Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » President Obama’s Czar Power

President Obama’s Czar Power

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Is anyone alarmed by the number of czars appointed by President Obama — over 30 czars (and counting) in just six months in office? In fact, you can find a "tweet" on John McCain’s Twitter page that says, “Obama has more czars than the Romanovs – who ruled Russia for three centuries.”

Apparently, in the United States, the title “czar” is an informal term for a certain high-level official who directs and oversees federal operations on a given topic. Czars have been around for a while and President Nixon was the first to appoint an energy czar during the 1970 energy crises. Other Presidents have appointed their share of czars: President Reagan (1), President George H. W. Bush (1), President Clinton (3), and President George W. Bush (4). So why is President Obama adding so many so fast? Are these good intentions to handle issues of the day or just another layer of government that is accountable to no one but the White House?

Czars are appointed at the discretion of the president (even though there is no provision for it in the constitution), they are not vetted, and there is no background check. The “chosen” not only hold unelected positions, but they rule with absolute authority and no accountability. Their job descriptions are nebulous, yet their salary is a mystery, and they all require a staff. As reported by Neil Cavuto of Fox News, the czars “oversee more than $1.7 trillion of taxpayers’ money and they don’t have to justify how much money they’re spending and even how they are spending it.” There is no transparency, no congressional oversight, and they only answer to the president.

My sister had a dog named Czar that I adored. Czar was a pit bull, a terrific, striking, smart dog that was very loyal to my sister. If you study the nature of the American pit bull terrier, they are good-natured, amusing, extremely loyal and affectionate, and if raised correct they make a great family pet. However, this particular breed of dogs have a strong temperament, are very muscular, and powerful, and some are bred to fight, which is an utter disgrace.

The American pit bull terrier is almost always obedient and always eager to please its master. It is an extremely courageous and intelligent guard dog, highly protective of its owners and owner's property and will fight an enemy to the death. It is usually very friendly, but has an uncanny ability to know when it needs to protect and when everything is okay.

If you study the “chosen” czars, you can first conclude that it is difficult to track. However, you will notice some patterns and how, other than the name of my sister’s dog, there are some parallels to the pit bull. The "chosen" seem to be good-natured and are a strong-willed and intelligent group with extensive backgrounds in both the private and public sectors.

Other than the obvious government power-grab by this administration (expansion of executive power), the “chosen” are really Obama’s pit bulls, who now posses their own power and have a direct line to the President. They are extremely loyal to Obama (their master) and his agenda. They are eager to please, are protective of Obama, and are willing to attack those who don’t agree with this administration's agenda.

Obama’s “chosen” have either worked on his campaign or knew him back in his Chicago days, are close friends now, and  — no surprise here — the majority (if not all) are liberals. Where’s the bipartisanship Obama promised? While a few have their share of controversy, most have a particular agenda of their own, have strong ties to the industries they represent either directly and/or indirectly, and most reflect this administration’s goal of more government and their ideology of socialism.

The way these officials are put into place and the number this President has appointed is distressing at the very least. However, it is the people “chosen” who should alarm congress and all Americans! Here are a few of the “chosen” to consider:

The regulatory czar, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), is Cass R. Sunstein, who is a Harvard law professor and Barack Obama’s former colleague and friend from the University of Chicago. Sunstein is known for his radical views and he is the author of Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, where Sunstein and co-author, Richard Thaler, “show that by carefully designing the choice architecture, we can make dramatic improvements in the decisions people make, without forcing anyone to do anything”.

Sounds interesting. However, what makes them the architects of what is good and bad? In fact you may be more shocked to find out that Sunstein’s ideas of what is good include FDR’s second Bill of Rights, the senior death discount, and the belief that animals should have the right to file suit (and I don’t mean clothes).

It is one thing to author a book, but now Sunstein is part of framing public policy with his "choice architects" concept, where he will try to “gently guide us to make better choices” that we may not think are better. This is extremely dangerous for our country because it may take away what “free choices” we have left, even if we know that choice is bad for us.

If that doesn’t make your blood pressure rise, knowing that Sunstein and his liberal views will be hanging out at the White House should, because many of our civil rights will be under attack, especially free speech, the Internet, and bloggers. Case in point is an article by the New York Post, “Gag the Internet” (July 11, 2009) where it is reported that Sunstein "thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.”

The Energy and Environment czar is Carol Browner, a liberal, who was the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the Clinton administration. During the 2008 election she was a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, but when Hilary Clinton lost, she campaigned for Barack Obama and later served on the advisory board of the Obama-Biden Transition Project.

