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.]

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.

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.