Welcome To...Russia?

czar (zär, tsär)n.

1. also tsar or tzar (zär, tsär) A male monarch or emperor, especially one of the emperors who ruled Russia until the revolution of 1917.

2. A person having great power; an autocrat
3. Informal An appointed official having special powers to regulate or supervise an activity

New definition - 37 members of Chairman Maobama's administration.

One can only wonder what will become of the administration or what it's intent is once it begins to resemble your standard Communist regime.

Health & Human Resources Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has just announced a new czar, this one will oversee the FDA. According to Sebelius the czar will, "be responsible for restructuring and revitalizing the FDA's work to protect our food supply". Considering what the FDA's "standards" have been in the past, the last statement scares the living crap out of me.

Not only is the appointment of all these czars questionable, the biggest concern is what these people will actually do. According to the administration, the czars will be Special Masters of Compensation in order to regulate companies receiving bailout funds and ensure they're being used appropriately. I can see this applying to the auto industry and banks that were bailed out, but what about the others? What about Energy Czar Carol Browner, who has rather strong and well documented socialist ties? Urban czar? Health reform czar? This ain't all. Yesterday, a Congressman said there are now a total of 37 czars.

Now, you may ask, who exactly is "in control" of these czars? No one. Well, no one except for Lord Obama himself. Considering how well he's been handling things so far, the mere thought that this man is in control of anything else makes me piss myself. Let's get this straight; these czars have no congressional oversight whatsoever. They, in reality, can do virtually whatever they want. They have no boss. NO ONE tells them what to do, they're simply another bureaucratic layer in an administration that's attempting one of the biggest powergrabs in American history.

Speaking of Energy Czar Carol Browner, she has come under fire recently for no less than appalling comments aimed at auto industry executives. "Put nothing in writing", says the recycled Clintonista head of the EPA. Not only is this statement controversial and only a teeny bit outrageous, it may very well be advocating illegal acts. Representative Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin, is calling for a congressional investigation concerning these comments. Reason being; federal law requires executives and any other officials to physically document any major policy decisions within the industry. Then again, his request may very well go unnoticed. She's a czar, remember?

I love transparency.

Is A Third Party Truly Viable In America?

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

-Winston Churchill

So why, then, haven't we taken example from history and turned off the road from which we're headed? I must take exception to anyone claiming we live in a capitalistic economy. Capitalism implies that there is freedom of choice, industry and private ownership of both capital and assets. If a country run by corporations and corporate slaves alike is your definition of capitalism, I retract my previous statement. If you take solace in the fact that your money is controlled by faces you will never see, please discontinue reading.

Socialism has had a part in America and American industry ever since the mid 1850's, and the Socialist Party in the US saw outrageous growth during the early 1900's. The New Deal was it's first noticeable start with the advent of numerous social programs; The Social Security Act, The Economy Act, etc., are only a couple early examples. Since then, socialism has been a creeping ivy on the back steps of middle-America, it's wrath only felt when it begins peeking into your very own home, business and livelihood.

I'll end the social discourse and begin with the political; what happens with those of us who don't necessarily fall into either genre, or simply think that our country and government have lost it's way? For sake of labels, I'd consider myself an independent conservative with a few libertarian leanings. The Grand Ole Party is dead and old school liberalism has gone the way of the DoDo Bird. Where do we go from here? Is there any one out there who represents me?

For years, I've perused political websites, blogs, and forums. To this day, one thing remains constant; people want change and there's no one that's come close to delivering it. It seems that Constitutionalists and those like them are in the majority, but the mainstream media would have you believe that any traditionalist is an old, tired racist redneck that works a low-end, blue collar job and is afraid of change. This situation lends itself to a sad state of affairs, when the average red-blooded patriot is ostracized in favor of doper kids that hate America. Anyone who believes in the virtues the forefathers stood for is immediately branded some kind of crazy outcast who has no political representation.

The question remains, however; is a third party really viable in present day America? The people have apparently elected a paper-pushing Socialist straight out of the Chicago political machine, who has both brought change (none for the better) and yet more of the same from his infamous predecessor. I'm afraid that most "Republicans" honestly have no idea what's going on and genuinely believe that there's still a such thing as the GOP. The Democratic party have become America-hating, quasi-Marxists and most "Republicans" haven't far removed themselves from ideologies across the aisle; liberal-lite, if you will.

Since the 1700's, the old adage bares repeating, "No taxation without representation". Yet, representation for any traditionally cultured American is all but non-existent. Where are they? Who represents us? Why haven't they come out to speak? Ron Paul failed due to bad management and the media making a mockery of him, but there are certainly more like him, are there not?

Alas, I've always been a bit of a pipe-dreamer; pie-in-the-sky ideology and fanciful notions make my brain stay awake. Surrealism is an escape from both fantasy and reality at once, yet grounds one's ego to maintain sanity. Am I alone? I want your thoughts. Who represents us? Is a third party really viable?

Kindest regards,
IC