Senators Examine Constitutionality of Obama's 'Czars'

If they shut down Acorn, they'll have to shut down every organization that receirves taxparyer funding, or tax subsiedies, or government business. That includes Halliburtion, KBR, Lockheed-Martin, Xe, and all the other defense contractors with bad employees, you idiot. Ever hear of a bill of attainder? Ever hear of due process?

"He who controls the purse strings...." Something like 31 czars and an unprecedented $21 million to assist the so-called first lady on the taxpayers tab seems a little extravagant. Perhaps a Congressional audit of the Executive Branch and excluding the funds for this kind of extravagance would go a long way to keeping the Banana Republican in check.

Congress has still NOT closed down the federal funds going to ACORN. A million dollars earmarked for local fire departments was recently rerouted to ACORN's New Orleans headquarters.

efu2obama: Bush II had 47 czars you moron. President Obama kept at least one of them so they could clean up their mess in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Still think we’re not already living in a totalitarian state? Are you awake yet? Are you ready to fight?


Is Totalitarian Conquest of USA Already Complete?

By Sher Zieve Wednesday, October 7, 2009
As the ruling (no longer governing) political party in the US continues to work fast and furiously to create and pass legislation designed to eliminate any remaining liberties guaranteed US citizens by the US Constitution and create a massive dependent-class of said citizens beholden only to it—and the opposition party ignores its works and sits on its collective derrière—the answer to my question “is the totalitarian conquest of the USA already a fait accompli?” has become tragically obvious.

With Obama continuing to build his ‘you-report-only-to-me’ force of Marxist Czars (seemingly calculated to replace those positions that have traditionally had to pass Congressional scrutiny) and his already expressed disdain for the US’ establishment document, it strongly appears to be so. But there are even more definitive examples. Let’s take a look at a few.

With regards to the ongoing attempts by US citizens to gain the truth about Obama’s “natural born citizen” status, the Dictator-in-Chief has spent at least $1-1.5 Millions to keep his true birth certificate and all of his college and other school records hidden from the public. On the other hand, when Congress and others demanded that his competitor for the position of POTUS produce “proof” that he is “natural born” McCain did so. Obama, however, still refuses—which leads to strong and logical speculation that he is not a US citizen. Is Obama exempt because of his skin color (he is partially black)? Or, are Marxists who have for years designed the destruction of the USA excused from presenting their true qualifications for the highest office in the land? Why are Republicans in leadership positions not asking for proof, as real American citizens are doing? It seems even Republicans are complicit in this possible if not probable fraud. Note: The supposed Hawaiian COLB (Certificate of Live Birth) that has floated on the Internet is not a valid birth certificate.

Obama is also being represented in a current lawsuit by Attorneys who were appointed by US Attorney General Eric Holder. Apparently, they are being paid for their services by the US taxpayer. So…Holder was appointed by Obama and he appointed attorneys who are being paid by the US taxpayers to continue to keep Obama’s records hidden from them? Does this make sense to you? Is this even legal and constitutional? I doubt it.

A friend also brought up the question “how can the attorneys representing Barack Obama claim in court they are representing the President of the United States of America when that IS the specific issue the plaintiffs in the case are claiming is false—due to Obama‘s ineligibility to hold the office? And why didn‘t plaintiff’s attorneys [in the Obama eligibility case currently before US District Court Judge David O. Carter] object with ‘by what authority do you recognize Barack Obama as POTUS‘!?” These are great questions and they deserve—no they NEED—answers from Obama’s We-the-People funded attorneys. Note: If I’m paying for them, don’t I have a stake—i.e. standing—in the outcome? If I am not afforded this, cannot I also claim harm? Why are Obama’s attorneys (who are apparently being funded by us) not being asked to produce the proof that Obama is eligible to be President of the USA, in order to support the defense‘s claim? Is this merely another example of totalitarianism having replaced our former Republic? Now, we have to openly pay for everything the Obama does—including defending himself in lawsuits?

