The Democrats are currently trying to roll out that old war horse, “class warfare” in a desperate attempt to arrest their freefall in the polls.  The myth is that they are for the little guy when they are the party of big government.  Businesses, once they get big, are hardly fans of the free market as they would much prefer to settle into a profitable market niche and not have to keep battling against upstarts.

Show Me the Money

An organization known as OpenSecrets.org, has a website that has information on contributions to the 2008 presidential campaign.  The list of top contributors is not a list of contributions by corporations but by contributions from those company’s Political Action Committees, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families, but it does give you a sense of where the people who make up these companies see their bread buttered.

If you look at the top 20 donors to Obama compared to the top 20 donors to McCain, the 20th donor on Obama’s list gave 32% more to Obama than the top donor to McCain.  As with any large organization there will be individuals who support Republicans and individuals who support Democrats, as well as their PACs wanting hedge bets by giving to both.  But the amounts are telling.

What is particularly illuminating is with regard to Wall Street and the Banks.  The Democrats are latching onto the sound bite that they want more regulation to protect the little guy, while the Republicans want less regulation so that Wall Street and the banks can get rich at the expense of the little guy.

Who’s Dumber Wall Street or the Democrats?

Does anyone believe that the leaders of Wall Street would give money to a candidate or party without expecting their point of view to be heard?  Does anyone believe that the Democrats would take contributions and then turn around and burn those who contributed so generously, particularly before a very tough election?  Okay, now that we have that settled let’s look at the numbers.

The top Wall Street and Bank Contributors to Obama’s election were as follows:

1. Goldman Sachs — $994,795
2. Citigroup — $701,290
3. JP Morgan Chase — $695,132
4. UBS AG — $543,219
5. Morgan Stanley — $514,881

The top Wall Street and Bank Contributors to McCain’s election were as follows:

1. Merrill Lynch — $373, 595 (subsequently sold to Bank of America)
2. Citigroup — $322,051
3. Morgan Stanley — $273,452
4. Goldman Sachs — $230,095
5. JP Morgan Chase — $228,107
6. Wachovia — $195,063 (acquired by Wells Fargo)
7. UBS AG — $192,493
8. Credit Suisse — $183,353
9. Bank of America — $166,026
10. Bear Stearns — $117,498 (subsequently sold to JP Morgan Chase in a fire sale)
11. Lehman Brothers — $114,357 (Bankrupt)

It looks like four of the companies with people who gave to McCain didn’t survive the meltdown and either disappeared or were swallowed up by the winners.  If you look as people from companies that gave to both candidates, the amounts are significantly different:

1. Goldman Sachs associates gave $764,700 more to Obama than McCain
2. Citigroup associates gave $379,239 more to Obama than McCain
3. JP Morgan associates gave $467,025 more to Obama than McCain
4. UBS associates gave $350,726 more to Obama than McCain
5. Morgan Stanley gave $241,429 more to Obama than McCain

I am not suggesting any quid pro quo for the contributions, but people do things for a reason.  Who do you think will be more sensitive to the needs of Wall Street, Obama or the Republicans? 

So look for a Financial Reform package that is a lot of smoke and mirrors that actually does nothing constructive.  Republicans will oppose it, and Democrats will try to flog them as being for Wall Street and the Banks and against the little guy, but facts are facts.  Remember, after passing ObamaCare Democrats tried to paint the picture that they stood up to the insurance companies, when they passed a law that will compel millions of Americans to become customers of those same insurance companies.  Do you think that is why the opposition from the insurance companies was muted?

It’s time to drive home the point that this Administration is allied with Wall Street, GE, health insurance companies against us.  It should not be hard to do.  People are listening closely like never before.

