To: Texas Songwriter
Czar is Russian word for emperor. Emperor outranks king.
To: Texas Songwriter
No it is not a stretch. Imagine if this was W with all the czars—the lefties would have let him have it. So we need to let hm have it. Do as they would have done.
To: Texas Songwriter
Of course not. It’s Obama building his Shadow Government.
Did he (like Bush) make the comment after his election about “he won” ... so shut up already. Or something like that.
6 posted on
09/16/2009 7:03:02 PM PDT by
K-oneTexas
(I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
To: Texas Songwriter
“without consent of congress” is what makes this clearly applicable.
It is a shadow government of people with no accountability, no vetting, no background check, and no verification that they have no conflict of interest.
For all we know, every of these “Czars” could be representing any number of foreign nations, entities, or whatever!
WE DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING FOR THEIR SALARY FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!
7 posted on
09/16/2009 7:05:36 PM PDT by
Safrguns
To: Texas Songwriter
Under this admnistration it is not a STRETCH.
How many does he have now??? Suspect he want to get to 50, one for every state.
8 posted on
09/16/2009 7:17:35 PM PDT by
annieokie
(i)
To: Texas Songwriter
Czar- the Democrat word for Commissar.
9 posted on
09/16/2009 7:22:11 PM PDT by
arthurus
("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
To: Texas Songwriter
Not an issue, none of the “Czars” have the actual title of “Czar”. It's a term applied unofficially by journalists to an adviser to the President in charge of a specific area of policy.
It dates to the 80's and President Reagan's Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy who was called the “drug czar” by the press.
14 posted on
09/16/2009 9:53:24 PM PDT by
GreenLanternCorps
("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
To: Texas Songwriter
It is one of those paradoxes in which Rome had an emperor, but refused to call him a king. In the same way, we have an imperial president, but we refuse to call him king. It is merely word games. What matters is the powers that an individual claims for himself, whether that be from a Roman senate or from an American one. The Founding Fathers of this nation never envisioned the powers that Obama claims for himself. They believed the axiom by Lord Acton: authority corrupts, absolute authority corrupts absolutely. Do you suppose that John Adams or Thomas Jefferson would ever appoint czars? Perhaps Obama and the other statists should learn from history, namely czars get overthrown.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson