moonbattery.gif


« Open Thread | Main | Beck Bits: Let's All Buy a Hybrid! »


October 23, 2009

"Most Transparent Administration Ever" to Shield Czars From Testifying Before Congress

Posted by The MaryHunter at October 23, 2009 5:00 PM

Not that we're getting any more used to Obama Administration 180-turns… not that this is even an authentic renege on a previously announced position… but comical, predictable, and irritating nonetheless: The White House is refusing to let the president’s new carnival of czars testify before Congress.

White House Counsel Greg Craig has indicated that he will refuse to allow any of the 18 new “czar” positions created by President Obama to testify before Congress, according to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Collins revealed during a committee hearing Thursday that she had spoken with Craig, who had earlier sent a letter on behalf of the president, and that Craig told her persoanlly that Congress would not get a chance to ask fundamental questions of the czars about their roles and responsibilities.

Sen. Collins is not the only senator concerned about the proliferation of extra-constitutional presidential advisors with growing powers in the Obamunist Administration:

In September, Collins and five Republican colleagues – Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.); Christopher Bond (R-Mo.); Pat Roberts (R-Kan.); Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Robert Bennett (R-Utah) -- sent a letter to the president expressing their “growing concern about the proliferation of ‘czars’” in his administration, which they said “raise(s) serious issues of accountability, transparency, and oversight.”

Check the CNS article for a list of the most problematic czar positions causing concern.

The openness of this administration rivals that of Brezhnev's Kremin at its Cold War height.

Kremlin.jpg
Renovations afoot at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

On a twip from JarrodVanHoose, retweeted by pomalom


Comments

I'm waiting for all the left nuts to chime in opposing the czars...

(cricket cricket)

Strangely silent now that they're not BUSH's czars.

At least I know that *I* have been consistent in opposing Socialism (from Republicans and Democrats alike) and unaccountable, extra-Constitutional appointees...no to mention the constant butt-raping of our Constitutional rights.

Posted by: Paul H at October 23, 2009 5:27 PM


So, from the article, former Bush Homeland Sec czar Ridge doesn't necessarily disagree with the Obama WH. Same old 'power corrupts' game, regardless of party.

I'm just sayin'.

Posted by: pomalom at October 23, 2009 6:10 PM


Here's my cunning suggestion:

Ask Collins to send polite notes to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi stating, "Greg Craig just told you, me, and the rest of Congress to f*** off. What are you, Mr. Senate Majority Leader and Madame Speaker, going to do about it?"

Posted by: MarkJ at October 23, 2009 6:31 PM


Tthe tea parties, town hall meetings and march on D.C. were very good and productive. Now what do we do? I propose that we now start attending our respective precinct offices and find out if we are being represented with true conservatives. It is at this level that we start changing things. From the bottom up, and we don't even have to leave town. It will take some time to do this but we will be pushing and supporting people with conservative values. We must also be aware of the short time(one year) to find and put on ballots good conservatives to replace those that fail to understand this country. We are tired of this and we intend to make the changes necessary to get our country back to a republic that belongs to the people.

Posted by: Jorge at October 23, 2009 6:34 PM


It seems like all the planets are starting to align.

It won’t be long before the media, and his own party, start to turn against this incompetent, lying fool.

By the new year I predict that 70% of the US will be racist.

Posted by: Dan at October 23, 2009 6:46 PM


We shouldn't call them czars. We should call them what they are: commissars.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at October 23, 2009 6:54 PM


Dam you....Dam You all to hell.... You dam dirty apes!!

Charlton heston has my thoughts on this covered...

Posted by: Michelle at October 23, 2009 8:59 PM


Jay Guevara at October 23, 2009 6:54 PM

That's close, Jay -
I say call them what they are.

"Safe Schools Czar?" No... "Unsafe Schools Pervert"
"Green Jobs Czar?" No... "Red Jobs Communist"
"Car Czar?" No... "Electric Go-cart Fool"

I could go on and on.