Browner was (or is) a leader of the Socialistic International, a worldwide organization whose theme is “Progressive Politics for a Fairer World” and statutes claim that “Socialist International is an association of political parties and organizations which seek to establish democratic socialism.” However, it has been reported that Browner's name and biography were removed from the Socialistic International website, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available.

It looks like Browner’s name is missing from other websites as well — Gore’s organization, the Audubon Society, and as a Board Member of APX, Inc, which is a provider of market technology and infrastructure services for environmental programs. Hmm, I wonder how much profit these companies will get out of Browner’s new alliance with the government?

The Green Jobs czar, Van Jones, is an environmental and social activist, civil rights attorney, author of the book The Green Collar Economy, and has won many awards for his work as an activist. He is co-founder of California's Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, "a strategy and action center working for justice, opportunity and peace in urban America.” Von Jones is also the founder and president of Green for All, “a U.S. organization that promotes green-collar jobs and opportunities for the disadvantaged."

Van Jones sounds like a very compassionate person and qualified to serve as Green Jobs czar; however, his past reflects more than just concern for our environment. In 1992, Van Jones joined the riots that erupted when the “not guilty” verdict of the Rodney King case was announced. In 2005, The East Bay Express reported that while Van Jones was in jail he said, "I met all these young radical people of color––I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, this is what I need to be a part of … I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist."

From the same interview, Van Jones admits that in “1994, the young activists formed a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia.”

I’m not one to judge the past of others — we have all skeletons in our closet. However, Van Jones doesn’t deny his communist stance or his ideology of a “socialistic utopia”. In fact, he continues to advance his radical views under the umbrella of “fighting pollution and poverty at the same time.”

Echoing Green promotes his words on their website: "We’re gonna to have to do something very dramatic at the Federal level either with Cap and Trade…something … We’ve come to the end of the road…last century strategy … The Federal government has got to be involved in helping with the u-turn because the Federal government was involved in supporting all of the dumb stuff we’ve been doing … We can have a sane federal policy that is ecologically sound, but there is no way to have a sane ecologically policy that is not at the same time a radically progressive social policy…”

Here is a list of the chosen czars to date:

  1. AIDS czar: Jeff Crowley
  2. Afghanistan czar: Richard Holbrooke
  3. Auto – Recovery czar: Edward Montgomery
  4. Border czar: Alan Bersin,
  5. Climate czar: Todd Stern
  6. Drugs czar: Gil Kerlikowske
  7. Economics czar: Paul A. Volcker
  8. Faith–Based czar: Joshua DuBois
  9. Great Lakes czar: Cameron Davis
  10. Gitmo czar: Daniel Fried
  11. Government Performance czar: Jeffrey Zients
  12. Health czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle
  13. Homeland Security czar: John Brennan
  14. Information czar: Vivek Kundra
  15. Intelligence czar (Director of National Intelligence): Dennis Blair
  16. Mideast Peace czar: George Mitchell
  17. Mideast Policy czar: Dennis Ross
  18. Non-proliferation czar: Gary Samore
  19. Pay czar: Kenneth R. Feinberg
  20. Science czar: John Holdren
  21. Stimulus czar: Earl E. Devaney
  22. Sudan czar: J. Scott Gration
  23. Tarp czar: Herb Allison
  24. Technology czar: Aneesh Chopra
  25. Urban Affairs czar: Adolfo Carrion, Jr.
  26. Weapons czar: Ashton Carter
  27. WMD czar: Gary Samore

Our beloved community organizer is taking (or is it nudging) our country toward socialism and he is enlisting his pit bulls to assist! While we await the announcement of a Cyber czar, we can anticipate more “chosen” to arise, an Income Control czar, a Fox News czar, an American Idol czar (they need one after this last season), and even a Kool-aid czar (maybe not, as the Obama Kool-aid is very popular these days) — any way this administration can gain more control, kill capitalism, and advance socialism.

I thought government was "for the people, by the people," not by the President for the President. Obama’s fast track with his czars are more proof of an out-of-control government and that this administration is about control, and no better way to get it done quickly than to enlist your best friends. Let’s just hope Obama’s pit bulls are kept on a short lease by congress (if they are willing and able), they get their daily walks, and are potty trained!

Powered by

About Christine Lakatos

  • MH

    Your description of a pit bull is disgusting. According to, pits and pit types are killing people in this country on average one every 21 days. This doesn’t count the daily multiple attacks reported in the news.

