I guess one could say that at least she doesn't (yet) have as many "assistants" as her equally spendthrift husband -- our Dear Leader -- has "czars" (last count on that was somewhere upwards of 33, or 34, or 35). And since we don't know exactly how many of them there are, much less how big each of their staffs are, we also don't know how much they are all costing us. We just know that, although other presidents have also had "czars" and other assistants, none has ever had as many of either as our current one, The One. (So, don't try to tell me that Chicago-style cronyism doesn't pay, either, in both Barack's and also apparently Michelle's playbook.) 

But, one does have to wonder why Michelle O. needs so much help, so many assistants, all at taxpayer expense, when Jackie Kennedy had ONE, Hillary Clinton had THREE and Laura Bush had ONE.

"In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much." "See, that's why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service."  Michelle Obama

Gee, Michelle, are you referring to when you left the big law firm and began your "public service" by taking a big Chicago hospital PR job created for you after your husband became a State senator and that hospital received some State funding and which, I'm sure only by sheer coincidence, also raised your salary to $350,000 a year? THAT kind of "public service"? THAT kind of "sacrifice"? Wow, what a gal! 

Of course, Michelle Obama does not get paid anything to serve as the First Lady. She just gets to live in a fully wait-staffed mansion, with free room and board, personal chef service, free transportation of any type she needs, any time she needs it, plus have designer this and designer that offered to her to wear all the time, and, of course, she doesn't have any official duties to perform, any more than did any of her predecessors. It's obviously a rough life, to be sure, but, as they say, somebody has to do it.

And all this hasn't stopped "Michelle, ma belle" from hiring an unprecedented number of "staffers" to cater to her every request, all in the midst of our "Great Recession" when regular Americans are losing their jobs and in some cases their homes. And when the president and his first lady both might give some thought to setting a good example, showing some understanding and personal restraint, and practicing some frugality like many of their fellow Americans are having to do, instead of living like a king and queen and spending taxpayer money like it was going out of style (which, in fact, it is, as there is less and less of it, and more and more debt.)

Just think about the fact that Mary Lincoln was publicly criticized for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil War, and Mamie Eisenhower had to pay the salary for her own personal secretary. Of course, Lincoln and Eisenhower were both Republicans, so that probably made the difference.

Herewith, according to Canada Free Press, the names and numbers pertaining to Michelle O's big band of "helpers," to include some you may not be able to tell from their job description exactly what their "job" really is, with occasional parenthetical comments by your not-so-humble and sometimes snide and sarcastic but seldom snarky "opinionator":

1. $172,200 - Sher, Susan - Chief of Staff

2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. - Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady

3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. - Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary

4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. - Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady

5. $90,000 - Winter, Melissa E. - Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff to the First Lady

6. $90,000 - Medina, David S. - Deputy Chief of Staff to the First Lady

(Okay, doesn't that make two Deputy Chiefs of Staff to the First Lady? Or at least one-and-a-half -- half of # 5 and all of # 6? And which Deputy Chief of Staff to the First Lady, each receiving $90,000 per year, is the real one?)

7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. - Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady

8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. - Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady

9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper - Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady

10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. - Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary

11. $65,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. - Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary

(Okay, so there's already a White House Social Secretary (see # 3 above), who supposedly reports to the First Lady, as well as a Deputy Associate Director, Social Office (see # 18 below), AND a Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary (see # 20 below). So, with #'s 10 and 11, there is either a misprint, a typo of some kind, or there really are ALSO two, full-time Deputy Directors and Deputy Social Secretaries, each paid the same amount of $65,000, for a combined total of $130,000 per year, for the same job, and who also work for the First Lady. Hmmm, I think I know where we can save $65,000 per year right away. Which one of you two Deputy Directors and Deputy Social Secretaries wants to go? Toss a coin and call heads or tails.)

12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. - Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator for the First Lady

13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. - Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady

14. $90,000 - Lewis, Dana M. - Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady

(No telling what poor Dana Lewis, with a job title as vague as that, has to do to earn her $90,000 of taxpayer money a year. Whatever, whenever, I would guess. Poor woman probably seldom even sleeps.)

15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. - Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary to the First Lady

16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. - Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide to the First Lady

(Wait a minute. You've already got: (a) a Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady at $75,000 per year, (b) a Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator for the First Lady at $62,000 per year, (c) a Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady at $60,000 per year, and (d) a Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide to the First Lady at $50,000 per year. That's four people, at a total cost of $247,000 per year, all focused on the advancing, scheduling, event coordinating and aiding of the First Lady's travel. Just how much does Michelle need to travel, especially separate from her husband, whose travel is planned down to a gnat's eyelash and always includes everything and everyone traveling with him, as well? And, by the way, isn't the Secret Service -- you know, those guys and gals already on the taxpayers' payroll to protect and travel with the president and his family members -- already responsible for most of the advance work, scheduling and trip coordination for any and all presidential and/or family member forays, foreign and domestic, anyway? So, why are we paying an "extra" almost a quarter of a million dollars in taxpayer money for all these people to do that just for the First Lady? Hello? Anyone?)
   