And as for the "Most Transparent Government in History" that the liberals little brown gawd promised over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over... Well - if nothing else gives him away as the biggest liar in American History - that promise does.

Of course the liberal idiots (like our own idiot trolls) will keep repeating his lies and clamoring for a place in line to suck his penis and eat his crap.

My GOD liberals are some sick puppies.

Posted by: Jimbo at October 23, 2009 9:19 PM


While the constitution does allow for these "commissars", their specific powers are clearly defined as an advisory capacity only. In such a capacity they are clearly a harmless entity which should not concern most of us. However, they should be carefully watched for any signs of overstepping the specific powers they are allowed to posses. Another thing to be watched is who is paying them, and in what manor that is done. In my opinion this is the place to catch any illegal activity, if it exists. I'm no investigator, nor constitutional expert so I can't be sure. Nixon screwed up, Obama will too.

Posted by: Eric at October 23, 2009 9:33 PM


Were sounding a lot like ANIMAL FARM where the pigs run everything and the head pig BARACK OBAMA appears the the big sty in NEW YORK(THE UN)to oink to his fellow pigs

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at October 23, 2009 9:35 PM


I'm going to lecture you guys, AGAIN, on the notion of consequences.

One of the major goals of the Bush administration was to increase the power of the executive. They stated it over and over, worked hard for it, and they got it. Fine; the relative power of the three branches has always been dynamic in American politics.

However, once power was taken for reasons you agree with, it can now be used for reasons you disagree with. The presidency has more power and a history of blocking Congressional probes; so this is the result.

Posted by: hey you guys at October 24, 2009 1:14 AM


How about calling them all little Eichmann's? Wait, Ward Churchill called the 9/11 victims that.

What would be a better name for the czars?

Little Goebbels? Maybe that would be best to call them. Mmmmm, this could be fun, couldn't it?

Posted by: Moonbat Skullcracker at October 24, 2009 3:27 AM


Hoaky Changey


Transparency lie #?

Posted by: TED at October 24, 2009 3:33 AM


Let me lecture you HYG, AGAIN, on the notion of history. In times of grave external threat to our our country, we've always given more power to the executive branch to combat that threat. As long as that power is used to combat that EXTERNAL threat, all is good. But even in times of war, when a president uses his wartime powers against his own citizens for strictly political reasons, he deserves a sound thrashing. That appears to be the case with Obama (not with Bush), so don't act like we should just sit back and take it.

Posted by: Judith M. at October 24, 2009 4:08 AM


Ouch! That's going to leave a mark, Juduith! That is, if it penetrates the first 50 layers of HYG's skull...

Posted by: SK at October 24, 2009 7:18 AM


I don't have a skull.

Posted by: hey you guys at October 24, 2009 8:03 AM


In times of grave external threat to our our country, we've always given more power to the executive branch to combat that threat. As long as that power is used to combat that EXTERNAL threat, all is good.

WTF? What kind of nonsensical crap is this?

Then first go back and thrash Lincoln, who really got the ball rolling on Imperial Presidential Actions. Once the Executive Order ink flows, it is never erased. Precedents set the stage for abuses in many unforeseen ways.

Who on God's green earth GAVE a sitting President more power? Every extraconstitutiional act was/is a usurpation of delegated, constitutionally limited authority regardless of a (D) or (R) after the name

Posted by: Jacob at October 24, 2009 8:05 AM


re: Posted by: hey you guys at October 24, 2009 1:14 AM

Hey You Guys parrots a well worn Leftist Lie with, "One of the major goals of the Bush administration was to increase the power of the executive. They stated it over and over, worked hard for it, and they got it."

No, actually the Bush Administration was one of the most second-guessed and criticized administrations in history. Look at the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys who serve at the convenience of the President as an example. President Bush was well within his rights, but we STILL have Democrats talking about a criminal investigation of the matter.

The Bush Administration worked hard to keep itself within the law, and interpet the law correctly. This argument that it was an "Imperial Presidency" and shrill cries of, "Bush is Shredding The Constitution!!" that we heard so many times from the political Left just don't hold up.

