The word “czar” cannot be found in the United States Constitution, thank God.  Neither can “tsar” for you spelling sticklers.  That, alone, does not mean government czars are unconstitutional but they are nevertheless.

For example, the Marines are not mentioned in the Constitution but providing for the common defense is.  The establishment, organization and funding of the Marines is merely one mechanism by which the specific duty is manifested.

Carried out logically, each of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could be viewed as the czar for each respective military branch.  However, no one would seriously argue that any branch of the military, or any of the Joint Chief positions, is unconstitutional.

But a “green jobs” czar?

The first occasion I could find where an appointed official was called a “czar” was from the early 1970s when the press gave the nickname to John Love, President Richard Nixon’s in-house energy guru.  Perhaps the most visible czar historically was William Bennett, President Ronald Reagan’s drug czar, who was part of a well-publicized effort to convince people, and especially children, to “just say no” to illicit drugs.  President George W. Bush appointed numerous leaders to oversee various areas of government, some of which the White House described as “czars”, some the media merely dubbed as “czars”.  Many were new appointments to old positions created by previous presidents.  To my knowledge, none were approved by Congress.

It’s hard to know who is a “czar” since that title is not officially given.  However, President Barack Obama has zealously appointed czarist leaders at an incredible pace.  Indeed, we now have czars to oversee the auto industry recovery, climate, domestic violence, energy and the environment, restoration of the Great Lakes, executive pay, diversity of the FCC, and the aforementioned “green jobs” just to name a few.  All of these czars have been appointed without congressional confirmation or direct involvement in the process.

It is clear based on the language of the Constitution that these positions are patently unconstitutional.  And It doesn’t matter which president we’re talking about.

Apparently presidents don’t want Congress or the public to know about these appointments before they happen.  How else to explain the appointment of avowed communist Van Jones as “green jobs” czar?  Or John Holdren, the science czar who has advocated forced abortion and forced sterilization as acceptable methods of population control?  Or Mark Lloyd, FCC diversity czar, who believes “white people” should “step down so someone else can have power”?  There would be little mainstream support for such radicals to ascend to the highest eschelons of power if the public could scrutinize them.  But they can’t before the positions are filled.

The problem, however, is not with the czars themselves.  It’s with the federal government’s hegemony over areas of society and our lives that our founders never would have approved.  And we know this because of our founding documents.  The Constitution is a limitation on the powers of the federal government.  Our founders knew that they could not account for every possible scenario and contingency so they divided specific, enumerated powers among the three branches and dramatically limited the areas over which the federal government would have control.  Most governance obligations were supposed to exist locally, not federally.

It makes sense that some areas would fall under the exclusive province of the federal government.  Immigration and border security, military and national defense, foreign policy and treaties, war and peace, foreign trade and tariffs, coining a standard currency–obviously having different states exercising their own powers in these areas would lead to unworkable disunity.  That is part of the Constitution’s brilliant simplicity and design.

As the federal government has expanded into other areas, however, the Constitution has lost import and meaning to the point where this once great document has been rendered largely impotent.  Take just the examples above.  With the exception of energy, for which we have a cabinet level position, there is no authority for the federal government to have any role in climate control, creating “green jobs”, setting executive pay, bailing out the auto industry, or removing “white people” from positions of power so that others can take over.

The closest we can get to constitutional justification for federal involvement in these issues is in two places.  The first is the Preamble which establishes one purpose of the Constitution, to wit: to “promote the general welfare.”  The second is in Article I, Section 8, which authorizes Congress “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”

Liberals take these two phrases and extrapolate from them that the federal government has a role to play in anything that promotes or provides for the general welfare, including all of the above examples and much more.  Doing so, however, ignores a couple of key principles.  First, the “general welfare of the United States” does not equate to the specific welfare of any particular individual or group.  It might be a laudable goal to establish, for example, a social safety net for the struggling, fund the growth of new technologies or stem-cell research, stamp out domestic violence or illicit drugs, prevent the spread of AIDS, or address “urban affairs” (whatever those are).  All arguably could promote the general welfare.  But if that’s the definition we intend to apply to constitutional terms, then the federal government has carte blanche.