  • Dave Nalle

    Well, there’s a completely irrelevant comment.

    I find the use of the term “czar” troubling, but even scarier is when you read the resume of these people and consider that they have a lot of power and don’t have to go through Senate confirmation in most cases.


  • Ruvy

    Only one thing to say in the face of all this – you Americans better learn how to salute….

    Victory and Salvation!
    (Sieg und Heil!)

  • Glenn Contrarian


    “Power!” That’s the watchword of conservatives.

    Have the Democrats ever worked with the stated purpose of being in power on a permanent basis? Ever? Perhaps, but I’ve never heard of it – and frankly, if the Democrats had ever said such a thing, I think I can safely say the Republicans and the black-helicopter crowd would be shouting their outrage to the rooftops.

    No, AFAIK the only modern major political movement in America that has ever deliberately worked towards permanency in power is the Republican party. Remember Karl Rove’s “Permanent Republican Majority”? Remember Ronald Reagan, Jerry Falwell, and 15,000 Baptist preachers listening to the founder of the Heritage Foundation state that not only has no American election been won by a majority of the voters, but also that the conservatives’ power diminishes as the proportion of population that actually votes increases.

    I learned a long time ago that a person generally expects of others what he or she would do in their situation. Apply that logic to Christine’s article, and to Dave’s and Ruvy’s replies.

    In my experience, that’s what most conservatives don’t understand – to most liberals, it’s NOT “all about power”. The bell-curve distribution of personalities mixes things up a bit, but – again, generally speaking – liberals are not as interested in personal power, and are even less interested in people having power over them!

    The proof is all around you. Are CEO’s more likely to be liberal, or conservative? Are military leaders more likely to be liberal, or conservative? Are long-time members in highly-regimented organizations (like the military, certain religions, and fraternities (Masons, Elks, etc.)) more likely to be liberal, or conservative?

    And RUVY! I’ve got a few questions for you: is Fascism considered far-LEFT, or far-RIGHT? And are neo-Nazis in America drawn more to the far left, or to the far right? Over the past two millenia, who has been the greater enemy of Judaism – mainstream ‘Christianity’, or Islam? And does mainstream ‘Christianity’ lean more to liberal thought, or to conservative thought?

  • Dave Nalle

    You’re deluding yourself, Glenn. All politicians want a permanent hold on power.

    Democrats have been clammoring for a permanent majority for years, and claiming to be on the brink of it a lot recently. I refer you to politico for a good example.

    Liberals may not be interested in personal power, but the Democrats are cerainly not liberals.


  • Clavos

    The proof is all around you. Are CEO’s more likely to be liberal, or conservative? Are military leaders more likely to be liberal, or conservative? Are long-time members in highly-regimented organizations (like the military, certain religions, and fraternities (Masons, Elks, etc.)) more likely to be liberal, or conservative?

    You’re very fond of these kinds of “proofs,” which are usually totally devoid of fact and always unfounded, not to mention logically fallacious.

    My conclusion from the above? Since, as you point out, leaders are mostly conservatives, obviously conservatives are smarter than liberals and have better leadership skills.

    Makes as much sense as your theory.

  • Christine

    I would have to agree with Dave here, “All politicians want a permanent hold on power.” Republican and Democrats alike. Not many politicians are interesting in what they are supposed to be “public servants”, instead they are more interested in “serving self”. And when they get a taste of power, well, we all know what happens then! Too bad for our country!

  • Joanne Huspek

    There are so many czars now, I feel a compulsion to order the Rosetta Stone Russian version.

    And yes, I am alarmed. These guys answer to no one, and in many cases there is already a government worker in place to take care of whatever the czar is supposed to be doing. Nothing like paying double. And, love the auto czars, who have no experience running auto companies. Well, they have driven cars (mostly foreign ones) so I guess that’s a qualifier.

    Why isn’t a gung ho attorney on this suing someone?

    Oh, I forgot. You can’t sue the feds.

  • Bliffle

    Too many czars! The whole idea of a ‘czar’ was that a guy could slash through the bureaucracy, override niggling objections, take precipitate action, shoot the piano player, etc.

    Now, we have so many it’s hard to keep track of them. One is in danger of getting caught in the cross-fire.

    Has any of them actually DONE anything? Anything useful? Anything anyone would notice?

    The last one I remember was czar Nicholas, a rather pleasant fellow who seemed not to know what to do with the power he had. I suppose that’s the fate of czars.

