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.

I sometimes "collect" items which individually don't warrant a whole article in and of themselves but which may still give an overall impression of things political. Hence, some of this and some of that, a little bit of this and that, or, in other words, some political potpourri.

Taxes
We already have a steeply progressive income tax, with the top 5 percent of earners paying 60 percent of the taxes (in 2006), and the top 25 percent paying 86 percent. So, how does President Obama claim to be giving a "tax cut" to 95 percent of Americans, when 40 percent of them don't even pay taxes? Because his "tax cuts" aren't really tax cuts, they're just issuing government checks (probably to retain votes or "buy" new ones). To have actual tax cuts, you have to change the tax code and reduce taxes by category on those who actually pay taxes. The fact is that Obama wants to perform an experiment by confiscating more of the income of the most productive earners (who create the overwhelming majority of jobs) and redistributing it to those who earn less. And, if that's not socialism, folks, it's at least socialistic.

Bipartisanship?
President Obama has talked a lot about wanting a new spirit of bipartisanship in Washington. Like the time he invited Republicans to the White House to discuss the so-called stimulus package which the Democratic Congress and our new Democratic President wanted out the door, like yesterday - you know, to help our struggling economy. Republicans cited the recent nonpartisan CBO (Congressional Budget Office) analysis showing that the proposed stimulus package wouldn't really stimulate much and that what it did stimulate wouldn't occur until 2010 or later, perhaps after the current recession is already ending itself. (Economists tell us that recessions in this country historically last about two years before they start working themselves out. Well, that is, unless the government intervenes, and then it might take longer. That last part was a joke - but maybe not.) And when Republican Congressman Eric Kantor of Virginia presented some actual tax cuts which Republicans think would help stimulate the economy right away, Obama basically said there was a philosophical difference between them about tax cuts and that since he won the election, that argument was over. Whoa! So philosophical differences (read: ideology) outweigh potentially practical solutions? Is that what that means? Well, despite all your talk, Mr. President, way to go on actually showing bipartisanship!

Pelosi-Obama Hypocrisy
- Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy "the princess" Pelosi wants all of us to reduce our carbon footprint. For example, she wants us to buy smaller cars. And she's doing such a good job of setting a good example, too. Since she, along with most of Congress, only works about three full days a week (Tuesday through Thursday), she goes "home" to California just about every weekend. Now, after 9-11, the Speaker of the House, being third in line to the presidency (I know, with Pelosi, that's really scary to think about, isn't it?), was authorized necessary travel by government, rather than commercial, aircraft for security reasons. I think Pelosi's Republican predecessor used something like a 10-passenger, corporate-style jet. But Pelosi, who lives farther away and doesn't want to be "bothered" by stopping en route to refuel, travels by jumbo jet. And this gas guzzling 200-passenger jet flies her, and often a gaggle of Congressional staffers and/or friends and relatives, home to California at a cost to the taxpayers of about $60,000, one way! And as some pundit wryly said, "Unfortunately, we (also) have to pay to bring her back on Monday night." So, that costs us another $60,000. Folks, that is $480,000 per month and an annual cost to the taxpayers of $5,760,000 (yes, you read that right, over 5 million taxpayer dollars)! No wonder she complains about the cost of us fighting the war on terror. It might cramp her style. But I don't think she really needs to worry about me driving a smaller car or about my carbon footprint, not when hers is obviously so large - and paid for by me and you.
- And Obama wants us to turn our thermostats down and wear sweaters to conserve energy, yet his own advisor (and door-to-door salesman look alike) David Axelrod says Obama dislikes the cold and keeps the temperature in the Oval Office high enough to raise orchids. I guess that's so he can be photographed "working hard" in his shirtsleeves. Or maybe it's just because he, like many other politicians, just wants us "ordinary Americans" to do as he says, not as he does. Ya think?

