More garbage.

As of July 20, 2009:

• The Brainroom counts 32 czars in the Obama administration, based on media reports from reputable sources that have identified the official in question as a czar.

1. Afghanistan Czar - Richard Holbrooke
2. AIDS Czar * - Jeffrey Crowley
3. Auto Recovery Czar - Ed Montgomery
4. Border Czar * - Alan Bersin
5. California Water Czar - David J. Hayes
6. Car Czar - Ron Bloom
7. Central Region Czar - Dennis Ross
8. Climate Czar - Todd Stern
9. Domestic Violence Czar - Lynn Rosenthal
10. Drug Czar * - Gil Kerlikowske
11. Economic Czar * - Paul Volcker
12. Energy and Environment Czar - Carol Browner
13. Faith-Based Czar * - Joshua DuBois
14. Government Performance Czar - Jeffrey Zients
15. Great Lakes Czar - Cameron Davis
16. Green Jobs Czar - Van Jones
17. Guantanamo Closure Czar - Daniel Fried
18. Health Czar * - Nancy-Ann DeParle
19. Information Czar - Vivek Kundra
20. Intelligence Czar * - Dennis Blair
21. Mideast Peace Czar - George Mitchell
22. Pay Czar - Kenneth R. Feinberg
23. Regulatory Czar - Cass R. Sunstein *
24. Science Czar - John Holdren
25. Stimulus Accountability Czar - Earl Devaney
26. Sudan Czar - J. Scott Gration
27. TARP Czar - Herb Allison
28. Technology Czar - Aneesh Chopra
29. Terrorism Czar - John Brennan
30. Urban Affairs Czar - Adolfo Carrion Jr.
31. Weapons Czar - Ashton Carter
32. WMD Policy Czar - Gary Samore
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are explanations of each at http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29391/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have no problem with a president having advisers that posses unique skills but some of these czars have been granted authority to act and control things and are not accountable to the people or the U.S. Constitution. So where does the authority originate? There is none and we should let our representatives know we do not agree with unconstitutional authority and power being granted to individuals.

You left out 33. Blame Bush Czar.

Not to mention his close personal friendships with admitted socialists Bernie Sanders and William Ayers.

The New Information Order
How the Internet is freeing conspiracy theories from the control imposed by traditional media
By Robin Ramsay

December 2009
New Information Order

FT256

In the pre-Internet age, our society had an order of information in which knowledge was managed by experts and authorities, as well as representatives of the political, legal, scientific, medical and economic powers-that-be. Academics, scientists, spokespersons for the state and the owners, producers and editors of the major media decided what was real and what was unreal, what was true and what was false. The upside of this was that an awful lot of utter nonsense did not find mainstream distribution. The downside was that some material was misclassified as unreal or false – either by error, or because of interest group pressure, ideology or group-think.

The Internet threatens all this by speeding up circulation of unofficial data and simply bypassing the official information authorities. Crucially, it enables the creation and distribut­ion of pure speculation or outright lies without significant legal hazard.

In the pre-Internet ‘knowledge order’, the label ‘conspiracy theory’ was one of the key management tools of the powers-that-be, enabling the denigration of a political or historical proposition without it having to be falsified. In the post-1964 sections of Dr Christ­opher Andrew’s 1,000-page history of MI5, In Defence of the Realm (Allen Lane, 2009), Andrew, as the spokesman for MI5, repeatedly dismisses the claims of critics of the agency as “conspiracy theories”. Based on the notion of an authority being allowed to see the official records of a secret agency, to report back that all is well and that the agency’s critics are simply misinformed or conspiracy theorists, Andrew’s book looks like one of the last hurrahs of the old information order.

Elsewhere, though, the new order is lapping at the feet of the old. The first big breakthrough from the margins of the cybersphere to the major media in this country was when, on 27 Sept­ember, the BBC’s Andrew Marr asked Prime Minister Gordon Brown: “A lot of people in this country use prescription painkillers and pills to help them get through. Are you one of them?”

In the furore which followed, it was revealed that Marr had no evidence other than the “evid­ence” which lots of other people (including this writer) had: emails circulating which suggested that Brown was taking a particular antidepressant. It was the first time in this country that something so sensitive and potentially damaging had made its way from the Internet into mainstream TV politics – from unregulated to regulated screens, as it were.

America is much deeper into the new inform­ation order than the UK. On 29 September, Bill Clinton said on American television that the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ – the phrase used by his wife – which had pursued him through his terms in office had now focused on President Obama.

Obama is experiencing an extreme version of what happ­ened to Harold Wilson in the 1960s and 70s: despite being a centrist, he is being accused of being a Communist (and worse) by the right.

Wilson only had to endure rumour-mongering among London’s financial, military and intelligence elites, with just hints appearing in the major print media and nothing on radio or television: the libel laws and the major media’s demand for evidence prevented the fantasies about “the Communist cell in No 10” being published or broadcast. Obama now has the American right’s considerable Internet, TV, radio and print media cranking away night and day on the themes of his otherness: his illegitimacy as a presidential candidate because (it is claimed) he was not born in the US; his hidden Communism and/or Fascism (example above); his being a secret Muslim; his non-authorship of his memoir; and his links to Bill Ayers, an American lefty and member of the Weathermen in the 1969–1974 period. And with the constitutional right to free speech and the existence of a public interest defense against libel charges existing in America, there is little Obama can do about it.

It is a commonplace on the British liberal-left that British libel laws are too restrictive, too protective of those who can afford the lawyers. As I was writing this, the Guardian reported that it was under an injunction not only to not report a story (a question tabled in Parliament by a Labour MP), it was even under an injunction preventing it from reporting who the subject of the story was!

Ah, the old information order reasserting itself, I thought. But within an hour the inform­ation the Guardian had been forbidden to report was on the Net and the injunction collapsed the next day. The new order with a vengeance!

Faced with a banning injunction, any media organization can just slip the story onto the Net. Is the old information order finished? If this is the major breach it appears to be, do we want to go down the American road to a situation in which anyone can write or broadcast anything? For the evidence from America suggests that a large section of the population are unable to tell the **** from the Shinola. And if there is a middle way, what is it?

Glenn Beck's a crazy person. He used to be somewhat normal, when he was a raging alcoholic.

I actually did go to college for psychology. Not everybody comes from a town with a one room schoolhouse :)

You're saying Glenn Beck isn't mainstream media? Boy have they got you guys fooled.