  • Clavos


    I put ol’ Nick’s picture at the top of the Politics home page earlier today.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    I hate to make it sound like a self-fulfilling prophecy, but the responses above seem to prove my point, to wit:

    from Dave:

    Liberals may not be interested in personal power, but the Democrats are cerainly not liberals.

    Many Democrats aren’t liberals – but many more Democrats ARE liberal. For example, how many Dems are not for gay rights? There are some, but not many.

    from Christine: Not many politicians are interesting in what they are supposed to be “public servants”, instead they are more interested in “serving self”.

    On its face, that’s a cogent statement that is to some extent true. However, her statement ignores the larger picture. But perhaps Christine should check back to Barry Goldwater – the ‘father’ of modern conservatism – and his opinions of today’s conservatives. He said, “‘The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please, as long as they don’t hurt anyone else in the process.” In the same article, Goldwater warned that “the radical right has nearly ruined our party.” and “Its members do not care about the Constitution and they are the one making all the noise.”

    Not to be outdone, Clavos opined: You’re very fond of these kinds of “proofs,” which are usually totally devoid of fact and always unfounded, not to mention logically fallacious. My conclusion from the above? Since, as you point out, leaders are mostly onservatives, obviously conservatives are smarter than liberals and have better leadership skills. Makes as much sense as your theory.

    Is it fallacious to state that the military – and military veterans – strongly tend to conservatism? No. Is it fallacious to state that Big Business (read: CEO’s) lean strongly towards the let’s-cut-taxes-some-more Republicans? No. Is it fallacious to state that most highly religious people tend to be strongly conservative? No…and it appears Clavos hasn’t heard of the ‘Religious Right’.

    Clavos, it is a FACT that the military, the strongly religious, and Big Business tend to be conservative. Do you really need me to give a list of references to show it to you? Is that your only defense, the ‘faulty logic’ defense?

    The fact remains – those three are traditionally strongly conservative…and I’m giving a reason WHY they remain conservative. If you can come up with a better, more logical reason why (other than “they’re smarter!”), then please do so. Otherwise, my point stands.

  • Clavos

    The fact remains – those three are traditionally strongly conservative…and I’m giving a reason WHY they remain conservative. If you can come up with a better, more logical reason why (other than “they’re smarter!”), then please do so. Otherwise, my point stands.

    Ah, but your “point,” which you fail to re-state is that it is conservatives (as opposed to liberals) who are most interested in power, and to “prove” your “point,” you point to examples of conservatives in positions of leadership and power. Once again, your “proof” is based on totally unscientific “data” gleaned from personal observation and open to a myriad of disparate conclusions, including mine: that your observations merely prove that conservatives are smarter and have better leadership skills than liberals, and that they naturally will gravitate to those positions wherein they best can use their intelligence and skills.

    Conversely, one could point to the liberals in the oval office and throughout the administration and Cabinet, as well as all the liberals in congress (Pelosi, Reid, all the committee chairs, etc.), not to mention all the union leaders and dozens of governors, all of whom are in positions of power, and using your “logic,” “prove” that it is in fact, liberals who are driven by the desire to acquire power.

    Like most of your “proofs,” this one defies both logic and plain common sense. But, that’s never mattered to you before, so I’m not expecting it to now.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Are you going to state, then, that the military (and particularly the senior military) doesn’t lean strongly to the conservative?

    Are you going to state, then, that fraternities such as the Freemasons, Elks, etc. don’t lean strongly to the conservative?

    Are you going to state, then, that religious organizations in America don’t generally lean strongly to the conservative?

    I’ll wait for your answers.

  • Christine

    Not many politicians are interesting in what they are supposed to be “public servants”, instead they are more interested in “serving self”. Darn it, I meant to say INTERESTED, not interesting. I hate when that happens. Glenn, COGENT is now my new favorite word!

  • Clavos

    Glenn, never having investigated any of those, and having less than no interest in boys’ clubs and religion, I have no empirical idea of their makeup.

    But it doesn’t matter, because you’ve said that conservatives seek power, and for proof that they do, you’ve stated that the leaders of those types of organizations are mostly conservative. Well, if the organizations themselves are mostly conservative (as you now assert), then it naturally follows that their leaders will be, too.

    That does not, however, prove that conservatives seek power, only that they gravitate to the military, boys clubs (including the military), and religion.

