Can You major in "Czar" while in college?

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) offered the amendment that blocks funding for various policy advisers to combat what he called “a very disturbing proliferation of czars” under Obama.

“These unappointed, unaccountable people who are literally running a shadow government, heading up these little fiefdoms that nobody can really seem to identify where they are or what they’re doing,” Scalise said Thursday. “But we do know that they’re wielding vast amounts of power.”

The jobs on the chopping block: White House-appointed advisers on health care, energy and climate, green jobs, urban affairs, the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center, oversight of TARP executive compensation, diversity at the Federal Communications Commission and the auto industry manufacturing policy.

These so-called “czars” have been favorite targets of Republicans and conservative talk radio hosts, especially energy and climate adviser Carol Browner, who is leaving the administration.

“The last green jobs czar we had left in disgrace because he expressed comments embracing communism and actually tried to blame the government, the American government, for September 11th attacks,” Scalise said.

Scalise got 13 Democrats to vote for his amendment and it wasn’t just the usual Blue Dogs: Dan Boren (Okla.), Ben Chandler (Ky.), Jerry Costello (Ill.), Henry Cuellar and Gene Green of Texas, Peter DeFazio (Ore.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Ed Pastor (Ariz.), Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Mike Ross (Ark.), and North Carolina’s Heath Shuler, Mike McIntyre and Larry Kissell.

One Republican – Wisconsin’s Reid Ribble – voted no.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49781.html#ixzz1EKPaz3Nk

Face Forward says:
The fact is, we have had Czars in the government since the 70′s. The problem is not with the president having advisers outside of the cabinet (and therefore not confirmed by Congress), the problem is that this administration is trying to transform the US through redirection of wealth and by giving unprecedented power to the Czars.

This is a great move by our Freshman lawmakers. If they want to be voted back in, they will continue to produce this kind result.

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday he could nationalize private banks unless they comply with the law, adding he had “no problem with that because the banks don’t want to extend credit to the poor.”

In a broadcast from nationalized farmland in central Venezuela, he said: “To all the country’s private bankers … (I’m saying) he who slips up loses; I’ll take over the bank, whatever its size.”

“You want me to nationalize the banks?” he said during the broadcast of his weekly TV show “Alo Presidente.”

“I have no problem with that because the banks don’t want to extend credit to the poor, they don’t comply, they don’t want to comply with the bank’s purpose for existence, and that is the law.”

Chavez said the purpose of banks was not to enrich a small group of people but “should be to collect funds and savings to help aid the country’s development by making loans, extending credits for housing.”

In power for a decade, Chavez has nationalized broad swathes of the economy.

His banking nationalization threats on Sunday appeared to be broader in scope than his well-publicized warnings in recent years to nationalize Spanish-owned banks in Venezuela.

He repeatedly threatened to seize Spanish bank subsidiaries in Venezuela unless Spain’s king apologized for telling him to “shut up” in November 2007 at a regional summit where Chavez branded a recent ex-Spanish prime minister a fascist.

But the only major private bank, foreign or Venezuelan, to fall into state hands under Chavez’s rule was Spain’s Banco Santander unit Banco de Venezuela, sold to Venezuela in July for $1.05 billion.

The government’s last banking takeover was on November 20, when it seized four small banks, accounting for about 6 percent of Venezuela’s deposits.

Finance Minister Ali Rodriguez then said the move stemmed from concerns about credit portfolios, problems explaining the source of funds and failure to comply with some obligations.
For the rest of the story please go here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091129/wl_nm/us_venezuela_banks_chavez_1

Face Forward Comments:
We run a large number of stories about Chavez and there is a reason behind it.  If you look at the pattern of what he has done in Venezuela you will see a striking resemblance to what is happening in the USA.

When you say, “it could never happen here”, did you ever think the government would own GM, fine you for not having health insurance, or have a man with and Islamic name as president?  Probably not.

The thing that is so much more worrisome about the Obama Administration is that he already has the majority of the lawmakers (Democrats) supporting him.  The first step in preventing a complete takeover of our government by the left is a change in 2010.  We must vote out people that believe in big government and big spending.

There is no way he can grow the government without attracting more lobbyists and more political acrimony.

By FRED BARNES – WSJ

One insight distinguished Barack Obama from the other presidential candidates last year. While he lacked experience or a special grasp of issues, Mr. Obama said he uniquely understood what ails Washington, and what was causing the endless squabbling and bitter stalemate on important issues. If elected, he said he would change the way business is done in Washington, end the partisan deadlock and the ideological polarization.

