They are not constitutionally appointed "with the advice and consent of the Senate"
By that measure, so are about 99.9% of all federal employees who are not "confirmed" by the Senate.
they are people obama names and pays using tax dollars without any senate approval who ram through policy
They are advisers and the Executive Branch can set Executive Branch policy with or without any advisers.
Despite they are all unqualified socialists/marxists/lobbyists such as yourself
I am not a lobbyist.
i'd like to hear you criticize this practice to be fair
There is nothing inherently wrong with hiring advisers and policy crafters. I criticize people who either don't do their job well or do it in a corrupt way. If and when one of these "czars" implements a crappy policy then I'll criticize it.
You think they are legal, but are they WRONG?
You suggested they were illegal. I corrected you. They are perfectly legal. Whether or not they are wrong is a matter of opinion.
I don't remember you criticizing all of the czars and other employees of the Executive Office of the President when Bush was in office.
Oh, and I still cannot wait for your spin on the firing of Gerald Walpin
The issue was illegal HIRINGS (firing the prosecuters was not illegal--they were politically motivated--and no one ever claimed they were illegal).
Gerald Walpin was an inspector general who was investigating AmeriCorps and other programs. Such people serve at the discretion of the President. Walpin was criticized by the acting U.S. attorney (appointed by Bush Justice Dept.) for the way Walpin handled an investigation see letter here and by others (see below). President Obama lost confidence in him and fired him. There is absolutely no evidence of anything illegal (only right-wing outrage manufactured solely to attack Obama). Let me know when you have actual evidence of wrong-doing.
Here is why, in part, Walpin was removed: "The Board's action was precipitated by a May 20, 2009 Board meeting at which Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve. . . . We further learned that Mr. Walpin had been absent from the Corporations' headquarters, in New York over the objections of the Corporations' Board; that he had exhibited a lack of candor in providing material information to decision makers; and that he had engaged in other troubling and inappropriate conduct. Mr. Walpin had become unduly disruptive to agency operations, impairing his effectiveness, and for the reasons stated above, losing the confidence of the Board and the agency."
abcnews.go.com/...
I realize that Bush loved to promote people who were corrupt and incompetent, but Obama appears to take his job more seriously.
And thanks for conceding that the situation in Honduras where the democratically elected president was ousted by the military is a coup d'etat.
Print
E-mail
Comments
He was ousted because he chose to not follow their constitution. Good for the troops that swore an oath to defend their constitution.
No wonder Obama is pissed. He probably is fearful he will be ousted for failing to follow OUR Constitution.
"No wonder Obama is pissed. He probably is fearful he will be ousted for failing to follow OUR Constitution."
Like George Bush?
When ar eyou peopel goign to learn, GEORGE BUSH ISN'T PRESIDENT ANYMORE!!!!!!!!
So, i politely ask of you to explain your snarky comment please, Jason. i may even agree with you.
Obama has failed to provide his birth certificate and spent $11,000,000 to have his lawyers hide that one simple piece of paper that would prove he is Constitutionally eligible to serve, has signed bills not even written for those voting to be read, or for those of us to see what he was signing (that's not entirely HIS fault, Pelosi/Reid share that blame), he has taken over industries without any Constitutional authority to do so and has single-handedly re-written bankruptcy law to favor the auto unions because they were one of his biggest voting groups. Plus his chief of staff and he want to make the US Census into a cash cow for "community action groups" like ACORN to go around, ask what time you leave for work and control all of it from the White House and not the Department of Commerce.
i'm sure there's more, that's just what I came up with off the top of my head.
Now Craig is supporting a coup! (Only because Obama doesn't support the illegal coup.) How pathetic.
The military, following orders from the Honduran Supreme Court, removed their president because he conducted a poll: Honduras Coup: How Should President Obama Respond? - TIME
If a president violates the law, then prosecute. Coups are no more legal!
You are really a kook.
Here is his birth certificate, as provided: msgboard.snopes.com/...
The truth about Obama's birth certificate
Here's the announcement of his birth in the Honolulu paper: whatreallyhappened.com/...
