Van Jones Gone
So exactly how much influence does Fox News, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity have? Look no further than today's news. Van Jones has resigned his Green Jobs "adviser" position. This happened despite zero coverage from other mainstream media outlets.
Of course, Jones didn't own up to his past in his resignation, he just blamed people for using "lies and distortions" and a "smear campaign" about him to kill the health care reform debate/bill.
Why are we not surprised that someone like Van Jones made it into an Obama White House? Obama has surrounded himself with radicals his entire life, but he never seems to either know they were radicals, or he never heard them say radical things. If you believe that, I've got some ocean front property in Utah I'd like to sell you. He sat in Rev. Wright's church for 20 years, but never heard any radical sermon by him. He launched his campaign out of William Ayers' house and served on a committee with Ayers but never knew he was a radical. Rahm Emmanuel? Ezekiel Emmanuel? There are plenty more examples here that have been published and aired elsewhere. So how are we shocked to find someone like Van Jones in the inner circle of the White House?
This brings up a bigger point about the so-called "advisers" and czars that populate the White House. Many Presidents have used czars for issues like the "war on drugs". However, Obama has taken this position to a new height (or low). It doesn't matter what President started using czars or which President used czars, what is important is that the Presidential privilege of having a person in a governmental position without the consent of Congress is being abused. Obama has over 20 czars now ranging from a domestic violence czar to a compensation czar. Not one of these people were approved by Congress. Because of Van Jones and the number of czars, it's time to re-evaluate the entire czar position.
The United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2 outlines the President's right to appoint persons to government positions and the right of Congress to approve those appointments:
The President has the right to have advisers around him, and they receive a salary paid for by the tax payer and they are not approved by Congress. However, these advisers generally do not have the power that the czars have - unless you're Rahm Emmanuel or David Axelrod that is. But with the power that the czars have Congress should vet, approve, and oversee any policy or rule imposed by these appointees.
Of course, Jones didn't own up to his past in his resignation, he just blamed people for using "lies and distortions" and a "smear campaign" about him to kill the health care reform debate/bill.
Why are we not surprised that someone like Van Jones made it into an Obama White House? Obama has surrounded himself with radicals his entire life, but he never seems to either know they were radicals, or he never heard them say radical things. If you believe that, I've got some ocean front property in Utah I'd like to sell you. He sat in Rev. Wright's church for 20 years, but never heard any radical sermon by him. He launched his campaign out of William Ayers' house and served on a committee with Ayers but never knew he was a radical. Rahm Emmanuel? Ezekiel Emmanuel? There are plenty more examples here that have been published and aired elsewhere. So how are we shocked to find someone like Van Jones in the inner circle of the White House?
This brings up a bigger point about the so-called "advisers" and czars that populate the White House. Many Presidents have used czars for issues like the "war on drugs". However, Obama has taken this position to a new height (or low). It doesn't matter what President started using czars or which President used czars, what is important is that the Presidential privilege of having a person in a governmental position without the consent of Congress is being abused. Obama has over 20 czars now ranging from a domestic violence czar to a compensation czar. Not one of these people were approved by Congress. Because of Van Jones and the number of czars, it's time to re-evaluate the entire czar position.
The United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2 outlines the President's right to appoint persons to government positions and the right of Congress to approve those appointments:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors,other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.Exactly why Congress has allowed Presidents to get away with appointing czars without being vetted and approved by a vote is beyond me. These czars are paid with the public's money and their budgets are provided for by the tax payer. The czars have the power to effect policy, rules, or laws at various government agencies and therefore should be held to a higher standard and ultimately answerable to the people via the US Congress.
The President has the right to have advisers around him, and they receive a salary paid for by the tax payer and they are not approved by Congress. However, these advisers generally do not have the power that the czars have - unless you're Rahm Emmanuel or David Axelrod that is. But with the power that the czars have Congress should vet, approve, and oversee any policy or rule imposed by these appointees.
Comments