Second, this dovetails with the unambiguous fact that the Constitution was designed and enacted to limit federal power, not expand it.  Check the Ninth and Tenth Amendments if you doubt it.  Unlike the Marines example which can be traced directly to a clearly enumerated power granted in the Constitution, liberals have to either fit these other powers in the vague “general welfare” category or use convoluted arguments in several steps to fit enumerated powers.  For example, creating “green jobs” and bailing out the auto industry could both be considered national security issues since we are dependent on foreign oil, we seem to be the world’s poster child for environmental destruction (which is laughable), and the stability and growth of our economy is so vital to the world.  Voila, the justification for federal control.  All we have to do is appoint a czar.

But it is the very expansion and centralization of power in the federal government that has created a perceived need for these officials.  No president can possibly maintain a handle on all of these issues.  So expansion creates the need the president can fill extra-constitutionally because no one is complaining.  And those pesky limits on federal power drafted by old, dead white guys?  We can just ignore that part.

Well, I’m complaining and I’m not ignoring it.  Neither should you.  It’s time to scale back federal power to cover only those areas necessary for federal involvement.  I’ve believed this for years but now that I’m “czar-struck” with the revelations about the radicals President Obama has appointed, I’ve reached my limit.

It’s time to depose the czars and eliminate their positions.

Let them go work for ACORN.  I hear they have some openings.

Crossposted from The Los Angeles Examiner

So the Obama Administration has prepared what can only be described as a liberal propaganda video, tempered with some vaguer platitudes yet sprinkled with every color in the ethnic rainbow, and spiced with sage wisdom about “the united funk of funkadelica”, trading in “obnoxious” cars for hybrids, and not flushing after going pee-pee.  And our kids will be forced to view it during school next week.

It also includes Obama-mantras about “being the change” (whatever that means).  Anthony Keidis of the Red Hot Chili Peppers actually pledges “my service to Barack [kisses one bicep] Obama [kisses the other bicep].”  The video ends with the group of celebs pledging to be “a servant to the president and to all mankind.”  All the celeb video screens then morph into the iconic poster of President Obama.

For the custodians’ sake, let’s hope they show the video before lunch.

Truth be told, buried in the 4-minute video are some good things about being nice and helping neighbors and the needy in our communities.  But to my knowledge, no one has asked for equal time to present alternatives.

So I will fill the void.  If I knew how to work the equipment, I’d make my own video.  Since I don’t, here is a pledge that I’d prefer our children take:

I pledge to respect, listen to and obey my parents and elders because they have life experiences, wisdom and knowledge that I need to learn and which will guide me almost invariably to make better decisions.

I pledge to learn how to read, and read voraciously, because understanding the written word is critical to succeeding in life.

• I also pledge that when I grow up, I will vote for government officials who will read the laws and regulations they propose before voting on them, and I will not abide their laziness, double-speak, vagueness and condescension.

I pledge to learn mathematics because I will need to use it every day as I grow up and into adulthood.

• I also pledge that when I grow up, I will vote for government officials who know how to add and, much more importantly, subtract so that they will reduce taxes and government spending, size and growth, and stop running up humongous deficits that will make life harder on me and future generations.

I pledge to listen to my teachers because they are eager to prepare me for my future by working with me in the classroom.

• I also pledge that when I grow up, I will vote for government officials who will carry forward the principles they hold but also listen and respond to their constituents’ desires rather than dictating to us what we need.

I pledge to learn about the history of our great nation and its Judeo-Christian heritage, the wisdom of its founders, and the blessings that have flowed from our shores to the rest of the world.

• I also pledge that when I grow up, I will vote for government officials who will know our founding documents, interpret them as written, understand they were meticulously designed to limit government power while recognizing our religious traditions, and strive to exceed the high standards our founders set.

I pledge to support strong national security against our enemies because it is one of the few things the federal government is truly in the best position to handle.

I pledge to support our soldiers, sailors and airmen, and our law enforcement and emergency responders, as they carry out their duties to secure, protect and defend the liberty and freedom God has graciously granted us.

• I also pledge to work against those who denigrate our troops, micromanage their every move, equate their actions to the thuggary and merciless violence carried on by other regimes, and fail to provide them with the best available equipment, weapons, health care and living conditions.