On 4 September, I wrote a column entitled “Is MA Storm Trooper bill a Test Case for Obama Takeover?” In it I identified the content, page and line numbers of the specifically Machiavellian Massachusetts’ Pandemic Act of 2009—st02028. Although the usual leftist contingent vilified me with the usual ad hominem attacks (including one large forum that used to be conservative), no one could deny that what I had quoted from the Massachusetts’ Pandemic Act of 2009 was (and still is) actually included in the now-passed legislation. This becomes, I believe, even more important when coupled with the following information.

In an interview of medical writer and editor Jane Burgermeister, conducted in Austria on 8 September 2009 by Project Camelot, the draconian reasons for the Swine flu’s mandatory implementation emerge. Burgermeister advises that the International Health Regulation Act of 2005 , control is given to the WHO (World Health Organization) over member countries—this includes the USA. In a declared pandemic (which the WHO declared for H1N1 Swine flu), the WHO has the authority to take over police and health forces of every member country. In the almost hour long interview (link provided below), Burgermeister also outlines the other groups and foundations that have brought this coordinated attack against the world’s people to bear. In this country—thus far in Massachusetts—laws exist that place mandatory compliance for everyone to take vaccinations when the ruling government deems it so. Those who refuse are currently, in MA, subject to a $1,000 fine, police forcibly entering their private homes and quarantining or even imprisoning them. Did you know that? Please read the Massachusetts Pandemic Act of 2009 (st02028). All of these Orwellian provisions are included therein.

Still think we’re not already living in a totalitarian state? Are you awake yet?

Are you ready to fight?

Hey There JUNGLE ROT! What's your resource for 47 czars??? Where the hell did you dig up that number!?!?

You really are not very well and breaking up very quickly. Time for you to call out to your radical friends "ELVIS HAS LEFT THE BUILDING" and head up Sawmill Rd. to your cage at the Zoo. Please, take care of yourself. You know that in jail, you will not be allowed to have your meds.

OBAMA dont stop now, you did good to appoint the idiot from Alaska as the CZAR of Strippers, now APPOINT a CZAR of THE WAR CRIMES of GW, DICK, and their lying crew.

I think they were just as unconstitutional under Republican presidents, but they weren't given a lot of attention. The sheer number of czars Obama has appointed added to the attention they have brought to themselves with their comments and positions has brought the matter to the forefront. If they are found unconstitutional under Obama, future Republican presidents will also be unable to have them. I for one don't want any president of either party to have unvetted individuals who have so much power and so much of the president's ear. Let them be approved or let them go.

Traditionally, czars are assigned to track, report to the POTUS, and, as per instructions of the POTUS, act on behalf of him for specific areas or goals that are important to him. With 31 or so czars, I'd say our Banana Republican has a pretty large number of objectives in mind.

Like, a "civilian" security force (for what purpose?); the IRS auditing, through our tax returns, all of the guns in this country (for what purpose?); the monitoring of the internet and the determination of user identities (for what purpose? Homeland Security already does this, why is this function being moved to the WHO?); etc., etc.,.........

cheryl and steph,

New World order was a Nazi/Bush thing. Get your facts straight!

So when Reagan appointed czars it was OK? When Bush appointed czars it was OK? But when Obama appoints czars we are descending into a "totalarian state"? You idiots would be believable if you b*tched about things like appointing czars when your guy was doing it. Government bailout Bush-good Obama-bad. War in Afghanistan Bush-good Obama-bad.President traveling because of Olympics Bush-good Obama-bad. Gimme a break. You freaks are morons,

Now, JUNGLE ROT, you are a mind reader, eh? 1). The world wide declaration of war against Saddam HUSSEIN happened prior to the Gulf War. HUSSEIN was invaded because he had not adhered to the terms of the peace and violated oversight requirements. 2). Your Banana Republican has already subverted the Constitution, one time even before he was elected by a very narrow popular margin (3%). He's a usurper claiming to have been a natural born citizen.