When you are waiting for someone an hour can seem like a long time, but when you really want to accomplish something an hour is really not that long.  Here are some things you can’t do in an hour:

1. Run a marathon
2. Watch a feature length movie
3. Read a novel
4. Watch a baseball or football game
5. Make a good batch of chili

However there are some things that you can accomplish in less than an hour, such as:

1. Eat a doughnut
2. Watch a M*A*S*H re-run
3. Walk a mile
4. Take a shower
5. Brush your teeth
6. Take out the garbage
7. Change the oil in your car
8. Order and pick up a pizza
9. Check your e-mail
10. Complete the interrogation of someone named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up a plane using a bomb in his underwear

That’s right #10 was completed in 50 minutes before the FBI decided to read him his Miranda rights and put him into the criminal justice system.  You will probably not be surprised to find out that he soon had a lawyer who advised him to stop speaking to the FBI.  So now if they want him to divulge any information they will have to go the plea bargain route up to and including setting him free.  Aren’t you glad we got rid of Bush and Cheney?  I mean, seriously, don’t you feel safer?

What Did He Know?

Does anyone believe what the Obama administration is telling us that they got everything they could out of this 23 year old novice in 50 minutes.  The kid was definitely talking, so why stop him?  He just got back from Yemen and probably had a wealth of information to give up.  He belongs in Guantanamo.  Are we not, as Obama finally admitted, at war?  Or are we at war, but just not with this guy?  (And by the way, Obama has been in office a year now so why hasn’t he captured Osama bin Laden?  During the campaign he snorted that McCain wouldn’t even follow him to his cave, as if Obama had the address).

Regardless of your position on “enhanced interrogation techniques” and let’s just say you put those aside.  You want to keep this guy where you can interrogate him again and again.  Where you can work to gain his trust, and where you can corroborate other information you find until he has been in your custody so long his information is stale and no longer of use.  Here’s a little secret for the Obama administration… it takes longer than 50 minutes.

An Embarrassment of Incompetence

Close on the heels of Janet Napolitano’s blundering at the helm of the Department of Homeland Security we have this astonishing exchange between Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, as reported in the Washington Examiner by Byron York:

On “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs whether President Obama was informed of the decision to read Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights before or after it was done. Gibbs avoided the question, saying, “That decision was made by the Justice Department and the FBI, with experienced FBI interrogators.” Gibbs stressed that “Abdulmutallab was interrogated and valuable intelligence was gotten as a result of that interrogation.”

Wallace pressed. “But we now find out he was interrogated for 50 minutes,” he said to Gibbs. “When they came back, he was read his Miranda rights and he clammed up.”

“No,” Gibbs answered. “Again, he was interrogated. Valuable intelligence was gotten based on those interrogations. And I think the Department of Justice and the — made the right decision, as did those FBI agents.”

“Let me just press one last question,” Wallace said. “You really don’t think that if you’d interrogated him longer that you might have gotten more information, since we now know that Al Qaeda in Yemen — ”

“Well, FBI interrogators believe they got valuable intelligence and were able to get all that they could out of him,” Gibbs said.

“All they could?” Wallace asked.

“Yeah,” Gibbs said.”

The Joke is on You

Joe Biden just held a press event to reveal how he was going to help the middle class.  The man who has a hard time reaching into his own pocket for more than $1 a day in charity to give to his fellow man, has no problem reaching into your pocket and give the fruit of your labor to someone else.  It’s a win-win.  It doesn’t cost Joe Biden and it helps him keep getting elected and drawing a salary that you pay for.

Here is what he revealed:

1. Nearly Doubling the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit — in an economy that has over 10% unemployment this administration is focusing on helping those who already have a job and income.  I’m all for tax cuts, but not targeted cuts.  Cut income tax rates and jobs will be created.  I don’t believe this administration knows how to aim anything well enough to hit a target
2. Limiting a student’s federal loan payments to 10 percent of his/her income above a basic living allowance — the administration is concerned about how much debt students leave college with.  Does it have any concern about how much debt they are piling on everyone, not just college graduates?  Biden pointed to the average indebtedness of around $25,000 for college graduates.  The federal debt is about $35,000 for every man, woman and child in America, not just college graduates and this administration shows no signs of stopping it.
3. Creating a system of automatic workplace IRAs — government first got involved in retirement with Social Security.  That system is bankrupt and this administration has no interest in fixing it.  When Republicans floated the idea of taking a portion of the Social Security payroll tax and diverting it to higher return private savings, the Democrats savaged them.  So the Democrat solution is to ignore the bankrupt Social Security system and start telling business what to do.
4. Expanding tax credits to match retirement savings and enacting new safeguards to protect retirement savings — again with Social Security bankrupt, they want to put more tax dollars into retirement.  How different is this than the Republican plan to take what exists and allow it to get better returns than the paltry rate it currently gets within the Social Security system? The difference is that the Republican plan wouldn’t cost anything extra.  The Democrat plan will either increase payroll taxes or increase the deficit.  Surprise!!!
5. Expanding support for families balancing work with caring for elderly relatives –I thought the Democrats had fixed this with “end of life counseling” in their health care plan, coupled with bringing back the Death Tax next year.