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. - Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady

18. $45,000 - Tubman, Samantha - Deputy Associate Director, Social Office

19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. - Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff to the First Lady

(So, there's a Chief of Staff to the First Lady, at least one-and-a-half but maybe two Deputy Chiefs of Staff to the First Lady, AND now we find out there's ALSO an Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff to the First Lady? It makes one wonder, with all these "other assistant" folks doing all that they supposedly do to earn their taxpayer salaries, just how much "chief of staffing" does there need to be? I guess the more "others" you have to keep up with, though, the more "chief of staffing" you need to do, huh?)

20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. - Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary

21. $40,000 - Bookey, Natalie - Staff Assistant

22. $40,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. - Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady

(Okay, there's: (a) a Director of Communications for the First Lady, (b) a Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady, (c) an Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary to the First Lady, (d) an Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady and (e) a Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady. First, isn't all this -- press, correspondence, etc. -- just all "communications" of one type or another? So, why can't you have a Director of Communications, with one Deputy Director for Press and one for Correspondence and just be done with it? Second, I know the First Lady sometimes has to make public appearances and say a few words and I can imagine that a lot of people write to the First Lady on a range of topics which they think she can better address than her husband, the president, can. But, please, five different people, each with important-sounding titles and hefty salaries, in addition to however many minions work for each of them, all to help the First Lady "communicate"? Especially when she's already supposed to be such an intelligent and articulate Ivy League educated and Harvard Law School graduated woman? And especially when, as First Lady, she's not supposed to ever say anything important about policy, or much of anything else, anyway? Oh, by the way, and not to cause any trouble, mind you -- and certainly not to encourage any MORE Michelle "helpers" -- but on the other hand and just for the sake of contrariness, how can you have an Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady and a Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady without first having a Director of Correspondence for the First Lady? Just wondering. Sorry, but my mind just works that way sometimes.)        

Well, aside from now almost mind-numbingly wondering when it's proper to use "for the First Lady" or "to the First Lady" in some of these numerous job titles (as well as wondering if # 21, poor Natalie Bookey, as the $40,000-a-year, just plain "Staff Assistant" who doesn't seem to "belong to anybody," therefore is picked on and "belongs to everybody" -- "Hey, YOU!"), I think it is still safe to say that never has there been anyone in the White House with such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life and communicability.

1. ObamaCare alternatives?
Oh, I dunno, maybe some of the things the Republicans of the so-called "Party of No" have been proposing but which the Democrats have been ignoring, like:
Interstate insurance competition, medical savings accounts, tax free insurance or credits, tort reform, fee for service, rewarding outcomes, medical malpractice reform, prohibiting coverage denials based on preexisting conditions, guaranteeing portability, electronic prescriptions and medical records, streamlining billing codes and practices, price and quality transparency, pay-for-performance measures, one-stop primary-care “medical homes,” chronic disease management initiatives, tax equity for health insurance purchases, increased incentives for health savings accounts, or creating the ability to purchase insurance or form risk pools across state lines.
Our health care system and health insurance do need reform. Everyone agrees on that, But it's already the best in the world and just needs some tuning up, not a whole new and untested model of car. Especially when the federal government tends not to turn out Ferraris but Edsels, thank you very much.

2. Cap and Trade, Cap and Tax, Crap and Tax - what's the difference?
Once again, class: Everyone wants to ensure our kids grow up in a clean environment. Some just want to bankrupt us while doing it, and some of us would prefer a more logical approach. For the second group, The Heritage Foundation has some figures and charts that provide a helpful look at the immense costs associated with the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax plan to forcibly cap carbon. According to the new report, “The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey: An Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009," recently released:
a. Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035;
b. Single-year GDP losses reach $400 billion by 2025 and will ultimately exceed $700 billion;
c. Net job losses approach 1.9 million in 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035. Manufacturing loses would be 1.4 million jobs in 2035;
d. The annual cost of emissions permits to energy users will be at least $100 billion by 2012 and could exceed $390 billion by 2035;
e. A typical family of four will pay, on average, an additional $829 each year for energy-based utility costs; and
f. Gasoline prices will rise by 58 percent ($1.38 more per gallon) and average household electric rates will increase by 90 percent.
So, Waxman-Markey's Crap and Tax Plan does sound like a PLAN, but not a very GOOD plan.

 

 

 

 

Dear Senator So-and-so:

The Senate recently voted 63-35 for cloture on the Cass Sunstein confirmation/approval vote, paving the way for a vote on his confirmation to become President Obama's so-called Regulatory Czar.