And, of course, the State of Hawaii confirms the birth certificate is authentic and Obama was born in Hawaii: State Department of Health declares Obama birth certificate legal
harry, as far as the birth certificate goes, long form, short form, whatever, he has spent $11,000,000 to try and quash any questions as to whether his mom was old enough to bestow citizenship on him or if he was a British subject due to his father's British nationality, and then there's the question as to his step-father, Indonesian citizenship and Indonesian passport. The FACT is he has resisted any attempt to look at his long-form birth certificate, or the authenticity of his short form BC, or his passport records, and so on. if he has nothing to hide, why spend 11 million dollars to hide everything.
And the "military coup" as leftwing nuts call it, was not a "coup". The president was attempting to rewrite the Constitution, appoint like-minded legislators, has the backing of the Castro Brothers and Hugo Chavez, and willfully ignored the Supreme Court (and we can't have THAT, can we?!?) as well as the legislature. The military went in, arrested him, removed him, and the next in the LEGAL line of succession took power until the scheduled elections take place. What's wrogn with that?
obama was afraid to speak out against Achmedinijad and the oppressive regime of mullahs in iran, yet has no problem sticking up for a Hugo Chavez wanna-be. Why do you think that is?
Funny, Craig, how you seem to hate other nations' presidents for attempting to "appoint like-minded legislators." I seem to recall some kind of scandal during the BUSH ADMINSTRATION, whereby certain people were fired because of their political views????????? Do you know what I am talking about?
AND WHO THE HELL IS ACHMEDINIJAD????????
His name is Ahmedi Nijad. Even if you can't separate the two names, at least don't call him AKHMED! There is no such name as AKHMED. You don't have to make a f*kin "K" sound, because his name is AHmed. The "H" sounds like the "H" in horse*? Not like "korse". Idiot.
Craig, this is very simple: Obama was born in the United States of America. Every person born in the United States of America is automatically a citizen of the United States of America. In fact, that's the definition of a natural born citizen.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Amendment 14, Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The State of Hawaii has the original certificate and has confirmed it to be authentic.
Obama meets all the Constitutional requirements to be the President of the United States. Period. End of debate.
You have no idea what you are talking about. President Manuel Zelaya is the democratically elected president of Honduras. He wasn't trying to "rewrite the Constitution," as the right-wing talking points go. He was attempting to put forth a non-binding referendum (that's when people express their opinions rather than someone imposing a rewrite). The court had the military arrest him and take him to Costa Rica. That's a coup d'etat. If the court thinks he did something illegal, then charge him with a crime (that's the way democracies work). Then, the Honduran Congress actually produced a fake letter of resignation! Is that the kind of "democracy" you support?
Troops oust Honduran president in feared coup
Rare Hemisphere Unity in Assailing Honduran Coup
Council of the Americas: Honduran President Ousted by Military
What if, after the Supreme Court of the United States found actions of the Bush Administration to be illegal (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld), they had ordered the military to break into the White House and drag Bush to Mexico? How would you feel about that?
I'm sure that's what Fox told you. Here's what really happened:
Obama Condemns Iran's "Iron Fist"
Obama calls on Iran to 'stop all violent and unjust actions'
Obama condemns Iran violence as 'outrageous'
Obama ratchets up language on Iran violence: President says he's 'appalled and outraged' by protesters' deaths
Obama Condemns Iran Violence
And great point, Jason. Some of the political hirings in the Bush/Gonzales Justice Department were illegal.
Internal probe slams Bush Justice official for illegal hiring
Internal Justice Dept. Report Cites Illegal Hiring Practices
Report Sees Illegal Hiring Practices at Justice Dept.
Update; the new "democracy" in Honduras supported by Fox News and its fans has decided to do away with some pesky civil rights protections:
Honduran coup leaders tighten grip
"Congress passed laws on Wednesday which will allow police to arrest people in their own homes without a warrant during a nightly curfew that has been in place since Manuel Zelaya was ousted."