Fumbling and Stumbling

The way to create jobs is to let the job creators keep their money to invest in their business and expand.  Small business owners are stuck waiting to learn how much all of Obama’s social re-engineering is going to cost them and until they know that, hiring is the last thing they will do.  The only thing this administration seems to know how to do is bash business and spend money and the more they spend the longer the recover will take.  They are now planning another stimulus plan to follow the last stimulus plan that didn’t work, and the deficit continues to grow and grow and grow.

President Obama wants to create a bipartisan panel to recommend how to reduce the deficit.  He gives the back of his hand to bipartisanship when it comes to workable solutions to real problems, but he loves bipartisanship when it gives him political cover to make unpopular decisions.  All of his supporters love to say that experience doesn’t matter and that President Obama is the smartest guy in the room.  If that is true, he should not be afraid to propose bold spending cuts and shrinking government and be smart enough to explain it to Congress on his own.  If he does so, I am sure many Republicans would support him and vote for it (and almost all Democrats vote against it).  But he wants it both ways, he wants Republicans to yield to tie spending cuts to tax increases and put the package to an up or down vote.  He will then take that on the campaign trail to tell the world how Republicans voted for tax increases.  If you don’t believe me, look to history.  George Herbert Walker Bush, of the “no new taxes” pledge, got Congress to agree with spending cuts in return for a tax increase.  Bill Clinton clubbed him to death, like a baby seal, with that pledge and then enjoyed Bush’s restraint upon Congress on the spending side to generate budget surpluses.  Let President Obama take the lead.  Wasn’t that why he was elected?  Because he was a different kind of leader?  So, lead away.

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  – Presidential Oath of Office,  Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section I

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” — Constitution of the United States of America, First Amendment.

“This ruling strikes at our democracy itself,” Mr. Obama said, adding: “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.” — NY Times, January 25, 2010

Last week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission the Supreme Court struck down a provision in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill that prohibited “electioneering communication”, that is, broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary election or within 60 days of a general election.  It is what I and many others dub the “Incumbent Protection Act”, because it tips the scales heavily in favor of incumbents who have the name recognition, and the communication power of their office as an advantage in an election.  In addition, the 30 days or 60 days are when many voters really start paying attention.  Our elected representatives love to talk tough about reform, but that reform typically ends up making it harder to replace them.

Obama Weighs In

As the above quotes demonstrate, President Obama’s job is to uphold the Constitution.  The Constitution protects free speech.  So why is President Obama attacking a Supreme Court ruling that protects Free Speech?  Is that what he is supposed to be doing?  Instead he says it “strikes at democracy itself.”  He doesn’t mention that it also lifts restrictions on the speech of unions that typically favor the positions of his party.  Perhaps that is because with the Obama administration unions have extraordinary access to the White House. From January to July, White House logs show that Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) visited the White House 22 times, more than anyone else in the visitor logs.