The thrust of this letter is: NO to "czars" in general and especially NO to Mr. Sunstein in particular.

More about Mr. Sunstein in particular in a moment. First, general comments about President Obama's special advisors.

I don't understand, and strongly question, President Obama's need for so many special advisors, or czars, now amazingly and troublingly numbering over 30, especially since many of their areas of focus duplicate those of either presidential cabinet secretaries or other extant government officials. Is it not government waste any more to pay two people or agencies to do the same job? For example, would not the function of a so-called Regulatory Czar normally be performed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)?

Further, particularly at a time when increasingly more and more ordinary Americans are out of work, when Team Obama and a profligate 111th Congress have already massively increased the national debt just within the last seven months, and Congress, like many Americans, should be doing some belt-tightening and strict budgeting, it's more than legitimate to ask: What are any of these so-called czars being paid? How big are their staffs? What are these staffs being paid? Who is approving these expenditures of taxpayer money? Is Congress no longer the keeper of the national purse strings?

With the president's creation of a virtual shadow government of unelected and unvetted "czars" who are also unaccountable to Congress, when are those of you in Congress going to do anything to prevent the president from increasingly bypassing your authority to oversee and ensure accountability in so many areas? Hint: One way to do that, if you have the backbone (i.e., political will) is to withhold funding.

Now, to Mr. Sunstein as a czar candidate in particular.

Mr. Sunstein thinks that animals should have lawyers, co-equal rights with humans, be able to sue people, and that all hunting should be abolished. This latter point in turn causes me pause about what he may also think of my Second Amendment rights, which I am absolutely adamant about defending.

He also favors "reformulation" of our First Amendment rights.
 
Much of his work also brings behavioral economics to bear on law, suggesting that the "rational actor" model will sometimes produce an inadequate understanding of how people will respond to legal intervention. Instead, he favors using the law to effect behavioral modification of the population.

He has collaborated in elaborating on the theory of "libertarian paternalism" and is an advocate of the "nudge theory," i.e., maintaining some freedom of choice by people while also steering, or nudging, their decisions in directions that will make their lives go better. He is also partially responsible for coining the term "choice architect."

Now, I am sure Mr. Sunstein is a smart man and may be one hell of an academic, but...

I don't want my First Amendment rights "reformulated," thank you. And don't even think about touching my Second Amendment rights.

I don't favor behavior modification of the population through manipulations of the law. That sounds much too Orwellian to me, as does the concept of a "choice architect."

I don't even like the sound of "libertarian paternalism," much less its overall implication that some libertarian bureaucrat is going to act as my substitute father about anything. I am not a child and don't need, or want, governmental "paternalism." In many instances, government is not the solution; it is the problem. And the more government you have, the more problems it creates. The nature of a bureaucracy is to feed itself first.....and most often.....and in increasing amounts....at the public trough.

I don't want my government insidiously "nudging" me, or anybody else, into decisions in directions that will make our lives go better. "Better" according to whom, some other government bureaucrat?

I want to know my government is there, to provide those common services and safeguards which the general citizenry cannot. Otherwise, I want my government to stay out of my day-to-day life and not try to manipulate me, my rights, my money, my possessions, or my freedoms. Thomas Jefferson had it right when he said that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have. 
 
Therefore, since I do not agree with so many things for which Mr. Sunstein stands, nor even with the idea of presidential "czars" in general, much less so many of them, I am expecting you to vote NO on Mr. Sunstein's confirmation and will be watching your vote as an indicator of how I should vote for you in the next election.

Sincerely,

Colonel Charles Fowler
USA, RET

[Note: Any of you who read this, agree with it, and want to copy and use it to send to your elected officials have my permission to do so.]

As reported by ArcaMax.com, according to the word-watchers at Global Language Monitor, the media tracking and analysis firm of Austin, TX, the top 10 most used words/phrases since President Obama's inauguration are:

Gee, I'm a little surprised. I mean, some of those make sense to me, based on what I've been seeing and hearing since January 20th, just 231 days ago (can you believe it?), but others surprise me so far as a "top 10" list goes. And I guess one thing that surprises me the most is some of the words left out, rather than some of those included.

I would've thought any "top 10" list of most-used words/phrases since Obama's inauguration would include (in no particular order -- well, except for the first three, of course):

 

So entitled Ben Smith and Nia-Malika Henderson their recent TeamPOLITICO article over Van Jones' demise as Obama's so-called "green jobs czar." The article was generally okay, with examples of how the Obama White House and "lefties" in general had misjudged various things during the summer, not the least of which, apparently, was FNC's Glenn Beck's ability to kick up a stink over Obama's czars in general and Jones in particular.