  • Lumpy

    It takes a he’ll of a lot more than just being for gay rights toake u a liberal.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Yeah, my claims are SO unscientific and unfounded. Actually, when it comes to the fraternities, that’s true. I’ve found lots of anecdotal evidence of my claim, but nothing that can support a sweeping conclusion.

    On the other two, there’s LOTS of evidence.

    From the Gallup Poll, “Military veterans of all ages tend to be more Republican”

    From Fox News (ugh!) Polls Emphasize Growing Religious Gap in Politics

    From Pew Research, Religious Affiliation and the Vote, which show that Gore, Kerry, AND Obama lost badly among protestants and white Catholics.

    So here’s your SCIENTIFIC evidence, Clavos…and now it’s for you to answer why it is that the military and religious groups tend to vote strongly conservative? WHY?

    First, you look at their similarities – both tend to be socially regimented. Do you really think it’s a mere coincidence that the more strongly regimented the group, the more conservative they tend to vote?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Lumpy –

    That was merely one small example…a ‘for instance’, if you will.

  • Christine

    I always wonder who takes all the POLLS….I’ve never been polled about anything!

  • Clavos

    One more time, Glenn:

    Your original claim was NOT that those kinds of orgs are full of conservatives, but that they’re LED by conservatives, who are leading them because conservatives are power seekers. I already pointed out, it stands to reason if all their membership is conservative, they will naturally enough have conservatives as their leaders.

    The horse is dead, Glenn.

    You can stop beating it now.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Christine –

    Perhaps you should check your sources, too. After all, Fox is not known for being a paragon of accuracy.

    For instance, shows here how Fox News is continuing to put out false information that one of its own reporters debunked.

    In short, the article (and its references) show that at least eight of the ‘czars’ WERE confirmed by the Senate, that this practice of having ‘czars’ (by other names) goes back all the way to at least FDR (which of course includes Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush/Bush), and that czars under the Bush administration were notoriously unaccountable.

    But of course, since it’s a Democrat who’s doing it now, well, THAT’s just plain unAmerican, isn’t it?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    I just saw that there horse move again! It SAID something, I tell you! And here’s what it said: “I already pointed out, it stands to reason if all their membership is conservative, they will naturally enough have conservatives as their leaders.

    Now I just gotta ask that horse ONE thing afore I give it another whack – WHY, oh, WHY do you think, Mr. Not-so-dead-Horse, that the membership of those organizations are SO conservative?

  • Christine

    Thanks for the info (interesting data), so I guess a small percent are “Senate-confirmed positions”. Good News!

    I did know that they “go back as far as FDR, and maybe further”, (they had a different name then), but my article was already too long, so I decided not to give the history in its totality.

    My concerns are not just related to the position itself, but more so in the number and the people chosen…they seem pretty radical to me. Do you mind these types being in high-powered positions?

    And how come Obama is choosing so many period and so many of his own kind, especially when he campaigned on “reaching across the aisle?”

  • Christine

    One last thing to consider, Glenn, if I was a CEO of a company that hired over 30 assistants, I would be fired!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Christine –

    Did you make these same complaints when Reagan did the same thing?

  • Cannonshop

    #25 How many “Czars” did Reagan have again?

  • Bliffle

    I think there are altogether too many czars in the current administration!

    Obama should do something about it, like appoint someone to hire and fire czars.

    What we need is a czar czar.

  • Clavos

    LOL bliffle!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    bliffle – the first thing to do with the czars is to have them participate in a reality show – perhaps we could call it, “Dancing with the Czars”.

    Sorry – couldn’t resist.

  • Bliffle

    I’m ready to serve as Czar Czar. When do we talk compensation and perks?

  • Clavos

    As a patriotic American, we expect you to serve for a patriotic $1 a year. As far as perks go, you get the opportunity to not lose anything you already have. That’s it.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Washington served for $1 a year. So did several CEO’s during WWII – they were called ‘dollar-a-year men’.

    The guys in charge of Google did the same a few years back.

  • mindy rodriguez

    this is just another part of obama’s tough, chicago thug steps to get what he wants without having approval of congress! but what obama does not realize is that Americans are not at all pleased with his elbow twisting behavior! we have studied the background of some of these czars and it is lower than scum…take a look at obama’s science czar…he believes in getting rid of population when you do not want them anymore…no wonder they are going to get rid of our seniors (check out obamas health reform bills)

  • Silas Kain

    In a nutshell, perhaps there is a method to Obama’s “madness”. Our Congress is awash in special iunterest funding. They have the collective intelligence of a gnat. Does anyone here honestly believe that these so-called representatives read every word contained in a bill that they pass? Forget about truth in lending, it’s time for truth in legislation! If our own representatives can’t make the changes or recommendations we demand, then perhaps Obama is right to appoint czars. Perhaps then we’ll finally get it.