If President Obama is truly concerned about the influence of lobbyists, it does no good to drive them out of advertising on TV into personal visits to the White House.  Of course, the president would be selective in who has an audience with him.  If you really want to reduce the number of lobbyists, then reduce the reasons for them to lobby.  If, for example, you want to reduce the lobbying effort of the giant agricultural corporation Archer Daniels Midland, then get the government out of the business of ethanol subsidies, farm subsidies, and shut down the federal Department of Agriculture.   Lobbyists will call on Washington less, if they have less to call about.  Shrinking the federal government will reduce the number of lobbyists and their influence, reduce the deficit, help balance the budget, and make the government more manageable so that we can reduce or eliminate waste and fraud.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens blasted the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision saying that the ruling is not grounded in the writings of the Founding Fathers.  His argument being that certain groups could have their speech curtailed and only individuals had their speech protected.  Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate concurring opinion to address Stevens argument.  In part:

“I write separately to address JUSTICE STEVENS’ discussion of “Original Understandings”… This section of [Stevens'] dissent purports to show that today’s decision is not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. The dissent attempts this demonstration, however, in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment. It never shows why “the freedom of speech” that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form. To be sure, in 1791 (as now) corporations could pursue only the objectives set forth in their charters; but the dissent provides no evidence that their speech in the pursuit of those objectives could be censored….

The [First] Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals–and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is “speech” covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise.” – Antonin Scalia, concurring opinion in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Newly seated Justice Sonia Sotomayor voted against free speech.  I always marvel when people who succeed against tough odds attack the very principles of this country that allowed them to succeed.  The Bill of Rights was designed to protect against the tyranny of the majority by defining certain rights of every individual that could not be infringed upon.  It is one reason why people around the world fight to come here for a chance to succeed.  Because they know that these principles will allow them to do so if they have the drive to succeed.

We all must have heard it a thousand times or more “Bush Lied!”   The reality is that Bush made a judgment based on information that he received and that many Democrats agreed with that ultimately turned out to be wrong.  Somehow that is lying.  In my lexicon, lying is when you say something is true when you know it to be false.  It’s not when you honestly think it is true and you find out later that you were wrong.

We’re Gonna Debate This on C-Span

There is no lack of video clips where Obama spoke to the voters and told them straight up that if he is elected the debate on health care would be open.  So open, it would be carried on C-Span.  I have not heard the speech from Obama where he says that he has demanded others in his party (Reid and Pelosi) to put this on C-Span but they flat out refused.  If you can say that Bush lied, certainly what Obama did is a whopper of a lie.  So where is the vanguard of veracity, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews of the leg tingle, Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, the Daily Kos, et al?  Can anyone say, fair and balanced?

The White House released a list the other day of visitors.  Topping the list, in terms of frequency of visits was Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).  If the name of that union is not familiar to you, it is often closely linked to ACORN, the discredited group of community organizers.  So how many visits did Mr. Stern make?  Twenty-two (22).  That’s about once every other week, give or take.

Unions Decline

From a peak, as a percentage of employed workers, of 28.3% in 1954 to a level of 11.5% in 2003, the importance of unions in American life is not what it used to be.  In his recent book, What Americans Really want…Really, Frank Luntz asked this question, which of the following institutions are most important for America’s future? He then gave them a list to choose from.  When he combined their first and second choice percentages here is how it came out:

1. Schools – 51%
2. The Church – 26%
3. Federal Government – 24%
4. The Military – 23%
5. Business – 22%
6. Local Government – 13%
7. The Courts – 12%
8. Financial Institutions – 11%
9. Hospitals – 9%
10. The Media – 4%
11. Police – 3%
12. Unions – 3%

So let’s see…unions are at about 1/3 of their peak membership numbers;  Americans think they are unimportant to America’s future and yet, the president of SEIU is at the White House just about every other week, far more than any other visitor.  How is that for being in touch?  It is hope.  It is change.  But it certainly seems like the wrong direction for America.  Do you feel like President Obama is leading America to greatness, or plotting against it?

In his Sunday column Frank Rich described Republican candidate for New York’s 23rd Congressional District a “mainstream conservative by New York standards.”  So what did Dede Scozzafava do after falling so far behind the Democratic and Conservative candidates that she decided to drop out?  Well, naturally, she endorsed the Democrat!  Why would a conservative endorse the Conservative, rather than the Democrat?  Because, perhaps, she was a RINO?  That is, a Republican In Name Only.

