See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On October 6th, 2009 at 10:18 pm, gunslingerpatriot said:

   I am not a constitutional scholar, but if I recall; Congress controls the purse strings (something about “Checks and Balances”)it would be good time to go through an obama budget and strike out anything that shows needless duplication.

   Just my 2 cents worth!

   GSP

2. #2
   On October 6th, 2009 at 10:31 pm, JHSII said:

   “— until they get caught exceeding their assigned powers.”

   Ummm…what exactly are their assigned constitutional powers exactly again?

3. #3
   On October 6th, 2009 at 10:32 pm, SomeOtherSteve said:

   What I don’t understand is why these czars are needed. What happened to the cabinet posts that correspond to these roles? Aren’t there enough secretary, deputy secretary, and under secretary positions for all of the Obama cronies?

4. #4
   On October 6th, 2009 at 10:43 pm, Wrathchilde said:

   The President can assuredly appoint whomever he likes to advisory positions. there’s not much that can be done about that.

   Congress however controls the piggy bank. NO funds should be allowed to any that has not passed through the “advice and consent” of congress.

   As for nothing being done until they overstep their authority…they have no authority. An advisor is not a constitutional office. That’s what the cabinet positions are for.

5. #5
   On October 6th, 2009 at 10:47 pm, Flyoverman said:

   Chop their funding. That should cause a veto and raise the stakes.

6. #6
   On October 6th, 2009 at 10:47 pm, Dave Turson said:

   Didn’t the military give us the Internet? At this time, we can easily use it, but maybe not so much in the future — Obama warned some of his captive followers (after Van Jones went down) to watch what they put on the Internet. Just “community organizing” for the party of the future.

7. #7
   On October 6th, 2009 at 10:50 pm, stevevvs said:

   Off topic, but excellent:

   http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1055/Making-the-World-Safe-for-Sharia-in-Iraq.aspx

   The Last two lines:

   I don’t entertain the fantasy that the Obama administration will retool foreign or war policy to achieve what could be understood as traditionally pro-American goals. These are questions for conservatives to consider, and with an eye toward the next power cycle.

8. #8
   On October 6th, 2009 at 11:00 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

   Must be nice to make a 6-figure income and not be accounted for anything.

9. #9
   On October 6th, 2009 at 11:11 pm, MarcoPolo said:

   On October 6th, 2009 at 10:50 pm, stevevvs said:

   Off topic, but excellent:

   http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1055/Making-the-World-Safe-for-Sharia-in-Iraq.aspx

   The Last two lines:

   I like the next-to-last paragraph myself. But I don’t think it’s a popular sentiment in this neck of the woods.

10. #10
    On October 6th, 2009 at 11:14 pm, txvet2 said:

    Experts agree: You’ll just have to wait until czars overstep authority to do anything about ‘em!

    Shouldn’t be long, since constitutionally they don’t have any authority at all.

11. #11
    On October 6th, 2009 at 11:30 pm, graysonret said:

    constitutionally they don’t have any authority

    We’ve got a congress and a president who consistently overstep their constitutional authority, daily. These “czars” are just fitting into the club.

12. #12
    On October 6th, 2009 at 11:55 pm, simcoe said:

    You’ll just have to wait until czars overstep authority to do anything about ‘em!

    Just what exactly what is their Constitutional authority and how are these so-called experts going to know when they over step it the office of czar is not laid out in the Constitution?

    That’s is fear talk. Fear of reprisals and retribution. Cowards all!

    White House legal counsel Greg Craig asserted in a letter to czar critic Sen. Russ Feingold (one of an increasing number of Democrats who have complained about the phenomenon) that “[n]either the purpose nor the effect of these new positions is to supplant or replace existing federal agencies or departments.”

    You lie!

    That’s exactly what they are for. Else, why put them there? It’s so he can bypass the existing federal agencies and departments.

13. #13
    On October 7th, 2009 at 12:50 am, ChicagoRobb said:

    Occasionally you have to like Feingold. I may not usually agree with him. (McCain/Feingold for example) but he appears to be principled. There are very few Dems I respect (respect does not mean support however) but he is one of them.

14. #14
    On October 7th, 2009 at 2:51 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    On October 6th, 2009 at 10:47 pm, Dave Turson said:

    Didn’t the military give us the Internet? At this time, we can easily use it, but maybe not so much in the future — Obama warned some of his captive followers (after Van Jones went down) to watch what they put on the Internet. Just “community organizing” for the party of the future.

    It has always been mantra that universities doing military research founded much of the early protocols for the Internet-besides Al Gore of course-and then there were tens of thousands of individuals and small companies that did and do great work advancing the internet and WWW.

    But as the internet allows the free transmission of ideas and information Obama does have it in his sights for control-Senate Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet …-his friends in China and Venezuela are his model. Already we have talking heads of the dinosaur media proposing “professional control of the internet”.

    It is difficult, impossible, to have absolute control over a people with a free press. Wait for the “man made disaster” of Janet Napolitano shame. I really doubt this gang of dedicated Leftist, Marxist and satist will allow anythings as unimportant as an election drive them from power. If a top down coup will work here is up to us.

