What'd I say about Czars yesterday?

Something to the ring of 'Kings, by historic definition, do not play nice...'

Now the headline

'Czar' wars pits White House against lawmakers

Remember, Kings have to conquer other kings before they control fiefdoms. The serfs sit on the sidelines waiting for the next king to take over.

Quip:

WASHINGTON - -- In a city where power is carefully hoarded and monitored, President Barack Obama has drawn complaints from Congress about his use of so-called czars, or officials he has appointed to coordinate environmental, health and other policy areas among various departments.

Lawmakers in both parties have sent letters to the White House challenging Obama's appointment of the czars, saying their appointment circumvents Congress's authority to confirm top executive branch officials and subject those officials to oversight hearings.

But when senators called a hearing on the legality of the czars, the panel of experts they convened did not support their cause.

Called together by Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., who had written to Obama asking for more information about the czars, the panel of five constitutional experts concluded that as long as the officials in question do not overstep their authority, there are no legal issues.

Who were these 'constitutional experts' and who's money are they taking? Follow the money, and Cui Bono?

There are more issues at stake, for example:

"The president's personal staff are independently responsible only to the president -- and in the end he is the only 'czar' that is," said Bradley Patterson, a presidential scholar. "And he is accountable to the American electorate."

Sure. I'll believe it when I see some actual accountability.

"Neither the purpose nor the effect of these new positions is to supplant or replace existing federal agencies or departments," Craig wrote.

I call shenanigans.  Things are about to heat up. You watch.

Chess... gotta love it. But, so many kings on the table you'd think it was checkers.