However, in one of what might charitably be called POLITICO's occasional "bending over backwards to be fair" efforts, which sometimes bleed into simply being ever-so-sly Obama promoters (as when POLITICO.com's head honcho Mike Allen twice referred during the campaign to Candidate Obama doing this or that at the "Western White House" in Hawaii -- uh, can't have any kind of White House, Mikey, unless you're already the prez) or apologists for this White House and its current primary occupant, the article's authors said something I just didn't want to let pass, so I told them so.

Dear (supposedly objective) TeamPOLITICO:

"Actually the answer is simpler than that...

Van Jones founded an organization that decided to go after Beck personally by attempting to silence Beck and making a big deal about it in the national media. The choice of Jones is retaliation pure and simple. It's hardball politics and this is how its [sic] played."

No, TeamPOLITICO, it's even simpler than that...

If you're going to play apologist for the Obama White House, at least get your chronology straight. Look up the actual dates when Beck started talking and asking legitimate questions about all of Obama's czars and then when Color of Change called for its boycott of Beck.

Beck was already well into "exposing" some of Obama's czars (I think including Jones, but for your own "hardball politics" example, that doesn't really matter) when Color of Change announced its boycott of Beck sponsors in a rather obvious left-wing effort to silence Beck.

So much for freedom of speech, huh? So, it wasn't Beck who "picked on" Jones in retaliation for Color of Change's boycott; it was Color of Change which attempted to retaliate against Beck with its boycott for Beck's "outing" of Jones and others.

But Beck wouldn't be silenced and his audience, and other sponsors, not only rallied to him for it but also grew. Talk about a lefty idea which backfired!

That was the end of my comment to TeamPOLITICO about their bias.

But, encouragingly, it seems like Color of Change's thuggish tactic was just another in a string of lefty misjudgments lately. You know, like Democrat "Congressionals" calling town hallers "un-American," "too well dressed to be serious," "Astroturf," and "a mob," as well as two-thirds of Congressionals not even conducting town hall meetings with their constituents at all during the summer recess and many of the one-third who did either appearing only before specially selected, closed groups of constituents (in "gated" communities), conducting so-called "conference call town halls" rather than meeting face-to-face with their constituents, or, as one Democrat Congressional recently put it, that she was not going to give those people an audience, that she respected herself and her office more than that. Hey, Miz Democrat Congressional, that's not respecting yourself OR your office. That's just plain DISrespecting your constituents. Who do you think you are, and who do you think put you where you are? Those people are your constituents, you work for them. And if they voted you in, they can vote you out. And to say something like that is either the height of arrogance at worse or not even being a useful idiot at best.

2010 -- throw all the bums and crooks and self-servers out! Elect people who are of the people rather than above the people, who want to serve rather than rule, and who want to serve us rather than themselves.

 

Mr. Jones sure seems full of himself -- as well as some pretty wild ideas and accusations.

There's a painting at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in Oakland, CA, which appears in a video interview of President Obama’s so-called Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones. Mr. Jones, an unrepentant rioter, race baiter and professional victim monger, started the Ella Baker Center. The painting shows a Jimmy Carter looking white man on the left pointing a gun into the back of the head of what appears to be a Hispanic woman. On the right is an Orin Hatch looking white man holding a piece of paper that says “War on Youth” as he handcuffs a young black male. In the middle are young minority youths just trying to have a good time if only the evil white men would let them.

So, who was Ella Baker? Well, she was a peaceful but persistent activist in the early days of the civil rights movement in this country and, one might say, a modern day American heroine for her work for equal rights for all. Born December 13, 1903, in Norfolk, Virginia, she developed a sense for social justice early in her life. As a student at Shaw University in Raleigh, North Carolina, she challenged school policies that she thought were unfair. After graduating in 1927 as class valedictorian, she moved to New York City and began joining social activist organizations.

She began her involvement with the NAACP in 1940. In 1957, Baker moved to Atlanta to help organize Martin Luther King's new organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). In February 1960, a group of black college students from North Carolina A&T University refused to leave a Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina, where they had been denied service. Baker left the SCLC after the Greensboro sit-ins because she wanted to assist the new student activists. She organized a meeting at Shaw University for the student leaders of the sit-ins in April 1960, and from that meeting, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was born.

Adopting MLK's Gandhian theory of nonviolent direct action, SNCC members joined with activists from the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) to organize the 1961 Freedom Rides. With Ella Baker’s guidance and encouragement, SNCC became one of the foremost advocates for human rights in the country. She continued to be a respected and influential leader in the fight for human and civil rights until her death on December 13, 1986, her 83rd birthday.

And who is Anthony "Van" Jones? Born September 20, 1968, he attended the University of Tennessee at Martin and subsequently obtained his JD degree from Yale Law School. He is a lawyer, a civil rights, human rights and environmental activist, a self-proclaimed communist, a former street rioter and jailbird, and the author of one book, The Green Collar Economy (2008).