Obama White House Vetting Process?
James Hirsen previously wrote in the Left Coast Report a blurb entitled From Little Screen to Big Screen to Magazine to White House Scene. In it, he said: "Change has come to the White House staff. Alejandra Campoverdi, an assistant to one of President Obama’s deputy chiefs of staff, has an unusual resume, even by D.C. standards. Campoverdi has gone from being a contestant on a reality television show to acting in Hollywood films to posing in lingerie for a men's magazine to a high-level position in the Obama administration. After graduating from college, Campoverdi tried out for 'The Apprentice,' Donald Trump's reality TV show, but she didn't make the cut. However, she was able to get on as a contestant in the third season of NBC's 'For Love Or Money,' one of the clones of 'The Bachelor' on which young single women compete for an eligible man's affection. She managed to obtain minor roles in major movies, which include being a vampire who is pursued by Keanu Reeves (“Constantine”) and playing the girlfriend of a military character (“The Aviator”). Campoverdi also has the resume enhancement of having donned a corset for a Maxim magazine photo spread. In the fall of 2008, she worked as an intern on Obama's presidential campaign and was apparently able to leverage the position to become an assistant to a White House deputy chief of staff."
Well, my comment on Hirsen's article is simply that, with some of Obama's main cabinet designees already having had some, uh, vetting problems, I just wonder what the vetting process was like on THIS position?! But, presumably, Ms. Campoverdi has at least paid all her taxes, doesn't employ a nanny and is not currently the subject of a federal investigation of any kind. And if that's the case, then she's already way ahead of many of Obama's other nominees.

Obama's Health Care Board
Remember the "health care board" mentioned in the Obama stimulus package? I don't know if it made it into the final stimulus bill that was signed into law or not (heck, most of the Congressionals who voted for it didn't know what was in it, either), but I don't think we need Washington making our health care decisions for us. Besides, it was inappropriate to include provisions about health care in the so-called stimulus plan anyway. What is stimulative about health care provisions, except, that is, beyond creating more of a shadow government than President Obama has already been doing with czars and czarinas duplicating cabinet secretaries and this and that advisory board and/or task forces out the kazoo? Remember, the stimulus plan, by Team Obama's own definition, was supposed to be: timely, targeted and temporary. Sneaking health care provisions into the stimulus plan may arguably have been timely and targeted but it is not temporary, just as much of the other pork in the House and Senate proposals was not. If you're going to attempt to nationalize the health care system, do it the right way: conduct committee hearings, call in doctors, health care professionals, insurers and other experts, take testimony, have open and full debate on the merits, and conduct the business of the American people in the open. Remember, another watchword of the Obama administration is transparency. (Oops, sorry, we already have multiple examples of how that has gone so far.)

A Billion, A Trillion?
Dave Satre, political and social commentator, has written about how much a billion and a trillion dollars are:
"It is difficult to visualize just how many dollars there are in $1 billion.  The politicians who are spending fortunes in government money make it sound as though they are dealing in smaller numbers by removing quite a few digits. For example, Bush's budget deficit, which at the time of this writing is $422,000,000,000 is more simply stated as $422 billion.
To put it in a different perspective, a billion is a thousand million.
To place it in a better perspective, a billion seconds ago, it was the year 1959.
Humans first learned to write 252 billion seconds ago.
A billion minutes ago, Jesus was alive.
A billion hours ago, our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate Washington spends it.
A trillion dollars is even more incomprehensible.  A trillion is a thousand billion.
One trillion seconds equals 1,688 years.
The oldest known human was alive 110 trillion seconds ago.
The US National Debt at the time of this writing is $8,538,579,172,593, or more simply stated: $8.5 trillion. The number is so large that the $1.75 billion this debt is increasing per day seems minuscule by comparison.
So, the next time you hear a politician casually use the words 'billion' or 'trillion,' think about whether you really want that politician spending your tax money."

Make Your Voice Heard - Do Your Duty
Our country is in crisis. Our taxpayer money is being spent like never before in our history, much of it on pork barrel projects so politicians can be reelected. Our government is incurring debt which our children and grandchildren will not be able to pay off. Are you making sure your voice is being heard by the politicians? Are you writing/calling your Congressional representatives, the President, signing petitions, trying to make a difference? At no time in our recent history has good citizenship been more important - and good citizenship means staying informed, calling on your elected officials to do the right thing, and calling them out when they don't. Living in this great country of ours is a privilege, but good citizenship is a duty, and one which goes beyond just voting every once in a while. If you're already doing your duty, good for you - keep it up. But, if you're not, don't complain later if things get worse. It does little good to simply agree/disagree or complain among ourselves. Complain to the politicians. Let your voice be heard. One or two of us will not make a difference, but many of us together can. Do you duty - be a good citizen.