I pledge to be a good friend, reliable, truthful and caring, placing the needs of others ahead of my own.

• I also pledge that when I grow up, I will vote for leaders who act not out of political expediency or lust for power or personal gain but instead for the best interests of our nation and with a strong desire to find solutions to our problems that don’t involve increased government intervention, regulation and control.

I pledge to care for our environment because of its beauty, wonder, resources and its evidence of God’s creative hand.

• I also pledge that I will not genuflect to hypocritical celebrities lecturing me about the evils of global warming (or cooling), gas guzzling cars, plastic, incandescent light bulbs, and meat as they fly around in Gulfstream jets, take Hummer limos to and from appointments and dine on wagyu steaks with political allies.

I pledge to conserve energy and our natural resources because it is important not to be wasteful.

• I also pledge not to place the needs of animals over people, or limit the use of our resources or technologies simply because environmental activists use the parts of science they find most appealing to push their alarmist agenda items in Chicken Little-esque fashion.

I pledge to honor the sanctity of life by working to ensure policies and resources are in place to protect it, especially for the most vulnerable among us—the unborn and young, and the infirm and elderly.

I pledge to welcome immigrants from other nations who come to America through legal process seeking better lives and wanting to work hard to legitimately achieve the American Dream.

• I also pledge that when I grow up, I will vote for governmental officials who are committed to securing our borders and deporting illegal immigrants who flout our laws, even if their intentions are otherwise honorable.

I pledge to treat with respect and dignity people of different races, creeds and cultures who intend no harm to my nation and her traditions, communities and families.

• I also pledge that when someone of another race, creed or culture wrongs me, I will not in jump to the conclusion that they are a racist, bigot, sexist, homophobe, or any other epithet, and will not use such incidents for cheap publicity or to push an agenda.

I pledge to behave both publicly and privately in ways that meet or exceed high standards of ethical conduct.

• I also pledge that when I grow up, I will vote for and support those government representatives who do likewise and tirelessly oppose those who don’t.

Finally, I will never to be a “servant” to anyone, especially not the president or any other government official.  On the contrary, I recognize that our leaders are in office to serve us and represent the best interests of us and our nation.  Therefore, I pledge to serve my country joyfully and selflessly, as an equal member of our society and without a political agenda, by seeking out and serving the needs of my family, friends, neighbors, fellow churchgoers and community.

And I don’t need President Obama, the federal government or self-righteous celebrities to tell me how to do it.

The line “win one for the Gipper” has its origins in Notre Dame football.  George Gipp, a Fighting Irish all-American footballer suffering from strep throat and pneumonia, purportedly delivered the line from his hospital bed to coach Knute Rockne before a big game against Northwestern.  Coach Rockne delivered the line to his team who, inspired by their teammate’s struggle, promptly won the game.  Gipp died shortly thereafter.  Ronald Reagan, who played Rockne in the movie Knute Rockne, All American, was nicknamed “the Gipper” and famously used the line in his presidential campaigns.

Now some Democrats are using the line as a rallying cry for health care in light of the death of Senator Ted Kennedy.  Democratic Senators Robert Byrd and Chris Dodd, as well as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have all suggested a return to civility and bipartisanship in the debate and passage of the bill to honor Kennedy’s legacy.  They might even name the bill after him.  Perhaps “win one for the skinny dipper” might be a more appropriate slogan.

Unlike the legislative process, a presidential campaign and election is like a football game.  Sometimes you’re on offense, sometimes defense, but you are always using your game strategy to score more points and win more votes than the other team.

Unfortunately, about the only thing Kennedy and Gipp have in common is the word “Irish”.

Fundamentally, many people (including I) believe there is no constitutional basis for the federal government to be regulating health care.  President Obama and congressional Democrats believe that the Constitution does not limit federal power but rather opens to national regulation all doors not specifically closed by the founding document.  In other words, the language of the Constitution is meaningless.  Of course, this way of thinking ignores the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution but that’s how liberals have been able to expand federal power at the expense of the people and local officials.