His current employer is the White House Council on Environmental Quality, where he is listed as Special Advisor for Green Jobs, which means he's Obama's green jobs "czar," which means he works for and is accountable only to Obama but is paid by you, the American taxpayer. How much he's paid or the size and pay of his staff, we don't know -- just as with the approximately three dozen "other" extra-constitutional "czars" which Obama has appointed.
 
By virtue of being Obama's green jobs czar, Jones needs no Congressional approval -- approval he would not get either following an FBI SBI (Standard Background Investigation) or from Congress based on his record as a die-hard communist and self-described Marxist revolutionary. He also has some, ahem, other "interesting" beliefs, as well. He believes that "white polluters" intentionally steered poison into black neighborhoods. He also, just this year, attended a forum to promote Barack Obama’s agenda and, when asked how Republicans were able to block Obama’s agenda, repeatedly called them a-holes. He then said people around Barack Obama would need to get “uppity” to deal with the Republicans. (This is a guy with an advanced degree from Yale?! Well, that just made me much less impressed with Yale, and maybe with affirmative action, that's for sure.)

Oh, and Van Jones was also co-founder in 2005, along with James Rucker, previously Director of Grassroots Mobilization for MoveOn.org Political Action and MoveOn.org Civic Action (2003 - 2005), of Color of Change, the extremist racial grievance group that isn't happy with FNC's Glenn Beck for "outing" "Van the Man" Jones as a former jailbird, self-described "communist" and "rowdy black nationalist." 

Jones later moved on to other pursuits, but, coincidentally (I'm sure), it was Color of Change which recently called for a boycott of Beck's sponsors (let's hear it for free speech!), probably at least with the White House's blessing, if not its collusion. However, their attempt to destroy Beck by convincing advertisers to stop buying time on his show backfired because, although some sponsors did withdraw from Beck's show and/or equivocated about advertising on Fox but not specifically with Beck, it appears none canceled their ads with Fox in general and plenty of others have filled the void and signed up as Beck sponsors -- and Beck's already impressive ratings, especially for a 5PM show, have skyrocketed even more. It's like a few months ago when the DNC and Democrats in general tried to demonize Rush Limbaugh as the "head" of the Republican Party who wanted Obama to fail, and Rush's already incredibly large audience got even bigger.

By the way, Jones was also a founder and previously on the board of the Appollo Alliance, a hard-left environmentalist group that is now literally running parts of the Obama administration. So, had you ever even heard of them before? Me neither, but they're running part of the federal government now, it seems. As also recently reported by -- guess who? -- Glenn Beck (well, you didn't think it was the liberal lamestream media, did you?), the Appollo Alliance has not only recently acknowledged but actually bragged that it literally dictated parts of the legislative language in the February stimulus bill to Congress. (Hmmm, still more radical left associations with, and within, the Obama White House. Oh my! Who would've guessed?)

So, Jones said “people around Barack Obama would need to get ‘uppity’ to deal with the Republicans,” eh? Well, that's okay. I'm from the South, where Ella Baker did most of her good work, and we don't tolerate uppity folks too well. In fact, not much better than we tolerate fools or liars, or communists, or radicals or so-called "revolutionaries," for that matter. And we know how to deal with uppity folks, too, blacks as well as whites. We prefer to treat people as equals but if you're going to act uppity, then get ready for a plain old Southern slapdown. You know, like maybe yo' momma should have given you more of when you were a little, too-big-mouthed boy and before you grew up to be a big ole too-big-mouthed man.

Jones has since, just recently, apologized for his "Republicans are a-holes" comments, saying something like since he started working in the White House, he's realized such comments are counter-productive and yadda, yadda. Well, duh! Looks like someone as smart as Jones seems to think he is, and with a law degree from Yale and all, would already have known that, wouldn't you think? Or were his "a-hole" comments just another example of "uppity" liberal-speak, when the mouth often just runs away with, or is that from, the brain?

Well, Van baby, "apology" NOT accepted! Your history and past comments and actions show who you really are, more than some "make nice" words of apology now. You're basically just another Saul Alinsky style, radical leftist (no wonder you and Obama "bond") who has most recently now taken on the mantle of White House enviro-terrorist and thug-in-chief. I don't think Miz Ella, who was not "uppity" herself, would be very proud of your methods or your mouth. In fact, if she were still alive, she might give you that good old Southern slapdown herself -- you know, the one yo' momma shoulda given you more of as a boy?

