is what's known as corporatism. It was a major part of early-to-mid century economies of all the major powers: America, the United Kingdom, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Only the Soviet Union, a communist nation, rid itself of major private industry.

The New Deal agencies would use an iron fist to direct the economy. For example, the NRA instituted price controls on everything from dry cleaning to the price of a newspaper on the street. This was in the name of helping the “forgotten man” who supposedly survived on selling products at above-market prices. Businessmen were actually thrown in jail for violating these regulations, the most famous being a dry cleaner who charged five cents lower than the NRA mandated. The fetish with price controls went so far that tons upon tons of food (wheat, pigs, etc) were burned or culled by order of the government so that the prices would stay high for farmers.

Within these agencies, though, were the very men of industry FDR would assail in his speeches and his fireside chats. The steel makers, the arms manufactures, the bankers, the auto makers; all those who found it easier to work with the government than to fight it. These men took it upon themselves to carve out their own little sections of the economy for their respective companies. These economic fiefdoms are called cartels. The military-industrial complex that the left-wing warns us of all the time is one of these cartels, created out of FDR's need to coral industry to suit the purpose of the government. Unwittingly, the left and their crusade to humanize the economy is creating new complexes run by federal paper pushers that will drain the innovation and the dynamic prosperity our still somewhat free markets provide.

Cars, Crutches and Credit

George W. Bush told the American people just before the November 2008 election that it was necessary to abandon the free market in order to save the free market. His position was reminiscent of Herbert Hoover’s in the aftermath of the 1929 stock market crash. Bush unveiled the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which allowed the government to essentially become a shareholder in major banks and the auto industry.

Instead of banks and the auto industry taking their lumps and overhauling their business models, top executives ran to the government for help. Upon doing so, the government now has the power to tell these companies how to run their business. This does not bode well for the companies and the American people.

The “Big Three” and “Big Brother”

Recently, President Obama called for the Chief Executive Officer of General Motors to step down. Although, General Motors did not perform well under the leadership of Rick Wagoner, the government should not be making these decisions. In the past, these decisions were made by the company’s shareholders. However, now that the government is a “shareholder,” the President and other bureaucrats otherwise known as “car czars” can use force to implement their agenda. In addition, bureaucrats can tell the auto industry what kind of cars they will make and what type of workers they employ. As a result, the stranglehold the United Auto Workers Union (UAW) has on the car companies will be tighter.

In the end, both the consumer and the company are hurt. The UAW’s mandates have driven labor costs to almost twice the cost of their foreign competitors. The cost is then passed to the consumer who has elected to buy better made foreign cars. If American car companies cannot sell cars, they are forced to lay off workers. Therefore, one must ask what good the UAW had done for America when consumers pay more money for cars that cannot match the quality of their foreign competitors’ products. Unions destroyed the American steel industry in the 1970’s and 80’s, and now the American auto industry is in serious trouble.

To further complicate matters, the Obama Administration has unveiled new fuel efficiency standards that will eventually require vehicles to have a much higher mile-per-gallon rate. One would think a mandate like this would benefit consumers. After all, why not have higher standards? Why not rely less on foreign oil? Why not make cars that are better for the environment? The truth is consumers would not be better off, and these mandates have not reduced our oil consumption in the past.

First off, hybrid vehicles are more expensive, and there is no cost benefit when comparing fuel savings to the higher cost of the vehicle. Second, the demand is simply not there, as Americans prefer bigger cars. Third, the United States is obviously not the sole country that uses oil. Therefore, even if we reduced our oil consumption, which in turn, would lower prices; the overall world demand would NOT decrease. Therefore, increased demand elsewhere in the world would drive prices up. Increased demand from China and India was a key factor in driving up crude oil prices to record levels in 2007.

“Big Brother” offers a “lending” hand

Most of America’s largest banks got in line with the auto industry to ask Uncle Sam for a bailout. As a result, the banks are now under the “brilliant” leadership of Congress. Just as the government tells the auto industry what kind of cars they will make, banks will be told to whom they will lend money. The government will also tell them what kind of financial shape they are in based on bureaucrat derived stress tests. Although government mandates such as the “Community Reinvestment Act” were not the sole cause of the housing bust, these types of mandates created the sub-prime mortgage sector and led to reckless lending practices. These reckless practices caused a surge in demand for housing, which drove the cost of housing up to a level that was disproportionate with inflation.

