NEIRAD
Obamination
By McKinley Stauffer and Michael Coe
Opinions about President Barack Obama's actions in appointing czars to the government of the United States
Czars Overused by Obama
By McKinley Stauffer
Czar: a person having great power, well at least according to Princeton University, that is what that four-lettered word alludes. But the main question it poses is exactly how much power are these Czars given?
Each country has its own little pet names for its political leaders; we refer to ours as President, England crowns theirs Queen, and up until 1917 Russia dubbed the head of its government Czar, or in English translation, Emperor. Since when has America elected Emperors into their executive branch?
The Obama Administration is not the first to induct these “powerful personages” into a Presidential cabinet. Both Bush and Clinton appointed John P. Walters as the drug czar in order to control illegal narcotic use in the United States. Czars have been selected in the United States government to help oversee various aspects of society such as manufacturing and even the cleanliness of America’s Great Lakes. Obama has set the record though of delegating not one, not two, but more than three dozen czars. The President’s Cabinet has always consisted of 16 members, including the President himself. Some of the Cabinet members’ daily tasks include covering issues in society and government affairs such as Homeland Security to the Attorney General. Toss in Obama’s other political advisors, military advisors, chief of staff, and a couple other officials into this mathematical equation and you have more than 100 individuals personally advising our President. According to James Bailey, a leadership professor at George Washington University, the average CEOs have roughly seven to 10 people reporting to them.
Yet our President needs 100 people to help him manage our country’s affairs? Isn’t that why we elected Obama in the first place, to lead our country? America did not have a voice whatsoever in electing these 36 or so new positions in our executive branch.
Last time I checked there was no ballot option for an Infotech czar, yet we have consciously handed over legislative power supposedly greater than the original cabinet members themselves to these people. The single solitary person these Czar’s have to answer to is Obama himself. Not only are we handing these Czars immense authority, but about $103,000 in American taxes as well.
America pleaded for change, and boy they got it when President Obama was elected in November. But at what cost does change come? Our country’s Constitution is hanging by a measly thread with the executive branch gaining more dominance. What, only nine months into Obama’s presidency and American’s voting rights are already being questioned. Slowly citizen’s birth rights are being stripped away and carelessly tossed aside like a Band-Aid, and American’s are the ones left to feel the sting.
Recently the media has been focusing on the former green czar Van Jones. Before becoming Czar, Van Jones established Green for All, an organization that created eco-friendly jobs in poverty stricken areas. Czar Jone’s shaky history of political radicalization has finally been rightfully revealed to America. Not only did he join in various aggressive riots such as the King beatings, but also signed a petition in 2004 calling for then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and others to initiate an inquiry into evidence that suggests "people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war." Van Jone’s has also received critique for exclaiming that Republicans are “assholes” on a video that resurfaced from his past.
But that isn’t the worst of his accusations. Jones’ openly refers to himself as a Communist, which he has every constitutional right to advocate, but since when according to Bob Beckel, Democratic strategist and FOX News contributor, has the Secret Service allowed Communists in the White House?
No other administration would allow this “Obamanation” to occur. The lack of security checks clearly opens up countless other questions: who is doing the background checks on these newly appointed czars, or better yet why aren’t background checks being done on them? Has Congress officially wavered secuirty checks simply because they “trust” Obama to choose his consultants wisely? Luckily, U.S. Representative Mike Pence, R-Ind., called for Jones' resignation after reviewing his questionable actions .
The conflict of Czars obtaining unconstitutional power is not an issue between the beliefs of Democrats and Republicans, that’s a limitied perspective we must overcome in order to gain the truth. Look at the facts, ask questions, and seek answers. We are the future of this nation. Do you want to see society as we know it with voting rights and balanced power between government branches crumble before your feet when we haven’t even take on the challenge?
Most of us, yes us, will have our own voting rights by the next Presidential election. The time for us to hide behind the convictions of our parents is over. We shouldn’t let such power be easily distributed to these individuals without questioning their past and present history. Who do we want advising our President, Communists? I highly doubt it. Current issues are now, learn them, and do something about it before unfortunate history is written.