You recently said we need to completely overhaul the entire agricultural system in this country, and I simply ask you: Who the hell do you think you are? As we say in the South, "Don't get all carried away with yourself." What, besides your own ignorant arrogance, qualifies you to do anything with our agricultural system? I don't think a law degree even from Yale or the writing of one book or a background of radical victim activism qualifies you to even seriously talk about our overall agricultural system. So, as long as you last as Obama's "green jobs czar," why don't you just stick to seeing if you can create some overly expensive "green jobs" with all that "green jobs" money your Appollo Alliance aiders and abettors dictated into the so-called "stimulus plan" which so far, now even seven months later, hasn't stimulated much of anything?
 
Besides, I think you're already one of those "uppity" guys who needs to learn more about that old saying, "Don't let your alligator mouth overload your hummingbird as-."

But that's just me -- just askin' - just sayin'.

 

Team Obama is trying to give the true meaning of 9/11 a "makeover." I guess it's more of what Obama promised during the campaign about "transforming" America. You know, a little revisionist history never hurt anybody, right?

Plans for this were outlined in an August 11 White House-sponsored teleconference call conducted by Obama "associate" Lennox Yearwood, president of the Hip Hop Caucus, and Liv Havstad, the group's senior vice president of strategic partnerships and programs.

Yearwood, who uses the honorific "Reverend" before his name, has been in the news in recent years, often for getting arrested. After Democrats took back Congress in 2006, the "Reverend" was handcuffed outside a congressional hearing in September 2007, during General David Petraeus' testimony. Yearwood later said he wanted to attend the hearing to hear Petraeus give his report, because "I knew that when officers lie, soldiers die." Gee, that sounds like maybe Yearwood might have extensive experience as a soldier himself and would thus have some standing, and the understanding, to make such a comment. But, alas, no. However, he was an Air Force lieutenant (and avid anti-Iraq war protester) in the Individual Ready Reserve until his discharge in mid-August 2007.

So, hey, Lennie, you got a M. Divinity degree from Howard University in May 2002 but so far as I can tell are not an ordained minister, yet call yourself "Reverend" and wear a white collar, no less, which is sort of like me insisting on being addressed as "Doctor" because I have a Juris Doctorate degree. And you're an activist who tried to jump the line waiting to get into a congressional hearing in 2007 and got yourself arrested instead of being allowed into the meeting you wanted to disrupt, er, attend. And you want to imply that whenever a distinguished Army general and authentic American hero is talking he may be lying and that is causing soldiers to die? What a presumptuous, self-important, radical, big-mouthed idiot you must be! But, of course, you're supposedly some kind of friend of Obama's (as well as P. Diddy's -- or whatever he's calling himself this week), so I guess that makes you good-to-go and gives you all the "creds" you need, huh?

However, one must stop and ask, just as the issue was raised during the campaign about Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko and many others (but never pursued by the liberal lamestream media), what kind of people is Obama (and this White House) choosing to associate with? And don't such associations say at least as much -- maybe even more, really -- about Obama the man and the politician as does his stage-managed presidential "pressers" and his other telepromptered pontifications and pronouncements? Just askin' - just sayin'.

And who were those other leaders on the conference call with Yearwood? Well, it was a coalition including the radically left-wing pressure group Color of Change and other far-left, environmentalist, labor and corporate shakedown groups, including: ACORN, AFL-CIO, Apollo Alliance, Community Action Partnership, Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, 80 Million Strong for Young American Jobs, Friends of the Earth, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, Mobilize.org, National Black Police Association, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, National Council of N-gro Women, National Wildlife Federation, RainbowPUSH Coalition, Urban League, and Young Democrats of America.

Gosh, how did two other Obama-favored special interest groups, the SEIU and UAW unions, get left out of that conference call? Oh, maybe the SEIU purple T-shirted thugs were out trying to intimidate some honest citizens at another town hall meeting that day and the UAW was as busy as ever running General Motors into the ground. So, as Dana Carvey's Church Lady used to say on SNL, "N-e-v-e-r m-i-n-d."  

Color of Change is an extremist racial grievance group that isn't happy with FNC's Glenn Beck for "outing" Van Jones, the former jailbird and self-described "communist" and "rowdy black nationalist" who became Obama's so-called green jobs czar after jumping on the environmentalist bandwagon. (Hmmm, more radical left associations.) Color of Change recently called for a boycott of Beck's sponsors (let's hear it for free speech!), probably at least with the White House's blessing, if not its collusion. However, their attempt to destroy Beck by convincing advertisers to stop buying time on his show has backfired because, although some sponsors did withdraw from Beck's show and/or equivocated about advertising on Fox but not specifically with Beck, it appears none canceled their ads with Fox in general and plenty of others have filled the void and signed up as Beck sponsors -- and Beck's already impressive ratings, especially for a 5PM show, have skyrocketed even more. It's like a few months ago when the DNC and Democrats in general tried to demonize Rush Limbaugh as the "head" of the Republican Party who wanted Obama to fail, and Rush's already incredibly large audience got even bigger.