15. #15
    On October 7th, 2009 at 5:10 am, fuseman said:

    On October 6th, 2009 at 10:32 pm, SomeOtherSteve said:
    What I don’t understand is why these czars are needed. What happened to the cabinet posts that correspond to these roles? Aren’t there enough secretary, deputy secretary, and under secretary positions for all of the Obama cronies?

    congress has to approve a secretary appointment. obama can bypass congress -the will of the people – by selecting czars.

16. #16
    On October 7th, 2009 at 7:16 am, SomeOtherSteve said:

    That’s what I’m getting at, fuseman. The press took Reagan to task for his kitchen cabinet, and it’s not like he relied upon them throughout his whole presidency.

    And people claimed Nixon was shooting for the imperial presidency.

17. #17
    On October 7th, 2009 at 8:15 am, cicerokid said:

    The experts also agreed that Congress has limited options if it chooses to rein in these positions.

    That’s right. And that’s where we step in. Just ask Van Jones.

18. #18
    On October 7th, 2009 at 8:41 am, NJ-Aviator said:

    Defund them.

    Don’t allow them to get paid or appropriate any money at all for staff or materials.

19. #19
    On October 7th, 2009 at 8:42 am, jangar said:

    This should be the plan:

    Take back control of the congress with super majorities in 2010, then hammer the administration with every resolution known to man and beast. Handcuff the poser-in-chief.

    Might not happen, but it certainly needs to happen for heaven’s sake!

20. #20
    On October 7th, 2009 at 8:57 am, Truesoldier said:

    Why is it that Obama thinks it is ok to refulate the pay and benies of executives of companies that have received bailout money, but it is not ok for Congress to have oversite of his many czars that get a even higher salaries on the tax payer dole?

21. #21
    On October 7th, 2009 at 9:16 am, jangar said:

    Truesoldier said:

    Cuz they are workers in the court of Obama’s benevolent government.

    Why should anyone be surprised to realize that our president sees this opportunity to become king? He showed us his tripes all through out the campaign, and highlighted it the night of the Denver DNC with the Greek columns and vacated stage.

    Dictators around the world do the same, with masses that sing their praise- while those who think for themselves live in abject poverty, awaiting a coup.

22. #22
    On October 7th, 2009 at 9:22 am, stillontheroad said:

    Truesoldier said:
    I have been thinking of that and the Sock Puppet is just following in the foot steps of countless third world despots. The kind whos power circle goes to Switzerland for medical treatment while the population has socialized medicine and can barely makes ends meet but the power circle members have at least 3 houses.

23. #23
    On October 7th, 2009 at 9:24 am, spaceycakes said:

    Sunlight — bright and unrelenting — is the best disinfectant.

    I love sunlight for a lot of things, but in this case I would prefer the cleansing power of fire.

24. #24
    On October 7th, 2009 at 9:38 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

    Congress: “You have overstepped your authority!”

    CzarCzarGabor: “Prove it!”

    Congress: “Rats!”

25. #25
    On October 7th, 2009 at 9:38 am, Red State Skeptic said:

    So tell me: what is it that the “czars” are actually doing that is a problem? MM is obviously unable to articulate an answer to that question, or she would have in this post.

26. #26
    On October 7th, 2009 at 9:41 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

    On October 7th, 2009 at 9:38 am, Red State Skeptic said:
    So tell me: what is it that the “czars” are actually doing that is a problem?

    They’re making policy where they have no authority. Totally unconstitutional, but you don’t care, so why should I.

27. #27
    On October 7th, 2009 at 9:46 am, vickisoup said:

    On October 6th, 2009 at 10:18 pm, gunslingerpatriot said:
    I am not a constitutional scholar, but if I recall; Congress controls the purse strings (something about “Checks and Balances”)it would be good time to go through an obama budget and strike out anything that shows needless duplication.

    This was exactly what I was thinking. Defund the positions until Obama ponies up their purpose, their plan and evidence of their effectiveness.
    

28. #28
    On October 7th, 2009 at 9:52 am, zyzzyg said:

    The most important line from the excerpts –

    “No one disputes that the president is allowed to hire advisors and aides. In fact, the president is entitled, by statute, to have as many as fifty high-level employees working for him and making top salaries. . . ”

    Yep, it is a law, and yep, laws can be modified and/of revoked.

    So, the statute concerning advisors to the President obviously must be addressed.

    And, when doing so, my hope is that the process concerning appointments that must be consented to by the Senate is addressed, too. Changes there should include, but not be limited to, no more ‘holds’ and time limits on the time it takes.

    The one open question is whether advisors to members of Congress should be publicly vetted, too.

29. #29
    On October 7th, 2009 at 10:00 am, englishqueen01 said:

    I’ve never said this before, and probably won’t again, but as a Wisconsin resident THANK YOU SEN. FEINGOLD for raising this questions. Don’t let the stonewalling by the White House discourage you.

