Posted on 08/27/2009 2:13:06 PM PDT by jim byrd
The venerable question that has bewildered scholars and thinkers of the Bolshevistic persuasion since Peter the Great is: how many czars does a czar need, and does a czar need a czar to watch over his czars?
(Excerpt) Read more at jimbyrd.com ...
30 Czars = 1 Politburo
Anachronism alert: Peter the Great was not a Bolshevik. Peter the Great lived in the 17th century; the Bolsheviks emerged in the early 20th century.
The Obama administration just keeps getting czarrier and czarrier.
The answer to that is as many as the czar feels it takes. A Supreme Leader can never be too paranoid.
Somebody’s got to make sure all those czars punch in on time and fill their quotas. They’re going to have to get them cubicles and they’ll all have to start wearing name tags so they can keep track of who is who.
Etymology czar The second definition means one having great power or authority.
So for a bunch of wannabe/actual socialists/communists calling themselves czars is rather ridiculous. Nevertheless, it's the power they wield, how they wield it, and whether it is constitutional is worrisome.
How many czars does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Please. Some historical accuracy. The Politburo killed the last real Czar and his family. The Czar did not have a Politburo. The Soviets did not have a Czar. When the czarist government ruled Russia, there was only one Czar at a time. Under the Soviets, the Politburo was a permanent subcommittee of the Council of Ministers. All that said, yes, BO has created a Politburo of sorts outside of our Constitutional government, made up of people the Soviets would have called “commissars,” and later “ministers.” To call these people czars is a misnomer that leads to confused thinking.
The word czar [New Latin] is derived from tsar [Russian] which is derived from tsisari [Old Russian]...kaisar [Gothic]...caesar [Greek or Latin].
BINGO!!!!
Eventually, they are gonna run out of bananas.
You are right, and awhile back there was a somewhat more extensive article posted on this. I can only think that the terms “commissars” and “ministers” sound too real - people would sit up and take notice of them. But in America, the term "czar" is a faintly comic term. No one really believes we have actual Soviet-style bureaucrats here, and so the term is more easily taken lightly, or dismissed as hyperbole.
Which is, of course, exactly the public reaction that the commissars want.
Tar and feathers for czars and fetters : )
It does have a kind of comic opera ring to it. Like they are all wearing plumed hats and lots of gold braid. (I have a mental image of Gen. McCaffrey, when he commanded SOUTHCOM, with lots of decorations and gold braid, but thankfully no plumed hat, who was later Clinton’s drug czar.) I guess what bugs me is that the Czars were absolute rulers, autocrats, and these guys are merely the tools of Obama’s trade. And that’s not funny at all.
But if you consider it two levels up, the "trade" is indeed "absolute autocratic rule," so in that, it's accurate.
Obama is simply creating a degree of separation from himself and the radical policies of his Czardom.
I like commissars. It seems they are getting sensitive about the czarczarczar flap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.