By the way, Jones was also a founder and previously on the board of the Appollo Alliance, a hard-left environmentalist group that is now literally running parts of the Obama administration. So, had you ever even heard of them before? Me neither, but they're running part of the federal government now, it seems. As also recently reported by -- guess who? -- Glenn Beck (well, you didn't think it was the liberal lamestream media, did you?), the Appollo Alliance has not only acknowledged but actually bragged that it dictated parts of the February stimulus bill to Congress.

Uhhhhh, can we all say, "WAIT A DAMN MINUTE, HERE!"?

A far-left alliance I had never even HEARD of before, composed of a bunch of people I don't know and who certainly weren't VOTED FOR or ELECTED by anybody, not only INFLUENCED (as in special interest groups -- you know, those people Obama said would have no place in his administration?) the so-called $787 billion stimulus plan, which has failed to stimulate much of anything, except more debate over massive waste of taxpayer money, but also literally DICTATED large parts of the actual legislative language to members of Congress? WOW! Just think about that for a minute. Couple that with Obama creating a shadow government of his own by appointing about 40 plus or minus "czars," whose pay and powers are unknown, many of whom have no qualifications for their positions and some of whom have criminal and/or radical leftist backgrounds, and one has to wonder: WHO IS REALLY RUNNING OUR GOVERNMENT? Do "We the People" even know? Is it even "our" government anymore? It doesn't look like it. 

With the help of the Obama administration, the August 11 conference call coalition of far-leftist loons is launching a public relations campaign under the radar of the mainstream media -- which doesn't appear to be too hard to do nowadays, since their "radar" is basically turned off and they seem collectively too cowardly to criticize our first black president, not because he's right but just because he's black. What spineless so-called
"watchdogs" of the government!

The public relations campaign will try to change 9/11 from a day of reflection and remembrance to a day of activism, food banks, community gardens, environmentalism and green, green, GREEN. C'mon, all together now, say, "La-la. La-la-la." The conference call insider source said, "They think it needs to be taken back from the right." "They're taking that day and they're breaking it because it gives Republicans an advantage. To them, that day is a fearful day." (Italics added.)

Taken back from the right? Why, because it's the right which still wants to fight, and win, the "global war on terror," rather than engage in vague and limp-wristed sounding "overseas contingency operations"?

It gives Republicans an advantage? Why, because there are real historical and traditional reasons that the maxim "Republicans are better and stronger on national defense and national security than Democrats" is a maxim? That is, because maxims are truisms?

That day is a fearful day? Well, finally, they got one out of three right. Yes, 9/11 was a fearful day -- and it should remain so in our annual collective memory, and a day of anger as well. It is not a GREEN day! And no amount of leftist, revisionist radicals has any right to try and remake it into any other kind of day than it is. It is a BLACK day! And one we should never forget. Just as March 6, 1836, when Santa Anna's thousands of Mexican soldiers finally overran the Alamo and killed all of its less than 200 brave defenders, was a black day. Just as December 7, 1941, when the Imperial Japanese Forces bombed Pearl Harbor, was a black day.

And screw Obama's hip-hop, greenie revisionists.

No less than the liberal fish wrap rag New York Times has reported that seven months into his presidency and Obama has 43 percent of the top policy-making jobs requiring Senate approval still empty, including such positions as Secretary of the Army and Director of the Agency for International Development.

Meanwhile, he has, so far at least, appointed going on 40-something so-called "czars," (a) which are at best extra-constitutional, if not unconstitutional, positions; (b) many of which duplicate existing cabinet secretarial and other federal government positions; and (c) many of which are being filled with Obama loyalists who possess what may be charitably called  "questionable" credentials, either with backgrounds totally unrelated to the czar position they're given or, in at least one case so far, the outright criminal background of a self-avowed communist.

I guess it is easier, though, and perhaps more "distracting" to those of us in the great unwashed masses out here in the hinterland, to simply appoint approximately a czar a week (oh, it's Friday, so what new czar do we have this week?), to not only give the illusion that you are doing something to solve problems but to also accomplish political payback and establish a "shadow government of czars" (a) whose salaries are unknown, (b) whose staff sizes and salaries are unknown, (c) most of whom until you appointed them were also unknown, (d) some of whom even though you have appointed them are still unknown, (e) and who are loyal only to you and not even accountable to the Congress. That's all easier, as well as more showy, than contending with that pesky and contentious ole Senate and working to get 43 percent of the policy-making positions which are actually authorized in the federal government expeditiously vetted (remember vetting?) and filled.  

And while the czar issue is both growing and ongoing, that's not all the manipulative misdirection our presidential prestidigitator and his administration henchmen offer us. The most recent is the CIA thing -- again -- and it's not just to appease their left-wing nutjobs, either. They're also doing it now as another distraction, to "change the conversation."