30. #30
    On October 7th, 2009 at 10:05 am, walterc said:

    Red State Skeptic said:

    So tell me: what is it that the “czars” are actually doing that is a problem? MM is obviously unable to articulate an answer to that question, or she would have in this post.

    You have a pay czar usurping the Sec of Labor, a green czar taking the place of the Sec of Energy, a couple of different czars (Pali/Israel czar, Afghanistan czar) taking authority of Sec of State.

    That’s three instances right off the top of my head.

    Oh wait, the car czar doing things the fed government has no authority to do anyway, i.e. nationalizing the Auto Industry, firing employees of privately owned companies, giving preferential treatment to unions, interfering with bankruptcy proceedings, etc, etc.

    These guys are doing much more than “advising” the President.

31. #31
    On October 7th, 2009 at 10:14 am, cheapseat said:

    i hope these dems remember this when the next republican president gets into office andignores the “official” cabinet which congress can screw with, and just has a cabinet full of czars which are only answerable to the prez.

32. #32
    On October 7th, 2009 at 10:19 am, happy2behere said:

    So far Jones, Jennings, Holdren, and Sunstein have made such wild and alarming public statements, one can’t help wondering about their stability and the judgement of those who nominated them. One down, three or more need to go.

33. #33
    On October 7th, 2009 at 10:27 am, WarEagle82 said:

    Think of how much better things would be if only the founding fathers had limited the powers of the central government…

34. #34
    On October 7th, 2009 at 10:28 am, Red State Skeptic said:

    On October 7th, 2009 at 9:41 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

    They’re making policy where they have no authority.

    Can you be more specific? It’s not that I don’t believe there’s a problem, there’s just no way to devine it here.

35. #35
    On October 7th, 2009 at 11:07 am, shooter said:

    Browner already made policy and did it over the heads of the EPA.

    And there is more to surface.

36. #36
    On October 7th, 2009 at 11:37 am, Red State Skeptic said:

    Browner already made policy? And this is your evidence?

    White House energy and climate adviser Carol Browner and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson criticized Murkowski’s approach of using the EPA spending bill as a vehicle for limiting the agency’s regulatory power (E&ENews PM, Sept. 22).

    …

    Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) had crafted a more contentious amendment that would bar use of funds in the spending bill for implementing policies “at the direction” of White House climate and energy adviser Carol Browner. The debate comes as conservative activists and Republicans launched a political attack on Obama’s use of czars.

    Seriously, is this the best y’all can do?

37. #37
    On October 7th, 2009 at 12:23 pm, Major O said:

    On October 7th, 2009 at 11:37 am, Red State Skeptic said:
    Browner already made policy? And this is your evidence?
    …
    Seriously, is this the best y’all can do?

    So you really DON’T believe there is anything to this already? Apparently, it always was a partisan “us vs them” issue and not a search for the truth in this situation, no matter where the truth leads.

    When you view the amazing diligence and care with which Michelle has documented so many things that have yet to be answered by her detractors (except with ad hominem attacks) and then to come here and try to insinuate that there is “nothing here” reminds me of the staggering boxer who is one punch away from being downed still trying to mock his opponent. You still haven’t learned the worth and abilities of your opponent.

    So what happens when more proof is given to you? Are you going to retract the “so this is the best you can do?” smack talk? My guess is not. My guess is that you’ll move the goalposts and deny–basically denying everything brought to you as proof, because you are clearly invested in “your side” winning.

    One thing I will always give the conservative movement–when our guy messes up (think Harriet Miers, immigration policy, securing the borders, massive spending, or corruption) we are the first to point it out and demand action. Many people who back the Democrat party seem incapable of this precisely because it’s not about principle first–it’s about “winning power” and if that means ignoring what your side is doing, then “principle” be damned.

38. #38
    On October 7th, 2009 at 12:47 pm, Red State Skeptic said:

    On October 7th, 2009 at 12:23 pm, Major O said:

    Show me the money.

39. #39
    On October 7th, 2009 at 4:43 pm, shooter said:

    Read between the lines.
    Carol Browner IS making and stating policy. Browner directs the EPA and other ‘agencies’ what to do and how.
    Obama and Jarrett aren’t dumb enough to admit it as it would endanger czars in the oval office, but its there.

    Here’s some non NYT news.

    Mary Nichols, the chair of the California Air Resources Board, has confirmed that Browner was the lead White House negotiator in establishing new automobile emissions standards, which for the first time rely on EPA’s presumed authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the 1970 Clean Air Act. Nichols told The New York Times that Browner quietly orchestrated private discussions from the White House with auto industry officials. “We put nothing in writing, ever,” Nichols said.

    Browner was made a czar so that her powers could be more sweeping than they would be in any single official appointment—witness her cross-agency role in the secret automobile emissions regulations—and to avoid the scrutiny of Senate confirmation, which would have been difficult for Browner.

    Now I gave you a start, look for yourself and open your eyes. CZARS are telling Cabinet Sec’s what to do and when.
    Why do you think they’re there and no one has even glanced at them, media-wise. (i.e. Van Jones)