I've made reference to Dr. Bill Bennett calling himself the "drug czar," and John Negroponte was the "intel czar" and to quote much of the media "first ever." Now today, we finally have a "war czar." That term can be found both on CNN and FOXNews. When we had a cabinet post already for Education and one for Health, why did we need another one to address the drug issue? Wouldn't drugs go in one of those categories, and oh we also have a Cabinet Post regarding agriculture . . . wouldn't at least "pot" have been under the jurisdiction of that post? I know Mr. Negroponte resigned from this "first ever" post to be a deputy something, which I found odd from the start. The top spy position, coordinating all the spy departments and he wanted to be somebody's assistant in the state department? Hmmmm . . . that reallly makes me wonder something, but I have no idea what. I just can't make sense of it, unless . . . he was just holding the post, until the one that was destined for the job was in a position to take it. I realize that was an ominously clandestine statement, but we are talking spies, here. And now, we have a war czar, and even with all the power and pomp that supposedly comes with this newly crafted position, it was difficult for the President to find a willing taker. Since it is breaking news, there were few details, but I think this man is a Lt. General, and I read some of the "thanks, but no thanks" comments from the multi-star Generals that turned it down. Why isn't the Secretary of Defense and the Pentagon enough power to determine where and how this country's military will fight? And with all the help from the new Homeland Security Department, why do we need to expand our government further in the direction of war? I did check out the organizational chart for the Dept. of Homeland Security and I guess that must keep the one in charge of that department, just pretty busy. That is an immense amount of power. Why can't we tax paying, law abiding citizens participate in our own security? But I think my main concern here, as the powers that be, continues to establish new posts to keep the power contained, is the use of the word "czar." Russia had one before 1917 and it wasn't a good thing. We know words are defined by usage, and we've seen many examples in the last several years of slang making it into Webster's. I read that the term "dead presidents" is now in Webster's as a slang term for money. With all the revision and filtering of information, do you think our grandchildren will even know that Hamilton and Franklin were not presidents? Will our grandchildren even use the currency, that is now defined? There are already people in the work force that do not know that the US treasury has in the past, printed a $2.oo bill. So, what happens as the American public gets innundated and comfortable with the term czar? Will we recognize the power that is associated with that title? What does a democracy need with czars? What does a patriotic democracy need with so much protection? Where are the real men, the patriots? Why are the people that espouse the revolutionary ardor of the forefathers bowing down to this? Why is America fighting for the freedom of others while losing ours? Why do Americans simply accept their new lot in life, under the power of czars? And just what is the media, both sides of the media preparing the American public to accept?
The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in YHVH shall be safe.
No comments:
Post a Comment