Actually, one is too many, as far as I’m concerned, but now the Obama administration has more than the Romanov dynasty:

Government by czar didn’t work especially well in Russia. Hopefully, it won’t be quite so bad in this country. And, yes, of course I understand that Obama’s czars unlike the Romanovs are ultimately accountable to democratically elected officials. I also don’t expect Obama’s czars to be organizing pogroms or exiling dissidents to Siberia anytime soon. On the other hand, democratic accountability for America’s czars is increasingly tenuous in light of the fact that there are too many of them for most voters to even keep straight, much less understand and evaluate their performance in any depth. Here, as elsewhere, the rapidly growing size and complexity of government makes difficult for voters to monitor those who are supposed to be serving the public . Maybe Obama’s army of czars will do a good job anyway. A few of the Romanovs did. But for every “Czar-Liberator,” like Alexander II (who free Russia’s millions of serfs), there were a lot more oppressors and incompetents.

I’m not expecting any liberation from anyone in this crowd.

Jonah Goldberg, on the hypocrisy and misplaced paranoia of the left (and the MSM, but I repeat myself) in seeing “rightwing extremists” behind every tree, while ignoring the real threats:

When Hollywood filmed the Tom Clancy novel The Sum of All Fears, it changed the real villains from jihadi terrorists to a bunch of European CEOs who were secret Nazis. Because “everybody knows” that’s where the real threat lies.

Sen. John Kerry belonged to an organization of vets that considered assassinating American politicians. (Kerry denied participating in those meetings.) Barack Obama was friends with, and a colleague of, a terrorist whose organization plotted to murder soldiers and their wives at a social at Fort Dix. A young Hillary Clinton sympathized with the Black Panthers, a paramilitary gang of racist murders and cop killers.

Bring that up and you’re a paranoid nutcase out of Dr. Strangelove.

But if you’re terrified of a bunch of citizens who throw tea in the water and demand lower taxes and less government spending, well, that’s just a sign of political seriousness.

Also, as John Miller points out, these people have gotten way too much mileage out of Tim McVeigh. And if his goal was to increase the power of the political “right,” it had exactly the opposite effect, blunting the Republican momentum from the 1994 elections.

Greg Gutfeld wonders why the media missed the real story of the tea parties.

Two years after the worst school massacre in history, some students and faculty are walking out of class to demand to the Texas legislature that they remain helpless victims. And we have the usual stupidity from a law professor who, despite sensible comments from Eugene Volokh, gets the last moronic and historically ignorant word. From the conclusion:

Paul Finkelman, an Albany Law School professor and former UT history and law professor, said that from a constitutional standpoint, the Texas Legislature has the right to allow concealed carry on campus, but he questioned the logic of state legislators.

“I think no one ever accused the Texas Legislature of being smart,” Finkelman said. “It seems to be an inordinately stupid plan because it means any lunatic can come on campus with a gun.”

Yes, and of course, that couldn’t possibly happen unless the legislature makes it legal for permit holders to come on campus. I mean, we saw how effective Virginia Tech’s gun-free zone was. Apparently, the lunatic just hadn’t gotten the memo.

He said he was surprised that anyone in Texas would consider wanting to have guns on state campuses, particularly UT.

“Given the history of UT when someone climbed up a tower and started shooting people, … what are these people thinking?” Finkelman said.

Perhaps they’re thinking that it was a good thing that there were armed students on campus that day, who got their guns from their cars and lockers, and saved many lives by keeping the shooter pinned back in the tower until the police arrived.

He said the Supreme Court rulings have basically said they are free to regulate fire arms.

“The sociological evidence is clear that if guns are handy, people will use them,” Finkelman said. “Having such a rule is an encouragement of death and mayhem at the University of Texas. There is no other way to describe it.”

Yes, if guns are handy, and people are being shot at, they will use them. Guns don’t stop people from shooting people, people with guns do. In fact, if you really want to encourage death and mayhem at a university, put up a sign that effectively says: “hundreds of densely packed unarmed victims inside.” It worked a real treat in Blacksburg two years ago.