Through quasi-public institutions, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as the Federal Reserve, the government has had its hands in the banking industry since 1913 (the year the FED was born). The very same government that caused one of the biggest financial debacles in decades now wishes to tell banks and lending institutions how and to whom they should extend credit. The government through the Federal Reserve and congressional mandates has created a society that lives on credit. Debt is a way of life for the average American today. Accessibility is what drives demand. Increased demand drives up prices. Remedial economics shows how easy access quickly inflates prices. Have you ever wondered how your grandfather was able to pay cash for his automobiles and even his home? Answer: limited access to credit. The accessibility of credit and the amount of credit people can receive is sole cause of deflating purchasing power. Since our government cannot manage debt either, the value of the U.S. Dollar is declining.

“Big Brother” and “Band-Aids”

Uncle Sam is very generous. Bureaucrats wish to tell us what kind of cars to drive, how much credit we should have, and now they want to provide us with healthcare. The biggest argument that is made against privately-run healthcare is that profits are put ahead of the care of human beings. This hypothesis is severely flawed in the sense that the elimination of “profit” does not eliminate the constant need to control costs. In addition, this conclusion neglects to consider the fact that profits allow reinvestment for better technology and better personnel which directly results in better care for the individual.

The second argument that is made in favor of government run health care centers on the government being a competitor to private sector insurance providers. The sad attempt by politicians to turn the supply-side argument of increased competition leading to lower prices is pure fallacy. This is due to the fact that the government will not merely be a competitor to private insurance companies. The government will impose very strict regulations on private insurance companies by requiring insurers to insure all applicants and place price caps on premiums. In the meantime, the government could borrow from taxpayers and the U.S. Treasury to make up for its shortfalls. The cost of compliance for private insurers would be exorbitant and allow the government to squeeze them out in an effort to MONOPOLIZE the industry. So much for competition…

Healthcare is NOT FREE if the government provides it. People will see tax increases not seen before on both federal and state levels. Employers’ cost of compliance will come at the expense of jobs and growth.

Last but not least, one must ask if they really want a government bureaucrat making their personal decisions when it comes to their own health care and the health care of their loved ones – the very government that has trouble delivering your mail.

Empathy Rewards Mediocrity

Both FDR and Obama made promises of an empathic government. They told the “forgotten man” that he'd be heard. They promised the little man his check would be bigger. They promised the hard worker that selling his labor would not be in vain. They took on the fat cats, the bankers, the traders, the factory bosses, all the name of fairness for the employed and the poor. It's a nice notion, like any other do-gooder idealism, but it’s impractical and inefficient past a certain point (that point being crossed decades ago by FDR). The federal government's economic role is not that of feelings and paternal instinct, but of streamlining and protection of property. No where in the Constitution does it talk about giving the greedy their due or making sure Jimmy the Carpenter can buy his family some new clothes for Christmas. Those powers are left to each state to make on their own time and on their own dime.

The federal government's supposed empathic regulation ends up creating cartels around the powerful chairmans and minions of the economic congressional committees. Decades of federal usurpation and consolidation of economic liberty has fed congressional corruption to the point that trillions upon trillions of dollars have vanished into the crony black hole, never to be seen again, unless you happen to drive by the home of John Murtha's nephew. He received of tens of millions of taxpayers dollars for “warehouse services” for the military, but, ironically, has a skeleton crew watching such sensitive and expensive material. Chris Dodd protected his sweetheart deals with Countrywide while writing up new regulations for banks. Barney Frank kept his mouth shut about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two of his major donors, while beating his chest over freer, less toxic banks. Diane Fienstein got millions upon millions of dollars of bailout money for a company her husband runs. Chuck Schumer cries about credit cards, but last year he publicly leaked confidential letters that sunk a California bank at the same time he defended the solvency of New York banks, which eventually crashed anyway. Empathy, indeed.

Despite our objections to government pseudo-empathy governing economic regulation, we recognize that there is a need for a basic safety net in today's world. Basic welfare for those who truly cannot work, basic unemployment for those who have been recently laid off and cannot find work, medical coverage for the low-income elderly and the low-income disabled, protection of bank accounts under the FDIC; these things are the thin armor of the economy. While it cannot protect everything, it does stop many dangers and allows for flexibility and speed; characteristics essential to the prosperity of our nation. What the President and the Democrats have proposed with the auto industry, health care and credit cards is solid metal plate. It may attempt to protect everyone, but it’s cumbersome and near impossible to move quickly. Granted, it may be able to take some hits, but once you knock it off balance it'll tumble end over end until it hits bottom.