The Left / MSM willfully ignore what the current occupant of the White House is trying to do. Although the political Left already controls two of the three branches of government, all of these "Czars" Obama is appointing are a clear attempt to set up his own little parallel government without that pesky Constitution getting in the way.......

Either that, or he's too inept to get anything done the legal way. I think it's both.

Posted by: TonyD95B at October 24, 2009 8:06 AM


Here we go again.

What's happening now, regardless of who's in
office, could destroy the lives of millions.

In this case, words speak louder than actions.

God Bless America!

Posted by: ET at October 24, 2009 9:03 AM


What, Jacob? Is assassination not a sound enough thrashing for you? What are you trying (and I emphasize the word *trying*) to communicate?

Posted by: Judith M. at October 24, 2009 10:11 AM


Posted by: TED at October 24, 2009 11:11 AM


I have no problem with advisors. The problem arises when advisors turn into executives. Appointing all of these czars/commissars whatevers looks like an end run around the Constitution, since the commissars don't appear before Congress either for confirmation or reporting.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Obama is doing this intentionally because he knows that even with a Dem Congress, there's no way he'd get a Van Jones or a Kevin Jennings confirmed by the Senate. Not a chance. The Americans would have a field day with either one of them. Solution? Commissars!

That's the problem. Appointing commissars is a way to avoid accountability to elected representatives of the American people.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at October 24, 2009 11:46 AM


Speaking of spying, there was an interesting article about all the spying on citizens going on in Great Britain.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/world/europe/25surveillance.html?_r=1

Posted by: Judith M. at October 24, 2009 6:42 PM


Posted by: TonyD95B at October 24, 2009 8:06 AM

You mean, like, when he argued that hundreds of laws didn't really apply to him because he didn't want them to?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

Yeah, respect for the law is not doing what you want regardless of what the law says.

Also, the major flaw in your assumption is that not reporting to Congress somehow gives these czars great and crazy powers to do whatever they like. Really they're just another source of petty and wasteful graft. At best a distraction from deeper systemic problems, like the raiding of Social Security.

Posted by: hey you guys at October 25, 2009 3:18 AM


Oh, brother HYG. That article was a masterpiece of irrelevance. So some of Bush's enemies were afraid Bush was going to overstep his authority when he said he wouldn't follow laws that he found unconstitutional? Sounds like the right thing to do to me, because if he enforces a law he believes is unconstitutional just because Congress passes it, where is the check against Congress's power? Ultimately, it is the Supreme Court that determines the constitutionality of a law, but if it isn't challenged, the Supreme Court will never have a chance to rule on it, will it?

Posted by: Judith M. at October 25, 2009 4:36 AM


I realize I am talking to the hand but here goes anyway.
One person doing a wrong does not excuse a future wrong.
Bush may have overextended the authority of the office, but he did not run a campaign alluding the practice of better performance. In simple terms he never claimed he would be more transparent than Clinton, never claimed he would "drain the swamp", he did claim (and I think he halfheartedly tried to adhere) he would hold his people responsible for their actions. Obama ran on the anti-Bush, more holy than the @#$%^&*ing Pope platform. Bush did shield his people from what he felt were political attacks without substantive merit (witch hunts or revenge)(not saying Bush is right, just saying he thinks he is acting in loyalty to his people), Obama is shielding his from his own side (libs run congress, they could just stack the committees). When you shield from friendly fire as well as enemy fire you are just building a bunker.
To use PrezBo's own rhetoric, I am calling him out. If there is nothing to hide then step up and let the czars be hot seated by congress. They may provide a few soundbites, but at the end of the day you will have invalidated one more criticism. I ain't suggesting confirmation hearings, just panel interviews. The Dems (just like the Repubs would do) will stack the panels in such a way that the GOP receives substantially less time on the mic.

Posted by: Frank W at October 25, 2009 3:47 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)