    And with that in mind I bring you Silas Kain’s version of America the Beautiful. The last two, ironically, are included in the lyrics of America the Beautiful. The preceding are my rewritten versions.

    O beautiful for bank accounts,
    For grey-green waves of cash
    For greed driven executives
    Stealing our retirement stash!
    America! America!
    God closed His eyes on thee
    And realize that we are screwed
    From sea to shining sea!

    O beautiful for WalMart stores
    Who sell us real cheap trash
    For shopping malls and hamburg joints
    Who wipe us out of cash.
    America! America!
    God wants us to succeed
    But realize that we must change
    And curtail such great greed!

    O beautiful for those who died
    Defending our way of life.
    For had they lived to see this mess,
    Their world would be such strife.
    America! America!
    Open your eyes to see
    That we can change and make it right
    To fulfill our destiny.

    O beautiful for freedom’s dream
    That we believe is true.
    Our children know not what we’ve seen,
    It’s time to start a new.
    America! America!
    We must make that resolve
    To get involved and effect change
    Before union dissolves.

    O beautiful for children’s lives
    We have the tools to give
    To teach them right from wrong and more
    And show them how to live.
    America! America!
    Remember history.
    For those who’ve come and gone before
    Make it no mystery.

    O beautiful our nation’s pride
    To rise above the rest
    We almost made the mountaintop
    To pass that final test.
    America! America!
    We control our destiny
    By taking back what’s given us

    O beautiful for glory-tale
    Of liberating strife
    When once and twice,
    for man’s avail
    Men lavished precious life!
    America! America!
    God shed his grace on thee
    Till selfish gain no longer stain
    The banner of the free!

    O beautiful for patriot dream
    That sees beyond the years
    Thine alabaster cities gleam
    Undimmed by human tears!
    America! America!
    God shed his grace on thee
    Till nobler men keep once again
    Thy whiter jubilee!

  • Baronius

    Some smart journalists should create a periodical that would keep track of all these guys, and their paid staff, like their drivers. They could call it Czar and Driver Magazine.

  • Clavos

    Give it up for Baronius, folks!

    He’ll be back for another show at eleven; tell your friends, he’s here all week!

    And please, folks, don’t forget to tip your waitress!

  • Christine

    Great idea, Baronius!

  • Baronius

    Thank you, thank you. Great audience tonight. Not like last night’s crowd. Rough crowd, I tell ya. One guy was such a supporter of Obama’s czar appointments that he yelled at me and rushed the stage. Now that’s something you never wanna see – a czarist rushin’!

  • Dr Dreadful


    Czar Czar Gabor?

  • Clavos

    Van Gogh painted “Czarry Czarry Night” during his Russian Period.

  • Clavos

    I just acquired a new puppy.

    It’s a Czar Pei.

  • Clavos

    Sorry, got carried away. #40 of course refers to “Czarry Night.”

    It’s late, Czaryonara.

  • Dr Dreadful

    I read on CNN earlier that Obama is coming to the realization that he may have appointed too many czars, but is unsure which ones to keep and which ones are superfluous.

    To which end, a new TV show has been announced in ABC’s fall lineup, in which each of the czars will be paired with a top professional ballroom dancer over 12 weeks of competition.

    The show is to be called Dancing with the [dives for cover]

  • STM

    Clav #41: “It’s a Czar Pei.”

    Mate, has to better than one of them shit-zoos.

  • Clavos

    Dancing With The dives for cover???

    I don’t get it.

  • Baronius

    Clavos, Dread slipped up on that one. He was diving for cover to avoid the reaction to Dancing with the Czars, not noticing that Glenn beat him to it. So let’s give Dread an easy one to get back on his feet – Star Wars Episode One…

  • Dr Dreadful

    Ah, bugrit, I didn’t notice that Glenn had already done that one.

    My people are talking to his people. They are waving affidavits and getting quite excited about something. Possibly lunch.

  • Bliffle

    mindy rodriguez,

    “…take a look at obama’s science czar…he believes in getting rid of population when you do not want them anymore……”

    Oh? Where did he say that?

    How ’bout you provide us a citation for that?

    Or are you spreading unsubstantiated rumors?