The light armor and adaptability of the American economy is what has allowed it to prosper for so long and so well during peacetime. The post-war boom cited by many preaching collectivists was actually a confluence of military and economic history. Continental Europe was physically and mentally annihilated by World War II and the Spanish Civil War. The United States sold them everything they needed to rebuild themselves. Since the post-war period, every boom has been heavily driven by the ambition and innovation private business, not the empathetic government bureaucrat. Mr. Obama's new economy will destroy that ambition and innovation in favor of “fair” cartel-style redistribution, led by the less than trustworthy leaders of the Congressional committees.

The new socialized corporatist economy will take a nation driven to the top by exceptionalism and bring it low by rewarding mediocrity and blocking economic progress.

From the horrible deeds that were described in the torture memos, many experts believe the profile fits this man:

The bill itself is known as H.R. 1586 - The AIG Key Executives Bonus Accountability and Capture (TAKE BACK) Act. The Act itself calls for taxing bonuses that were given after January 1st on specific companies who were given TARP money by the federal government – aka – U.S. Taxpayers. This act that the House of Representatives just voted into law is in direct violation of the United States Constitution – Article 1 – Section 9 specifically states: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. Ex post facto is defined as formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group.” The $165 million retention bonuses that were given to certain AIG Executives fall into both of these categories.

It was the members of Congress and the President who signed the stimulus bill into LAW that had a specific clause allowing the bonuses to be given. Now they want to feign anger and outrage at the very bonuses THEY allowed? Not only was it a bad idea to vote the stimulus in the first place but then to pretend they are outraged because the people of the United States are outraged is absolutely an ‘ACT’. Most people in the country do not realize this violation of the Constitution. While the bonuses are outrageous, the violation of our Constitution should cause MORE outrage than bonuses totaling approximately 1% of the bailout money given to AIG.

This proves a few things – neither the members of Congress who voted for the stimulus bill NOR the President – actually read the bill. Something most of us already knew but their tomfoolery is proving the point. It also proves the complete hypocrisy of both groups because they are outraged by the bonuses but NOT by their OWN behavior for allowing the bonuses to be given. It also shows that neither Congress NOR the President actually take the Constitution of the United States of America seriously. Violating the Constitution is nothing to take lightly or to joke about.

It is simple to see that all of the outrage and anger occurring on Capitol Hill is literally and figuratively an ‘ACT’. A great show put on by Congress and the President to pretend they actually care about the people of this great country. People need to understand that it is Congress and the President who were actors in the great AIG bonus ‘giveaway’. The H.R. 1586 is just another scene from their political pandering play but one that could open doors for more Constitutional violations and abuses in the future.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec9

There are actually people on the left gloating about Obama's withdrawal plan for Iraq. Apparently, the timetables the antiwar crowd and the Democrats have been pushing for are now a reality. For five years we've heard the whining about timetables, private military contractors, equipment and so on; for five years such talk was ignored, and rightly so. This is why.

I'll tackle the most controversial first: equipment. No one but the most ardent military haters could argue against our soldiers receiving the best equipment. We want our warriors as protected as they can be when the are at war. Alas, the military is supplied by the government, and the government, as we conservatives know, isn't close to being a reliable supplier of anything to the military, unless you want to live in a centralized military dictatorship like North Korea. Congressional pet projects, ideological debate, political partisanship, appropriation battles, turf wars, favored companies; all play in to the massive cluster**** our military ends up in when it comes to equipment supply during war. When Donald Rumsfeld told a soldier that

It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know, ah, you go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.---You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up... [1]

While being a massive PR bruise due to media repetition and liberal hysteria, what Rumsfeld said was factual. The military is in the business of war, and nothing is perfect: from the battle plan to the tires on the Humvee. This doesn't mean the government can skimp on equipment or any of us should defend the government when it happens, which happens a lot sadly (the Bush administration was rightly blasted for the problems with its supply line), but it doesn't mean left-wing antiwar activists can suddenly become the patrons of the military when it was their saint Clinton who cut the military nearly in half at a time US power was expanding across the world. Such dishonesty.

Speaking of Clinton's military cuts, that brings us to the private military contractors. These companies, full of former military and police elites, are necessary because of the liberals and the leftists. The Bush administration inherited a military cut by nearly 300 000 personnel, hundreds of ships and planes as well as an axing of six infantry divisions.[2] Afghanistan was the perfect war for our downsized military, but Iraq was much harder due to the split of old alliances by the antiwar bloc in Europe and those in the Coalition. A bigger country with a much more centralized population, the underestimated number of troops needed by Rumsfeld and the Pentagon as well as the early blunders by the Collation Provisional Authority with the Iraqi army, it was very apparent that not all security missions could be taken up by the military alone. Things like embassy security, personnel security, contracted convoy security and other such tasked needed to be taken up by private firms while the military fought the growing insurgency by the Ba'athists and the invasion of mass amounts of Al Qeada terrorists. When the involvement of PMCs became news, right on cue the left wing threw its arms up in disgust with these “mercenaries” (used as a pejorative). The irony, of course, flew right over them.

