Legislation introduced to ban 'czars'

The Hill ^

[hosepipe]

They will just change the name to Commisars..
Republicans can be bamboozled so easily..

[Tenniel2]

Double that. It was a $30-billion-with-a-”b” slush fund, and it’s undoubtedly still out there somewhere.

[WOBBLY BOB]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxManCpDrtQ

[nina0113]

I think GWB started this Czar thing didn’t he? Why on earth would a repulican choose the term Czar?

I think it was Reagan with the Drug Czar. I don't know who chose the term Czar. I'm wondering if it was the press, who hated everything Reagan did and were as derogatory as possible about all of it.

[vpintheak]

Come on democraps! You say yuo love this Country too. Stop this insanity and protect our Republic!

[lovesdogs]

Wow. The wording kinda says either do the right thing and follow the constitution or voluntarily vote to cede part of the power of your branch of government to the executive branch.

[mojitojoe]

It’s about damn time. Get on the phones, bring up the fact that even Robert Byrd was concerned and sent odumbo a letter saying he was abusing executive power and it wasn’t Constitutional.

[hosepipe]

[ Come on democraps! You say yuo love this Country too. Stop this insanity and protect our Republic! ]

If democrats had any sense they wouldnt be democrats.. Duuuugh..

[WOBBLY BOB]

“Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”- P. J. O’Rourke

[vpintheak]

Yeah, and I wish I could spell. :-(

[hosepipe]

If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it’s ‘free’- PJ O’Rour

[mvpel]

The 'czar' title was first used to refer to an appointed government official in a Time Magazine article in December 1973, referring to William E. Simon's appointment as the head of the Federal Energy Administration.[1] The 'drug czar' title was first published in a 1982 news story quoting Joe Biden by United Press International which reported that “Senators... voted 62-34 to establish a ‘drug czar’ who would have overall responsibility for U.S. drug policy.”[2]

[Karliner]

Has Obummer’s elected any Romanov’s yet?

[dools007]

A while back, in response to the bombing of two stolen gasoline tankers by the Taliban, The Marxist Onada and his angry band of commies, decided: US soldiers could not defend themselves if they were being fired upon by enemy ragheads if women and children are present. The Taliban story line was that a bunch of locals (including women and children) were stealing gasoline from the tankers. We all know that the Taliban always use women and children as shields. I believe the local thieves story like I believe in the tooth fairy. They also could not fire upon known enemy targets even if they weren’t firing on them, again, if innocent civilians (primarily women and children) were present. And why did the Taliban steal the tankers? Probably to blow up Afghani and/or Allied soldiers

The policy has apparently been reinterpreted to mean American soldiers cannot fire upon attacking enemy combatants if they cannot determine for certainty that women and children are not present. Hence close air support was denied these Marines who were ambushed by the Taliban murderers. Apparently because they could not guarantee the absense of women and children.

There is American blood on Obama’s, Gate’s, Mullin’s and McMasters hands. If one of those Marines was my son I’d be heading to Washington locked and loaded.
I’m sure if you Google ROE and Obama Administration it’ll come up.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Thanks very much for the response and for the help! Greatly appreciated!