Bizzare Czars so Far

There has been ongoing criticism, particularly among mainstream conservatives, concerning the ambiguous and continual appointment of executive ‘czars’ by the Obama administration. The term itself, ‘czar’, was coined by Ronald Reagan in 1982 when referring to his predecessor Jimmy Carter’s appointments, and Reagan himself maintained loyal officials in similar positions. The main grievance with this fairly recent czar tradition is that these specifically appointed presidential advisers, some of whom are currently unabashed communists, serve entirely outside of congressional oversight and are not appointed with Senatorial approval. As it stands, the Obama administration has a record staff of thirty two czars, but has only nominated candidates for 243 of the 385 branch positions which do require confirmation in the Senate. Though the president can delegate authority amongst inferior officers (Article II section 2), there has been an increasing discomfort with the ever-increasing appointment of these persons outside of the traditional advice and consent process.
Because Obama has already set a new record only ten months into his presidency, and he has done so with such notable appointments as Socialist International member Carol Browner and accused embezzler Nancy-Ann De Parle, a renewed wariness is very appropriate. The exact administrative authority of these czars is uncertain, undefined, overlapping, and tax-payer funded, but with unmistakable certainty the presidency is growing less and less transparent. It is important to remember that, while Obama may be going above and beyond any sense of political prudence, he is not the first president to so appropriate his executive powers. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushes all had varying numbers of czars, and while there is something to be said about the quality of appointments and the reflection on each president by the company he keeps, the fact remains that while conservatives complain, their record is no cleaner.
Obama’s approval rating, along with that of a majority Democrat congress, has fallen at record rates, and as it looks increasingly likely—albeit still a long time away from the next dual election—that conservatives will reclaim majority control, they will have to make an important decision. If the republicans do retake the White House and intend to make good on their promises of reduced government and de-regulation, they cannot simply appoint better qualified czars or appoint less of them; they must abolish the practice entirely. This is not to say the convention is in itself unconstitutional, but it is certainly abused, unnecessary, and contrary to any avowals of conservative policy. Republicans have contributed to the czarist problem as much as the Democrats, and if given the opportunity they must not forget to accompany their words with action. Conservatives complain that Obama’s appointments are out of touch with Middle America and nothing more than an expansion of power. While this is probably true, Republicans have not yet done anything to actually curtail this form of oversight. Czarist appointments must not be accepted as an irreversible aspect of the political status quo, but altogether rejected by conservatives if their political platforms are applicable and genuine.
Removing this state of czar-dom is far from implausible—after all the czars are only accountable to the president. Some maintain that the practice, if carefully regulated is a good and needed check against congressional power, but this only further shows how deeply rooted the regulatory mentality is rooted. This persistent commissioning suggests that politicians on both sides of the spectrum are too used to the idea that the czars should be there. This political malaise, this timid approach to reducing an appallingly costly and inefficient bureaucracy, stands in as victorious progressivism. Despite all of the agreeable rhetoric against it, governmental micromanagement has been allowed to persist where it should not, and it is a shame that so many politicians seem used to the idea.

Inside Joke or Communist Yoke?

Inside Joke or Communist Yoke

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn raised a few eyebrows last week when she, while addressing a group of high school students, identified Mother Teresa and Mao Zedong as the two people she looked to most in life and as her inspirations to challenge the status quo. Dunn went on to urge her audience accordingly, “It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what’s right for you. You don’t let external definitions define how good you are internally.” Dunn praised Mao for his intrepid takeover of China, neglecting to mention the 70 million casualties but nonetheless admiring his indomitable spirit. This shows President Obama, the first president to spurn a meeting with the Dalai Lama, in a new light—he was fighting his own war and not letting the external tradition of his predecessors influence him. When challenged on her pro-communist and potentially anarchical rhetoric, Dunn claimed to have been joking. It is indeed difficult to see the humor, but this does mean Dunn was not taking her address to impressionable high school students seriously and she may regard Mother Teresa a joke as well.
Before everyone’s sides stopped hurting, the administration again came under fire, this time with manufacturing czar Ron Bloom taking the spotlight. A video of the somber union man addressing his somber comrades at the annual Union League Club meeting in which Bloom states, “We know that the free-market is nonsense” and, “We agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun” has resurfaced in conjunction with Dunn’s recent comments. Though democrats may have had a good laugh about the peace prize, they now have a serious problem. It seems that the communications and manufacturing heads of staff have been caught red handed pitching their tents in Mao’s camp, but the Democratic congressmen and women who were cited earlier this Fall praising Fidel Castro and his regime missed the memo. So far they have all maintained some semblance of unity in their attempts to over-regulate the market; one can only hope their continued political power doesn’t come at gunpoint, as Mao and Castro’s did.
Anita Dunn maintains that calling Mao and Mother Teresa her “favorite political philosophers” was a bit of ironic humor. As a one-time stand-up comedian, this should be totally unacceptable for Dunn, who has now established that she is not only bad at humor, but also bad at communicating. Though he may not have the same pretext of mirth, Bloom’s communicative skills must also be lacking, for the Democrats clearly don’t all agree. Congresswoman Diane Watson, who lauded Castro as, “one of the brightest leaders I have ever met," displayed the same narrow scope as Dunn. Though they both rub shoulders with the major political figures of today, and have all of western political tradition to look back upon, Watson and Dunn are satisfied to idolize Mao and Castro as the best examples of initiative and administration.