It came out late Friday (of course, Friday -- that's the end of the regular weekly news cycle when the White House usually dumps bad news) that Team Obama had "underestimated" the debt they've stuck us and future generations with in just over six months and it's going to be NINE TRILLION instead of the "paltry" SEVEN TRILLION that was previously announced. Of course, with the way Obama and this Congress spend money we not only don't have but also may not have even printed yet, I guess a couple of TRILLION is more or less just a "rounding error" so far as they're concerned.

Also, ObamaCare is taking a beating not only in town halls across the country but also in the latest polls, and so are Obama's ratings, so they want to change the topic to something else, perhaps almost anything, for those reasons as well.

Any time Obama gets really pressed about something he doesn't want to talk about or gets caught in another, shall we say, exaggeration (AARP backs ObamaCare -- uh, next day, no they don't), he shifts the conversation rather than answer the question, and so do his henchmen by repeating talking points instead of answering what they're asked about. Good lawyers do that. Good debaters do that. And weasely politicians do that, and, in that regard, Obama represents a trifecta -- smooth-talking lawyer, skillful debater, and ....

Besides, raising the CIA investigation issue again now also lets Obama play good cop to Attorney General Eric "Americans are cowards about race" Holder's bad cop by repeating that he only wants to look forward but it's Holder who wants to drag up investigating the CIA again, and blah, blah, blah. In D.C., that's what's politely called being disingenuous. In other parts of the country, it's called what it is: lying.

Obama may be in over his head and be too inexperienced to really know what he's doing, as some of us worried he would be, but one thing you can count on: he is a skilled politician and whatever he does do is carefully calculated, if lately at least not that well calibrated, in terms of trying to shape public opinion.

We'll see what kind of a president he turns out to be, but, make no mistake, he already is a calculating and cunning Chicago-style politician who will throw anybody he has to under the bus and who will say just about anything he thinks people will swallow. And, sadly, the liberal lamestream media and many of the people who joined his cult of personality and voted for him are not only still swallowing but also still gladly gulping down his faux "facts" and empty rhetoric. However, I myself have by now developed a pretty strong gag reflex.

Well, President Obama has appointed his latest "czar." This one's his so-called "Pay Czar," Kenneth Feinberg, the attorney who oversaw the federal government's compensation fund for victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and who is also known as a "Special Master," whatever that is. His being a "Special Master" initially made me wonder if he was a senior member of some kind of secret society or fraternity -- and he just may be: the secret society of czars.

You see, one thing that worries me is just how many of these so-called czars are there now? Some newscasters say 12, some say 16 and others say 20. Twenty?! Really?! I don't know that anyone who's not on Team Obama really knows. And I suspect that may be the point -- we're not supposed to know. Just like we're not supposed to pay attention to what Obama's actually doing versus what he says he's doing.

Now, past presidents have used "czars" for special emphasis on various things, so probably nothing all that wrong with that -- but none ever like Obama.

Even if you consider however many czars there are, also don't forget there are some "czarinas" in the mix, too, as well as "special advisors," "task forces," "advisory boards," etc., etc., now seemingly out the kazoo. All appointed by Obama, all answerable to Obama, all loyal to Obama, none accountable to Congress (there have already been at least two cases where Obama czars requested to appear before Congressional committees simply didn't show up -- how rude!), and most of them, much less what they're doing behind the scenes, are mostly unknown to and by the American people. Transparency anyone?

And if you consider that, at least collectively, these czars, however many there are, oversee, direct, supervise, control, whatever it is that they do, about two trillion dollars in taxpayer money, then I think it's fair to ask: Accountability anyone? Oh, I forgot, they're accountable to Obama (just not to the Congress and therefore not to the American people which the Congress purportedly represents). So, no worries. Never mind.

And if you factor in that each of these czars, czarinas, special advisors, task forces, etc., have assistants and some kind of staff, then how many people are we talking about? How much are these czars, etc., paid for their services and how much taxpayer money is spent on their staffs? I'm sure none are working pro bono.

Quite the "shadow government," eh? Why does one need so many czars, etc., when one has multiple cabinet secretaries, each with numerous subordinate officials, who have not only been nominated and gone through some kind of public vetting process but also been approved and confirmed by the peoples' representatives in Congress, instead of an unknown number of individuals simply being designated by the president? Why does Obama need so many "extras"? How much is Obama's shadow government costing us taxpayers? And what is Obama's shadow government really doing behind the scenes?

It's all quite bizarre, really, that seemingly no one -- not Congress, not the Justice Department, not so-called national journalists, reporters or commentators, not government watch or waste groups -- is forcing Obama to address and clarify all of this. Or maybe I should simply say, in the upside down world of Obamaland, it's just another "be-czar" move toward -- what? -- socialism or fascism? Take your pick, but neither is very transparent, very accountable or very American.