Party On

What frightens the statists more than anything else is that the Tea Party people know how to walk and chew gum at the same time.  They know that protesting is one thing, but it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t bring about results.  What was demonstrated in New York’s 23rd District is that just like the Minutemen back in Revolutionary times, conservatives could rally, join the fight, and win.  The lock the left had on the media is gone.  The statists no longer control the information game, putting their spin on the news.  If this were 20 years ago, Doug Hoffman the Conservative candidate in the race, would have been, at best, a footnote in history.  His story would not have gotten off the local newspapers in that rural part of New York State.  In today’s world, he quickly got on television, talk radio, and the blogs, got his message out and the rest is history.

What’s the Lesson?

Despite Frank Rich’s hand wringing and Dede Scozzafava’s backing the Democratic candidate, how has the race changed?  From neck and neck between the Conservative Hoffman and the Democrat Owens, recent polls show Hoffman surging into the lead with one poll showing a 5% lead and another showing a 17% lead.  The lesson is that if you give Republicans good conservative candidates, they will vote for them.  If you instead go for weak, moderates, then the Republican base stays home, and the independents choose between the professional statist (Democrat) and the amateur statist (moderate Republican) and as I like to say…in a contest like that why wouldn’t you pick the pro over the amateur?

There is panic in the ranks of the left this Halloween.  In today’s Times, Frank Rich, does his level best to whistle past the graveyard, but the fear is clear.  He astonishingly titles his piece, “The G.O.P. Stalinists Invade Upstate New York.”  I guess they feel the Hitler moniker has lost its zest, so the leftists resort to calling those on the right, Stalinists.  Their disorientation could not be more palpable.

What has them in such a tizzy?  It centers around the special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District.  The local Republican party bosses chose a candidate, Dede Scozzafava, who would never be mistaken as a conservative, although Mr. Rich actually called her, “a mainstream conservative by New York standards.”  That’s like saying David Letterman is chaste by liberal standards, as if these things are measured on a relative scale.  But that’s the way liberals and statists think.  If your neighbor is more promiscuous than you, then you must be celebate.  If you want to make Nancy Pelosi a moderate, move her to Cuba.

Ground Shift

What has Mr. Rich and his cohorts nervously clearing their throats, is that the uprising against the entrenched statists, led by the Tea Parties, actually delivered results.   Ms. Scozzafava is pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage, pro-Obama stimulus package, pro-card check to make it easier to form a union without a secret ballot election, and supported by ACORN.  This is what Mr. Rich calls a conservative, “by New York standards.”  What sticks in his craw is that the election was a win-win, for him and his friends.  Elect the Republican or the Democrat and it doesn’t matter much, they both hold the same basic views.  Then along came Doug Hoffman.

Doug Hoffman threw his hat in the ring on the Conservative Party line.  By this Saturday, with support pouring in all across the country from true conservatives, Hoffman was in a dead heat with the conservative and the Republican Scozzafava was fading fast.  So she decided to suspend her campaign, and Mr. Rich and company hit the panic button.

So how does Mr. Rich frame his argument?  Well he starts by saying Hoffman has no grasp of local issues.  Uh, the position is United States Congressman, not city alderman.  He well understands the issues at the national level and how the policies of the Obama Administration are bankrupting the country.  Those policies will negatively affect the people in his district.  But leave it to Mr. Rich to scoff at Hoffman, because he doesn’t know how much pork barrel spending the district needs. A true patriotic Congressman, like John Murtha, finds a way to build an airport in the district that nobody uses and hands the bill to people in other districts like, well, New York’s 23rd.  He’s going to Washington to fight those who are bleeding the Treasury dry.  So Mr. Rich fights that by calling Fort Drum, home to the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division, a “pork-dependent military base.”  Hmmm…the last time I read my copy of the Constitution, it specifically required providing for the national defense.  I couldn’t find in my copy where it required building airports no one needed so that John Murtha could get re-elected in perpetuity.  I understand it is a fine distinction, but I would have thought someone employed by the New York Times would be able to make it.