Peaceful Resistance

The world was shocked, animated, and maybe appalled with the awarding and acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize by President Barack Obama. Citizens of inner-Chicago, while no doubt saddened by their inability to host the Olympics, may now take pride in the peaceful triumph of their esteemed Community Organizer, who has risen well above the rampant violence in Chicago and continues to lead by example. In his acceptance speech, Obama said he was both humbled and honored to receive the award. While admitting he may not have done enough yet to equally share company with the “transformative figures” who have also draped the peaceful medal over their peaceful shoulders, he was nonetheless resolved: "I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century." No peace pipes were passed around the White House Garden, but the Norwegian Nobel Committee cited the president's creation of a "new climate in international politics" and his work on nuclear disarmament as enough of a qualification, despite his comparatively short stay in international politics.
It is difficult not to be preoccupied with Obama’s inexperience and greenhorn credentials on the international stage, much less as President, but this really is a secondary concern. The deadline for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize nominations was February 1st, 2009, which means that Obama was actually nominated only two weeks into his presidency. Taking into account that he is currently pushing for a troop surge in Afghanistan, people may be well skeptical of declaring him the most peace-loving person of 2009, but the Nobel Prize Committee, it must be remembered, is not behaving without precedent.
The “transformative figures”, Obama’s peaceful prize predecessors, are as diverse in cause and origin as they are supposedly peaceful. Al Gore’s acceptance in 2007 received a lackluster reception, perhaps because the runner-up who helped sixty Jews escape Nazi concentration camps seemed a bit more deserving, and if Obama is to bring a new climate to politics—as the Committee suggested—he may indeed be unable to share Al Gore’s company. Woodrow Wilson received the Prize for his peaceful involvement in World War I, and in fact, ever since the Nobel Prize Committee gave to award to themselves in 1928, they have embarked on a peaceful journey of epically unsettling proportions. The International Labor Organization (international communist party) received the award in 1969, and three separate persons, each in a different decade, have been awarded for bringing peace to the Middle East. The United Nations Peace-Keeping forces shared the award in 1988, despite Alfred Nobel’s stipulation that recipients should have done the most for the "abolition or reduction of standing armies". To counterbalance, Egil Aarvik, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, rebutted Nobel’s opinion on his own prize, citing "mobilization of troops from countries all over the world as a tangible expression of the world community's will to solve conflicts by peaceful means". It is strangely fitting and perfect then, that a peace prize having nothing to do with peace, is gifted to a U.S. President who has nothing to do with America.

One Small Step for a Man, one Giant Step for Mankind?

A Major in the U.S. Army reserves, currently residing in Florida, received his orders for deployment to Afghanistan. He had since sued against his deployment, saying that because there was not, in his mind, substantial proof of Obama being born in the U.S., which would therefore render him Constitutionally unable to occupy the position of Commander in Chief, he does not have to obey his marching orders.

When I had first read about this, I figured the guy probably just didn't want to go to Afghanistan (and I don't blame him) where more soldiers have died in the first half of the month than the first month of U.S. troop presence in Iraq. Secondly, I wondered what the military does with such cases, when it is obvious the person doesn't want to contribute, but does continue to receive military benefits. Instead of next receiving a notification for a dishonorable discharge, or ten lashes, his orders were revoked, no questions asked! This has a number of potential ramifications.

Can any soldier now use this excuse, albeit an apparently good one, to refuse service in Afghanistan or anywhere else Mr. Obama decides to spread peace? More importantly, it means that, as Dr. Orly Taitz, Maj. Cook's lawyer said, "the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it." This further acknowledges that, if the current Commander in Chief is illegitimate, all troops present in Afghanistan, as Maj. Cook intrepidly pointed out, are by default war criminals. NOt that this in itself is a good thing, or that it will really affect the way U.S. prisoners are treated, but at least there's less of a worry now about Mr. Obama sending the troops to Honduras to save Democracy.

Mr. Obama finally has brought some change! Not to the economy or environmental protection, but rather by opening the doors to the possibility that the U.S., for the first time, is run by a war criminal.