“Change must come to Washington,” Mr. Obama said in a June 2008 speech. “I have consistently said when it comes to solving problems,” he told Jake Tapper of ABC News that same month, “I don’t approach this from a partisan or ideological perspective.”

Mr. Obama also decried the prominent role played by lobbyists. “Lobbyists aren’t just a part of the system in Washington, they’re part of the problem,” Mr. Obama said in a May 2008 campaign speech.

I was reminded of this last statement by a recent headline on the front page of USA Today. It read: “Health care fight swells lobbying. Number of organizations hiring firms doubles in ’09.” The article suggested that what Mr. Obama had promised to fix had only gotten worse.

Indeed that’s the case. Washington is more partisan than ever, and more polarized. Even on a purely procedural vote to begin Senate debate on health-care reform this past Saturday, every Democrat voted one way (yes), every Republican the other (no).

With rare exception and with no objection from the president, Democrats draft bills with no input from Republicans. In return, Republicans vote in lockstep against Democratic legislation. Every House Republican voted against the stimulus, all but one against liberal health-care reform, and all but eight against cap-and-trade legislation that passed the House earlier this year.

Why has the president’s publicly expressed vision of a kinder, gentler Washington failed to materialize? I think Mr. Obama—while hardly the only person at fault—is chiefly responsible.

He might have spawned a different Washington, a less divided town with Democrats firmly in charge but Republicans actively involved. The bonus for Mr. Obama and Democrats would be higher popularity and better prospects in 2010 midterm elections. Instead, the president made three strategic mistakes—or, really, misreadings of the political landscape—and they’ve come back to haunt him and his party.

First, Mr. Obama misread the meaning of the 2008 election. It wasn’t a mandate for a liberal revolution. His victory was a personal one, not an ideological triumph of liberalism. Yet Mr. Obama, his aides and Democratic leaders in Congress have treated it as a mandate to radically change policy directions in this country. They are pushing forward one liberal initiative after another. As a result, Mr. Obama’s approval rating has dropped along with the popularity of his agenda.

Second, Mr. Obama misread his own ability to sway the public. He is a glib, cool, likeable speaker whose sentences have subjects and verbs. During the campaign, he gave dazzling speeches about hope and change that excited voters. His late-night speech at a Democratic dinner in Des Moines on Nov. 10, 2007, prior to the Iowa caucuses, convinced me he’d win the presidential nomination.

Third, Mr. Obama misread Republicans. They felt weak and vulnerable after losing two straight congressional elections and watching John McCain’s presidential bid fall flat. They were afraid to criticize the newly elected president. If he had offered them minimal concessions, many of them would have jumped aboard his policies. If that had happened, the president could have boasted of achieving bipartisan compromise on the stimulus and other policies. He let the chance slip away.

Red the entire well written article at The Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574555471947300090.html

Beijing, China (CNN) — A little more than a year after his election, President Obama said his administration has laid the groundwork for success on global and domestic matters.

“I think that we’ve restored America’s standing in the world, and that’s confirmed by polls,” he told CNN’s Ed Henry in a wide-ranging interview this week during his trip to China.

“I think a recent one indicated that around the world, before my election, less than half the people — maybe less than 40 percent of the people — thought that you could count on America to do to the right thing. Now it’s up to 75 percent.”

The president said that makes it easier for world leaders to cooperate with the United States, noting Chinese and Russia involvement in nuclear talks with Iran.

Obama has visited 20 countries during his first year in office, more than any other U.S. president.

A decision on troops levels in Afghanistan is “very close,” the president said. “I will announce that decision certainly in the next several weeks.”

Obama has been holding regular meetings with his war council to develop options for sending more troops to Afghanistan. Last week, the president told the group — comprising top Cabinet, Pentagon and administration officials — that the U.S. troop commitment to Afghanistan is not open-ended and then asked for revisions to options he previously received, a senior administration official said at the time.

The war council is considering a request by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan for up to 40,000 more troops.

“We have a vital interest in making sure that Afghanistan is sufficiently stable, that it can’t infect the entire region with violent extremism,” Obama said. “We also have to make sure that we’ve got an effective partner in Afghanistan. And that’s something that we are examining very closely and presenting some very clear benchmarks for the Afghan government.”

For the rest of this story and a video:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/18/obama.henry/index.html?eref=rss_us&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_us+%28RSS%3A+U.S.%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Face Forward Comments:

I guess he thinks the world apology tour has helped.  For all of you Obama supporters, please name me one significant global or domestic policy that has helped the US.  I challenge you to go back to his days in congress and find anything.  Find it, send it to me, and I will publish it.  BTW Anyone know which poll he was using?