Honduran Congress Suspend Civil Rights; Zelaya Vows To Return On Saturday
"The Honduran Legislature approved earlier this afternoon a decree that suspends five of the rights of citizens in Honduras: the inviolable right of home, the freedom of association, a person can be held more than 24 hours without a charge and freedom of movement in the country."
Yes jason i think I do. I also know who Gerald Walpin is. do you? obama fired him because Walpin uncovered illegal ties with Americorps and anobama donor. And I still haven't heard Chuckie Schumer and Tom harkin get pissed about Obama appointing new federal prosecutors. iowa's getting rid of the two they have and they are replaced by harkin-nominated lawyers. Where's you're outrage there? Or, since Bush is no longer president and neither is Clinton, were you outraged when Clinton fired almost all of the federal prosecutors when he and co-president Hillary blew into town?
didn't think so.
His name is Ahmedi Nijad. Even if you can't separate the two names, at least don't call him AKHMED! There is no such name as AKHMED. You don't have to make a fkin "K" sound, because his name is AHmed. The "H" sounds like the "H" in horse? Not like "korse". Idiot.
Wow, take a Prozac or something. chill out and relax.
i don't care what his name is-Bob, Tom, Chic, Larry, Embassy Hostage-Taker--frankly i don't give a shit how to spell his name. obama took several days to condemn the violence perpetrated by him and the ruling clerics, and then did so very weakly, but beat even Chuckie Schumer to to a microphone to condemn removing a criminal endorsed by the Castro bothers and Hugo Chavez. sorry, but none of them are our friends.
But then again, you probably typed your message while wearing your Che t-shirt and beret, so it's really pointless to try and convince you otherwise.
harry, i hesitate to waste my time, but fi youa re so pissed abotu illegal hirings by bush, what do you think of illegal hirings by obama? What is your take on all of the "czars" or "tsars" "zars" or "zaaaaaaarrrrrrrssssss" or whatever (I'll spell it several ways so jason doesn't get his panties in a wad and soil his Che t-shirt) whom Obama hires with my tax dollars to ram through policy? We already have department heads approved by the Senate, yet these czars are unappointed and unaccountable? does that strike you as illegal or at least wrong?
They are not illegal and they are appointed.
they are extra-Constitutional. okay, obama names and 'appoints' some hack to do the bidding of him and Rahm Emmanuel. They are not constitutionally appointed "with the advice and consent of the Senate".
these are not "aides". they are people obama names and pays using tax dollars without any senate approval who ram through policy on government ownership of car companies, or environmental policy, or pay of PRIVATE individuals. tehy are his "czars" that do his dictatorial dirty work
Despite they are all unqualified socialists/marxists/lobbyists such as yourself, how do you feel about someone who is not answerable to anyone but Obama/Emmanuel, is not subject to recall/impeachment/firing by a co-equal branch of government (y'know, "checks and balances") and is paid whatever Obama wants to pay them making policy?
I know they answer because I read your rails on Bush/Cheney for years, but i want to hear you condemn this. I don't think you will, but i'd like to hear you criticize this practice to be fair, just like I don't expect you to condemn Chavez and the other marxist dictators of the region which is exactly why you and obama are so wrong on this issue as well.
Let me keep it short so you don't get distracted and go chase something shiny--
Are Obama's use of extra-Constitutional "czars" instead of the appointed and ratified department heads-- WRONG. You think they are legal, but are they WRONG?
Oh, and I still cannot wait for your spin on the firing of Gerald Walpin. Don't forget about that one. you got real upset over the firings of federal prosecutors by Bush, so you must have a reeeeeeeeeaaaaaallllllll strong opinion over the firing of an IG who happens to uncover corruption by obama's friends and campaign donors and is systematically fired-VIOLATING A LAW OBAMA HIMSELF WROTE OVER TRANSPARENCY IN IG FIRINGS AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Plus the EPA guy who's name escapes me who was threatened becasue he presented contrary evidence to the sham of global warming.
So please harry, be consistent and rail on obama for firing Walpin. be every bit as angry as you were when you accused Bush of doing much less.