But, leave that aside since we face the reality of expanded federal intervention.  It is one thing for a football coach to invoke a dying player’s final wish to motivate his squad to leave everything on the gridiron.  The goal is to win the game.  Indeed, though, in the end it’s just a game.  No matter how important it is to the participants and fans, or how it is viewed historically, it’s still just a game.  And there is no bipartisanship in football.

Health care reform legislation at the federal level, on the other hand, isn’t a game.  The health care industry represents a large portion of our overall economy covering many different areas, from medical services to pharmaceuticals sales, private insurance to public benefits, research and development to records and billing, and many others.  National-scale reforms, even if mere tweaks, will likely cause significant tremors throughout all sectors of the industry.

There are also important moral questions presented by some proposed reforms.  Bureaucratic panels would be set up to review some care decisions, especially later in patients’ lives.  Are they “death panels” as Sarah Palin called them?  Perhaps.  A form of them essentially exists already in Oregon and at least one example shows Palin’s claim is not right-wing hysteria.  And we know that government never limits the power it takes for itself.  It’s the kind of thing that could readily and administratively (i.e through the rule-making process without additional legislation) be expanded to include life and death decisions.

The legislation also includes mandatory coverage for “reproductive health”.  Given the militant pro-abortion stand of Democrats and President Obama, it is not much of a stretch to conclude that abortions, including late-term and partial birth abortions, will be included in the coverage.

Now comes word that the bill includes provisions to allow the IRS to divulge your tax information to the “Health Choices Commissioner” for determinations of whether people will qualify for something called “affordability credits.”  You can just feel the warm fuzzies from sea to shining sea.  And it’s all designed to help you, you ungrateful wretch.

The idea that we (through our representatives) should quickly rally around a 1,000-plus page bill that is incredibly complicated, patently unconstitutional, increasingly socialist, morally and ethically questionable, economically deleterious, constantly changing and largely unread by our representatives, just so we can fulfill dead Uncle Teddy’s last wish, is an absurd and tremendous breach of the public trust, especially when large majorities don’t support the bill.

No matter for the Democrats.  They say they want to pass health care reform to honor Uncle Teddy, which is curious since I’m quite certain no federal agency or commission intervened in his care decisions.

Parts of the health care system need reform.  Shouldn’t we take our time to ensure the reforms debated and enacted are market-based solutions that will not increase federal power or decrease individual liberty?  Shouldn’t freedom of choice be available beyond decisions involving killing babies in utero?

The real reason Democrats want bipartisan support is so they can share the blame when things inevitably go awry.  With a current 59-40 majority, they don’t need bipartisanship for passage.  They want to point a finger across the aisle.  Unfortunately for the Democrats, they are on the run and attached to a bill (and concept) that is losing momentum the death of which could be a crushing blow to their power and the Obama Administration.  Yet they are true believers in federal control of health care and currently seem willing to buck the will of the majority of Americans.  That’s an enormous gamble to honor dead Uncle Teddy.

Keep speaking your minds and there’s a better chance they’ll crap out.

Crossposted from The Los Angeles Examiner

My heart goes out to Massachusetts senior Senator Ted Kennedy as he battles fatal brain cancer. No one should have to suffer slowly toward their demise. That said, Kennedy’s latest–and perhaps his last–major act as a senator constitutes nothing short of blatant political corruption.

Usually, politicians try to keep their wrongdoings shrouded from view in darkened rooms. It’s easier to get away with what you want when the lights are off. For example:

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford went to Argentina to have an affair.

John Edwards fathered a child out of wedlock while his wife had cancer and convinced a loyal aid to initially take the fall. Cue the National Enquirer and federal grand juries.

Congressman John Murtha met in private with undercover federal agents posing as Middle Eastern businessmen during the ABSCAM scandal 30 years ago but avoided prosecution by testifying as an unindicted co-conspiritor. When asked about accepting $50,000 in bribe money, Murtha said he was not interested “at this point” but could be later as they got to know each other.

Former Congressman Mark Foley resigned in disgrace after it was discovered he had sent sexually explicit messages to a former page.

Congressman Barney Frank’s former “roommate” was running a gay prostitution ring out of their DC apartment.

There are many others on both sides of the aisle who’ve had their private sins exposed. Some committed crimes while others committed only acts of paramount stupidity. But all were done in a clandestine fashion for obvious reasons.