Now, timetables are something we all heard ever since the first bomb was dropped on Ba'athist Iraq. When are we gonna leave? Why isn't there an exit strategy? Such questions, like all things, have their time and place. Asking for timetables and threatening to cut off aid during the height of the insurgency or during the Surge isn't very appropriate, now is it? The reason Obama even has the ability to announce withdrawal is because President Bush finally smartened up to the failing “withdrawal is victory” mantra that was deeply rooted in his commanders and kicked out the failing generals and replaced them with General David Petraeus, who turned around the war in one year with the Surge and a new community oriented strategy. At the time of his confirmation, he was lambasted by the left and the Surge itself was ridiculed as a failure even before it was implemented. Surprise, surprise, the irony flies over the leftist as the Surge has stabilized a free and democratic Iraq and allowed for the very timetables for withdrawal. But I don't expect you'll hear anything close to praise for General Petraeus or the success of the Surge from those who now benefit politically from it.

The left wing has an odd history with war. During the First and Second World Wars the left was literally up in arms, wanting to kill the Kaiser and snuff out Hitler. But when the Cold War began and the enemy wasn't monarchism or fascism, but their papa Communism, suddenly the pillar of liberalism became peace and isolation, but only if you forget that it was Johnson who expanded the Vietnam War and that Clinton had more interventions and military conflicts than Bush. Now, that the generation of the 60s and the subsequent generations born into a exponentially prosperous America have taken over the nation's leadership, it seems that the more liberally minded of them wish to forget their blood lust (read: the 1990s) and save America from its imperial self. Good luck, since President Obama has taken up most of President Bush's security policies and has pushed for upping the ante in Afghanistan.

Gloat all you want, left-wing. The only reason you can push your programs and claim peace is that we fought for victory and attained it over your objections.

Sources:

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46508-2004Dec8?language=printer
2. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=644

Let me begin with the first part. The Cloward-Piven Strategy was developed by Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, two professors from City University of New York. The strategy involves overwhelming the welfare system to effect social change. The idea is to attract as many people as they can to apply for welfare, and subsequently overwhelm the provisions of the welfare program to societal collapses. The outcome would be to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the system with unattainable demands by the recipients of the welfare system. The idea behind is comes from none other than Saul Alinsky, who asks his believers to "make the enemy live up to their own book of rules" (welfare program). The left idea of using the rules set by law against the "system" to break it down. This sounds frightening compared to what is happening today. Mr. Obama wants more people to be eligible for welfare. Why would he want that? To help them out? Considering this strategy, I think not.

Who is Richard Andrew Cloward? Well he was a socialiologist and activist who taught at Columbia University School of Social Work. He was known for influencing social policy through grassroots efforts with the poor. He also wrote various books regarding social reform. He was also the founder of HUMAN SERVE (Human Service Employees Registration and Voters Education)group. This group was instrumental in getting National Voter Registration Act (Motor Voter Act)of 1993 by Bill Clinton. Mr. Cloward and his wife were guests of Mr.Clinton for this ceremony.

Who is Frances Fox Piven? Frances is a professor of Sociology and Political Science at City University of New York. She, like Cloward, was very involved with the poor and their rights to vote and get involved with politics. She co-founded Human SERVE and helped develop the Motor Voter Act.

So, how did they get from professor's helping the poor to a strategy to overthrow capitalism and cause a revolt through militant activities such as taking over welfare offices? They enlisted a militant black activist, George Wiley. George Wiley hired foot soldiers to storm welfare offices demanding what the welfare system owed them. Apparently, not in a peaceful way.

George Wiley created the predecessor of ACORN: the National Welfare Reform Organization. Mr. Wiley was the mentor of Wade Rathke, the creator of ACORN, and was also part of The Shadow Party, which was founded by George Soros and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The Shadow Party is a group of nonprofit companies and activists that promote liberal ideologies.

So? Relevance? George Wiley used "thuggish" methods to storm welfare offices in order to get as many benefits from the program as they could. So, from Cloward-Pevin to George Wiley to NWRO to Wade Rathke to ACORN to Mr. Obama's use of ACORN to help him get elected. By fraud? No, but by intimidation.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html