Czars, Dictators and Rogue Presidents

Obama loves the idea of Czars. He has lots of them and keeps adding new ones. The latest is a pay czar to limit executive pay in the private sector.

Why does he love them? Because a “czar” is unaccountable to anyone except the president. Congress has no authority over them. It’s a convenient way to circumvent congressional oversight. No one can call them in for questioning because of “executive privilege.”

Back in the days of FDR Czars were called “dictators”. This was before the term became bad. Not that Czars were a swell bunch.

The fact is, Obama is using them in an illegal way to circumvent the constitution which is designed to prevent one branch of government from getting too much power. And no one is stopping him.

The way the Chrysler bankruptcy was handled was illegal and unconstitutional. The Unions were given preferred status while the secured lenders were pushed to the back of the line. Certain members of the Democrat party and the Unions were given the power to choose the board members, giving them control of the company. Profitable dealers were shut down and the business was handed over through cronyism.

And despite the fact that this all illegal, the Supreme Court under Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s decision, wouldn’t deal with it. It should also be noted the Obama administration told them not to take the case. Since when does one branch push the other around?

The government illegally forced these dealers out of business. Some of them have been operating for 90 years.

Why this is such an issue, if not already clear, is it means the government can break and rewrite any legal contract it wants. It basically kills the rule of law in this country, making it like a banana republic. You know, one of those countries ruled by a dictator.

Investigations need to be launched. The Dems attacked Bush for a lot less than this.

Loading Facebook Comments ...


  1. And the biggest irony in this whole charade is that he is an expert on Constitutional law.

    The Democrats were right to go after Bush. He was responsible for record spending, 911, two unjust wars, ten of thousands of deaths, and the loss of liberties to the law-abiding citizen. The Republicans are right to go after Obama. Unprecedent spending on a mammoth scale, rampant socialization, the continuation of the unjust wars and all the death and destruction associated with them, and more personal liberties down the toilet.

    Gee – I can’t really see much of a difference here. Perhaps one can spin rhetoric a bit more effectively than the other, but he has to fool the masses on an even grander scale than his predecessor if he wants to pull of this socialist transformation. In fact, both have used the manufacturered crisis of their presidency (911 & GEC) to further the agenda their bosses have set for them.

    The big problem is that fact that the Democrats and Republican and their supporters instead waste most of their time chasing their tails going after each other. They’re under the illusion that there was some kind of change in power when Obama was inaugurated. There wasn’t.

    ” ‘I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.’ ‘I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.’ ‘Wait, there’s one guy holding up both puppets!’ ” -Bill Hicks

    On a brighter note, HR1207 has now moved out of the House Financial Services Committee with 222 co-sponsors, and onto the floor for some debate. And meanwhile, the Fed have employed the same women Enron hired to spice up their public relations. Whatever for, you think?

  2. They say he’s an expert on constitutional law, but none of his school records are available. In fact, a lot of his records are unavailable including his real birth certificate, which is keeping that issue alive (I am agnostic on that one).

    The problem is, both parties are cotrupted by the ambitions of the “progressives” since the early 20th century, so there is no real choice on either side. The progressives are for bigger federal power and less individual rights. In other words, they are statists. The whole “progressive” term is bogus just like “liberal” is. So called liberals are nothing of the kind. Libertarians are the closest thing we have to true liberals today.

    As for that woman, they are trying to sell their lies. Who better who hire than an Enron shill.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

WordPress spam blocked by CleanTalk.