Card Check
Rarely has a piece of proposed legislation been more euphemistically and misleadingly named. The Employee Free Choice Act, my foot! Let's call it what it is: a Democrat Party payback to big unions for their support (you know, the type of union which is strangling GM right now) so the unions can use strong arm tactics to grow their membership. The ability of American workers to choose whether or not to unionize through federally supervised secret ballot elections should be protected. The proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is flawed. The bill consists of three provisions, each of which is unacceptable:
•  Elimination of the secret ballot: Trading the secret ballot process for one that invites intimidation and coercion and leads to widespread disenfranchisement of workers is not a step in the right direction and flies in the face of one of our most cherished rights, the right to a secret ballot.
•  Writing contracts through government imposed arbitration: Forced arbitration would impose unreasonable and inflexible terms and cause employers to lose control over their operations, preventing them from growing their businesses.
•  Unreasonable and one-sided penalty expansion: EFCA imposes dramatic new penalties on employers for violations of the National Labor Relations Act, but not a single new penalty on unions or labor organizers.
EFCA would have a particularly devastating impact on small business owners/employers who, as the primary source for new jobs (70%), are counted on to reverse the current economic downturn. This bill is an awful idea in good economic times and a catastrophic idea in the difficult economic times in which we currently find ourselves. Call on your elected representatives and insist they not support or cosponsor the Employee Free Choice Act.

A Quote for Our Time
Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931 - 2005), Christian radio and TV preacher who was a spiritual advisor to five U.S. presidents, said: "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
And note that Dr. Rogers died in 2005, before the era of Obama, so what he said was not directed particularly at Obama - but surely well could have been.

Another Applicable Quote
Joseph Joubert (1754-1824), French essayist, said, "When a nation gives birth to a man who is able to produce a great thought, another is born who is able to understand and admire it."
Our biggest problem is that Obama seems to think he's both of these guys.

I've often read articles by Georgie Anne Geyer and, while sometimes not totally agreeing with her point of view, I have enjoyed them.

But, not so much with her "Time to bask in hope" article, Washington Times Commentary Section, Sunday, November 9, 2008, page B4. (If you want to read her whole article, go to Washingtontimes.com and search its archives by author or date.) Some things she wrote in this article just beg for redress.

It is perfectly all right with me that her article was a little gushy about Obama winning the election. Ms. Geyer can gush if she wants to. But, as a journalist, she is supposed to also be somewhat objective. Well, not so much, at least not in this article.

Ms. Geyer: "...there he was, the first black president of the United States! And if you've lived in the years leading up to this, it all rather takes your breath away."

Well, Ms. Geyer, I have lived in all "the years leading up to this." My first presidential vote was for John Kennedy in 1960, and I served our country myself for almost 26 years in the military. But, no, Obama being elected did not take my breath away. Rather, it made me worry that the American Electorate, seemingly swayed by a near cult of personality, had elected a man, regardless of his skin color, who was not properly vetted by the liberal mainstream media, whose actual experience was less than any of the other three presidential and vice presidential candidates, and whose record, slim though it may be, showed him to be a far left liberal.

Ms. Geyer again: "It will be fascinating to watch what his presidency will stand for -- and inspire -- in the rest of the world. Americans have never understood the degree to which we are a unique nation in the world, in that we at least try to accept 'the other' among us."

It strikes me as singularly oxymoronic that Ms. Geyer would juxtapose these two sentences -- one about what Obama's presidency will stand for to the rest of the world and the other alluding to America's exceptionalism. So far, what Obama and his pending presidency seem to stand for, at least to the Europeans, is that he is one of them, a socialist. And they, our European friends and foes alike, like that. They like it because it means America will become more like their socialistic countries and share their socialistic views of their own countries and the world. And that is antithetical to the very ideals of American exceptionalism, which are that Americans are more individualistic, self-reliant, anti-state and pro-immigration than people in most other countries; they work harder, are more philanthropic and participate more in civic activities -- all of which are anti-socialist traits.