President Barack Obama has been accused, and defended of appointing "czars" to his administration.
Obama supporters, claim that Republicans too appointed Czars
Those against Obama think that he has appointed far too many czars to his administration.
President Obama with some of the members of his Cabinet.
Political Cartoon representing the overappointment of czars.
"President to name Economic Czar"
"Wonder Where that new guy will sit?"
"Czar" Anthony Van Jones, President Obama's new appointee to the role of Environmental Quality Advisory, a new position which Obama has created.
To Republicans, this is just another example of how Obama is appointing Czars.
Democrats defend this saying that there is a need for specialized roles such as these.
The Necessity of Czars to the U.S.
By Michael Coe
Never in the history of the United States has their ever been a president with emperor-like powers. Barack Obama is no exception, and yet he receives harsh critiques about abusing power and acting more like a “czar” or emperor than a president by “strengthening” the executive branch and appointing advisers. These arguments are based on loose terminology and non-factual attacks, like those that say American voting rights are being revoked.
First of all, the argument about Obama having too many czars working under him is completely incorrect. Republican and Obama critic Glenn Beck claimed that the Administration had 32 unapproved czars working in the administration. Truthfully there are only nine real czars on Beck’s list, the rest being advisors from previous presidencies, advisors to the Cabinet secretaries, or Senate confirmed advisors.
In fact, some of the people that hold valuable jobs in coordinating important policies including health insurance reform and economic reform are mistaken for “czars”. It’s also important to take a step back here and recognize that the Bush also used “czars” in his administration, a fact that was accepted by Darrell Issa, a Californian Republican representative who had been one of the adamant critics of Obama’s czar usage, who also admitted that he had never questioned or opposed Bush’s czars, never mind, Bush’s unprecedented increasing in executive power during his administration. Clearly the term czar is loosely used here and the information supporting it contains quite a bit of hypocrisy.
To respond to the claim that voting rights are being taken away, I think it’s important that we actually examine that statement. No examples have been provided that this is so, and as aforementioned the Senate had approved most of the czars under Obama, and this isn’t including the ones that have been previously passed down from older administrations. The executive branch has had no increase in power, the legislative branch is still checking appointees, plus Obama has the right to appoint advisors to his staff.
Any Republican critic of this need only look at Bush’s administration, which also appointed several advisors, which wasn’t at all criticized. One could also check the bill that 176 Republicans voted for, which would create an Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator to advise the administration in the White House, clearly contradicting the belief that Obama has more advisors than he should. Republican hypocrisy and lack of factual evidence is almost becoming a cliché at this point.
Plus, what really is the problem with multiple advisors? If an argument is going to be made about Obama’s emperor-like power than the Republicans would be better off not playing the advisor card, which basically decentralizes decision making and power from the president. This sort of policy is essentially the very opposite of what some claim Obama’s administration is, centralized and all-powerful.
As for the questions raised on Van Jones, the “czar” who helped created an eco-friendly organization called Green for All the Republican critiscm is on the shakiest ground yet. His idea to inquire about whether 9/11 was a government operation is just as constitutionally acceptable as inquiring non-factually about Obama’s use of “czars” or his non-existent increase in executive power. As his controversial statements regarding Republicans, let’s dip into a little Glenn Beck, claiming Obama has, “a deep-seated hatred for white people” or some “It's Obama's America, is it not? Obama's America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama's America the white kids now get beat up ..." by Rush Limbaugh. Tell me that any one of those quotes is more offensive and biased than the other.
Look, I know I can’t convince any Republican to suddenly throw support behind President Obama, because everyone has their own opinion and they’re entitled to it. But the biggest problem in the modern world is that people don’t listen to the truth anymore, they just get behind a political party and support fake opposition that has little meaning or evidence to support the accusations. Next time, check the facts before throwing around false assertions.