That’s what makes Senator Kennedy’s impolitic public pronouncement that he is seeking to change his state’s senatorial succession law in anticipation of his death so shocking in its brazenness.

Democrat-controlled Massachusetts changed the state’s senatorial succession law in 2004. Previously, the state’s governor had the power to appoint a replacement senator until an election could be held. You’ll recall, however, in 2004 the state’s junior senator, John Kerry, was the Democrat nominee for president but the governor at the time was a dastardly Republican: Mitt Romney. So, in an effort to deprive Romney of this power in the event of Kerry’s election, the state legislature changed the rules to require a special election for the replacement.

Fast forward to 2009. Massachusetts now has a Democrat governor and Senator Kennedy’s condition will soon render him unable to serve and the end of his life is hastening. The timing couldn’t be worse for Kennedy because of his career-long interest in the issue of health care for all Americans–unless, of course, your last name is Kopechne.

It’s also poor timing for Congressional Democrats. If Kennedy vacates his seat during the health care reform debate (or is it health insurance reform now? I can’t keep it straight), then the special election must be held between 145 and 160 days after the vacancy. That’s five months of Massachusetts having only one senator and Senate Democrats being short of the filibuster-proof majority.

The Democrat solution to this thorny problem? Change the law back! It sure would be nice to change the system now that someone friendly is in the state house. To that end, Kennedy sent a letter to Governor Duval Patrick pushing for the change already pending in the state legislature. “It is vital for this Commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election,” Kennedy said in the letter supporting the legislation to Governor Patrick.

In response to which I posit this query: Why?

Senator Kerry is certainly pompous and windy enough to speak for the people of Massachusetts by himself. Another far-left voice replacing Kennedy’s would add nothing new to the discussion. Kennedy’s letter also suggests the governor, if re-vested with the power to appoint an interim replacement, select someone who commits not to run in the special election. In other words, “Here, warm this seat in the Senate for a few months while we find someone better.” The state would have as much influence if it kept the chair empty. The fact is the Democrats dominate both houses of Congress and control all legislation, whether there are 1 or 2 Massachusetts senators seated. There is virtually nothing stopping them from passing any law they get behind but they are acting as if they have a razor-thin margin.

And yet the health care debate has become a debacle for them and President Obama. The grass roots–and, yes, they are real as I know and hear from hundreds of them–are energized and mobilized to prevent a socialist legislative takeover of the industry. The Democrats’ plans won’t do that in one fell swoop but will be a big step in that direction. The revelation that relatives and associates of chief presidential aides, including David Axelrod, are financially benefiting from the debate is not exactly the kind of “change” President Obama championed during the campaign. Indeed, it’s more of the type of corruption we’ve come to expect. That will do nothing to dissuade the protestors.

But, cancer or no, Senator Kennedy’s attempts to change the law just to protect Democrat power is nothing short of incredible. It is gamesmanship of the most cynical variety with politicians granting and denying powers like demi-gods.

I suppose, given the corruption we’ve witnessed, Kennedy’s acts should come as no surprise. They are just the most fragrant example of our political system’s putrescence and the stench is getting worse. Fortunately (and mercifully) for Senator Kennedy, he’ll shuffle off soon enough and the State Run Media will wring their hands in anguish while lionizing the trust-fund multi-millionaire for his life long service to “The Little Man”. Unfortunately for us, he’ll leave behind arrogant abuses of power, corruption and decay for us to fix.

It might be a good thing for there to be one less senator for awhile. It’ll be one less politician to pick your pocket while shaking your hand. One less politician who conveniently forgets his family while freely dropping his pants for paramours. One less politician looking to have his personal interests and accounts padded with special interest money, sweetheart deals, and exemptions from onerous burdens they strap on you. One less politician to act out of expediency by continuing to raise taxes and increase spending instead of making the hard choices true leaders are supposed to make. One less politician to put power and politics above the people and the Constitution.

Let’s hope the Massachusetts electorate will eventually take the opportunity to fill Kennedy’s seat with someone worthy of the office who’ll listen to and lead the constituents, not abolish their power to satisfy a political lust for hegemonic control.

Crossposted from The Los Angeles Examiner