Frank Rich’s Happy Talk

Mr. Rich oddly calls the developments in New York as good news.  With a recent Gallup Poll, showing that for every self-described liberal there are two self-described conservatives, Mr. Rich says the ideologues that brought about the events in New York’s 23rd, may then start picking off other conservatives and destroy the party.  Does he mean conservatives like Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, Charlie Crist, oh my!  With 73% of GOP voters saying that Congressional Republicans have lost touch with their base, this is not good news for Mr. Rich and company.  What he believes is that a small cabal of conservatives will put unelectable candidates on the ballot that voters will reject and the Democrats will gleefully reap the rewards.  In reality, the GOP leadership has for too long put weak candidates on the ballot that Democrats easily beat because the Republican base cannot get excited about them.  McCain is a war hero and worthy of our admiration, but just look at his signature legislation:  McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy.  He was not a conservative on many fronts. 

Nixon was a conservative, Ford was not.  Reagan was a conservative, Bush 41 was not and  Dole was not.  George W. started more conservative than not, but then drifted to become a big spender.  McCain was not a conservative.  Do you see a pattern here?  Conservative Republicans win.

With Obama’s approval rating going down in a virtual straight line, Mr. Rich confidently proclaims that the only politician Obama has to fear is Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan.  By all means, Mr. Rich, you keep telling your pals that.

When in doubt stick with what you know.  Barack Obama knows how to campaign.  As a result he has been campaigning non-stop since he was elected.  Instead of spending his time in the Oval Office making executive decisions and leading, he is the perpetual pitch man for everyone else.  The problem is the American people didn’t elect Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as their president, nor did they elect a politburo of 30+ czars.  They elected the most inexperienced and inept chief executive since the Harding administration.

Biden’s Brushfires

Remember it was almost one year ago that Joe Biden said, “Mark my words…”  that within six months of taking office a President Obama would be faced with an international crisis.  Maybe it took a little longer than six months and maybe it is not yet a full blown crisis, but are there brushfires?  Let me count the ways:

• Ahmadinejad thumbs his nose at the world while buying time to finish building nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them to Israel.  Obama had the opportunity to put the same kind of pressure on the mullahs that the mullahs put on the Shah of Iran in 1979, by speaking out strongly against the fraudulent election in Iran. Instead he issued a tepid response and the mullahs cracked down hard.  Now Obama is negotiating from a position of extreme weakness.
• The Poles and the Czechs are thrown under the bus, while the Russian bear licks its lips as the missile defense bases are cancelled by Obama
• Obama has spoken to his commander in Afghanistan but once in the 70 days that the commander has been on the ground.  The general says he need more troops.  Obama is calculating his response.
• Hugo Chavez is getting chummy with Ahmadinejad and would love to have nukes in Venezuela so he can take over as leftist strongman in South America as Castro fades away.
• And if the nukes can’t get to Venezuela fast enough, Chavez wants to put puppets throughout the region.  He is currently trying to re-install Zalaya in Honduras, after Zalaya was removed for trying to illegally alter the Honduran constitution.  Hillary and Obama are not helping the democratic government of Honduras, but Chavez and Zalaya.
• North Korea continues to play cat and mouse with Obama, while they also expand their nuclear and missile capabilities and see who they can sell the technology to for hard currency.

Amid all of this, one might expect President Obama to be burning the midnight oil in the Oval Office.  Well, not when there is another campaign that needs his special talents.  So he will travel to Copenhagen, to campaign for his hometown of Chicago, as they bid to be the host of the 2016 Summer Olympic Games.

It almost makes you pine for Jimmy Carter.

As the number of czars continues to grow Americans are becoming more concerned about losing control of their government.  What can be done about it?  Try this.  If a czar comes calling to check on your salary, tell him to go stuff it.

What is a czar?

Czars are special advisers to the President.  As such they do not require Senate confirmation.  The President can have his Uncle Charlie as an adviser, for all that matters.  He can get advice from anyone.  However, he cannot legally give his authority to a czar.  So let’s do this about the czars.  Ignore them.  If President Obama wants his czars whispering in his ear all day long, so be it.  If he wants to give them any authority, then he should appoint them to a political position in his administration that is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.  In that process we will learn a lot more about who these characters are, and we can voice our opinions of them.  Otherwise, President Obama is going to have to do the heavy lifting and take responsibility for everything he brought his czars on board to do.