By that measure, so are about 99.9% of all federal employees who are not "confirmed" by the Senate.
They are advisers and the Executive Branch can set Executive Branch policy with or without any advisers.
I am not a lobbyist.
There is nothing inherently wrong with hiring advisers and policy crafters. I criticize people who either don't do their job well or do it in a corrupt way. If and when one of these "czars" implements a crappy policy then I'll criticize it.
You suggested they were illegal. I corrected you. They are perfectly legal. Whether or not they are wrong is a matter of opinion.
I don't remember you criticizing all of the czars and other employees of the Executive Office of the President when Bush was in office.
The issue was illegal HIRINGS (firing the prosecuters was not illegal--they were politically motivated--and no one ever claimed they were illegal).
Gerald Walpin was an inspector general who was investigating AmeriCorps and other programs. Such people serve at the discretion of the President. Walpin was criticized by the acting U.S. attorney (appointed by Bush Justice Dept.) for the way Walpin handled an investigation see letter here and by others (see below). President Obama lost confidence in him and fired him. There is absolutely no evidence of anything illegal (only right-wing outrage manufactured solely to attack Obama). Let me know when you have actual evidence of wrong-doing.
Here is why, in part, Walpin was removed: "The Board's action was precipitated by a May 20, 2009 Board meeting at which Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve. . . . We further learned that Mr. Walpin had been absent from the Corporations' headquarters, in New York over the objections of the Corporations' Board; that he had exhibited a lack of candor in providing material information to decision makers; and that he had engaged in other troubling and inappropriate conduct. Mr. Walpin had become unduly disruptive to agency operations, impairing his effectiveness, and for the reasons stated above, losing the confidence of the Board and the agency."
abcnews.go.com/...
I realize that Bush loved to promote people who were corrupt and incompetent, but Obama appears to take his job more seriously.
And thanks for conceding that the situation in Honduras where the democratically elected president was ousted by the military is a coup d'etat.
"Despite they are all unqualified socialists/marxists/lobbyists such as yourself"--craig
"I am not a lobbyist."
Well, at least you were honest enough to not deny the "socialist/marxist" charge.
As far as the rest of your spin, I've already heard it from pmsnbc. I don't care for your regurgitated spin once again. If you were honest you should be outraged over Obama firing an IG who uncovered political corruption too close to his own home, not parrot the official obamanation/rahmbo line. but you don't care about truth and honesty-you only want your marxist agenda fulfilled and piss on anyone who gets in the way of your messiah.
Thanks for playing.
Finally harry, the removal of the criminal in Honduras would be comparable to the removal of an impeached president here who refused to step down.
He violated law, was checked by the other two branches mandated to balance him out, and finally was arrested and removed. He wasn't shot, tortured or removed by a select few who didn't like his policies. He was a criminal and was legally removed. He was arguably removed with more authority and legality than Iowa used to force gay-so-called-marriage.
and the simple fact his strongest backers-other than our apologetic president former community organizer- are known dictators and marxists such as Chavez, Catrox2, and Daniel Ortega SHOULD tell you something. But the fact it doesn't speaks volumes.
Why would I bother? You apply labels and pejoritives for the sake of ad hominem attacks. I don't consider myself either, but at least I've read Marx and know his philosophy. I doubt you do.
If you were honest you should be glad he fired an IG who was incompetent. If you were honest you would do some research instead of just soaking up the right-wing spin. There is no evidence of Walpin being fired because of any other reason.
If you have evidence product it. Otherwise, it is nothing but ennuendo.
The president of Honduras was not impeached nor had his term expired. The military arrested him and exiled him. That's a coup. He was a democratically elected president.
He was accused of preparing to violate the law. When people are accused of violating a law, they are charged (unless you are Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld). There is a legal process in Honduras. Exiling the president was unconstitutional.
The only people defending this coup and the fascistic new restrictions on civil liberties are right-wingers who watch Fox News.
This isn't about supporting Zelaya, it is about the rule of law. Deposing the elected president was illegal.
Why are the facts so damned unimportant to you?