I also disagree with Ms. Geyer's flat statement that "Americans have never understood the degree to which we are a unique nation in the world..." Well, maybe not among the crowd you hang out with, Ms. Geyer, but many Americans always have and still do believe strongly in America's exceptionalism, its being different from any other nation, its being that "city on the hill," that "democratic beacon of hope" to the world. The average American may not be able to pedantically articulate what comprises American exceptionalism, but many Americans know, almost instinctively, what it is and what makes us different, what should rightfully make us proud of who we are and what we do. Of course, most of those who do know are over 30, because it's been about that long since liberalism took over our classrooms and stopped teaching such things as Civics and American History, while increasingly excluding the Judeo-Christian principles upon which our nation was founded and to which it mainly adhered until about the last generation or so.

Ms. Geyer yet again: "The outgoing Bush family should be ashamed, if they had the decency to be so, to leave our nation as it is to someone else to try to put in order: Two senseless wars still going on. Our financial structure in collapse, and the entire world endangered."

Well, Georgie Anne, I hardly know where to begin, so let me just ask you some questions. Do you not understand there is something called a Constitutional Amendment that requires President Bush to leave office now, after two terms as president, no matter what else is going on? You make it sound like he's skipping out the back door and purposefully leaving a mess for the next guy.
 
Actually, that's what Clinton staffers did as George W. came into office, destroying government property by removing the W on computer keyboards, gluing desk drawers shut, trashing official files, etc., etc., which the mainstream media seemed to think was "cute" and "playful" but for which I, as a military officer, would have been prosecuted or sometimes, as a commander, had to prosecute others for. Heck, in the military, we were subject to sanction for even the misuse of government property, much less its willful destruction. Did any of those Clinton staffers ever pay one dime of restitution to the American taxpayers for their "playful," albeit illegal, behavior? Never mind. That's a rhetorical question.

Instead, President Bush has mounted one of the most comprehensive transition mechanisms in history to help President-elect Obama hit the ground running. No mention of that, though, huh? And no mention either that President Bush has kept us safe from another terrorist attack on our own soil for over seven years? Hmmm, okay, let's see how Obama does with that.

As to "Two senseless wars still going on," of course you mean (a) the one in Iraq, which Obama opposes, has been wrong about, has been wrong about the surge for, and though he only recently reluctantly admitted the surge had turned around, still believes we should never have gotten into and we should pull out of before finishing the job, and also (b) the one in Afghanistan, which Obama actually favors and says we should be doing more about. Those "two senseless wars"? What do you think is one thing that has kept al-Qaeda so busy as to perhaps not have time to strike us again at home if it has not been our intervention in Iraq, which al-Qaeda itself then declared as the main front on which to defeat us and sent thousands of terrorists to, so we could kill and capture them, rather than have them planning another attack on us here at home?

And, as to "Our financial structure in collapse, and the entire world endangered," you might want to look a little more into the Congressional Democrats who repeatedly refused President Bush's 17 calls, starting in 2001, to tighten controls on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but who instead persisted in their social engineering experiment to give the American Dream to unqualified mortgagees, instead of requiring them to be qualified to earn it. The F&F collapse was the precursor to all the financial house of cards falling and that is what's led to damaging our entire "financial structure."

And, yes, the entire world is endangered, but by Islamic terrorists, not by the outgoing, should be ashamed and indecent Bushes. It will be interesting to see how the oh-so-charismatic and inspiring Obama handles the terrorist threat. Running an inspiring campaign is one thing; governing when you can't just vote "present" is another. I wish our new president well, for all our sakes, but I'm watching to see what he does, not just what he says. After all, talk is cheap.

So, Georgie Anne, it's okay to gush about Obama if you like, but it's not okay to take cheap shots at the outgoing president in the process. And that ending sentence of yours about one wishing "one could snatch a touch of his magic and burrow it away for the hard times," well, as I said, I truly hope President-elect Obama does well, but just in case he doesn't, you might want to really cling to that "touch of his magic" -- you know, "for the hard times."