November 22nd, 2014

The holidays are coming: order from Amazon through neo-neocon!


Yes, it’s that time. Again.

It’s almost Thanksgiving. And that means that Christmas, Chanukah, and whatever other holiday might suit your diverse fancies are all coming up sooner than you think.

So I’m encouraging you to feel their hot panting breaths on your neck, and to solve all your gift-giving dilemmas by turning to that online colossus, Amazon.

And if you use those widgets on my right sidebar to click through for all your Amazon purchases (now and at any other time of year) you will also be giving a small but still not insignificant gift to neo-neocon (it adds up, folks), and all without spending any extra money yourself. What could be more wonderful?

I thank you all in advance.

[NOTE: In case you have ad blocker or something of that sort, and the Amazon widgets don’t show up on your computer, go here. You can also click on any Amazon book link within a post and anything you order during that click-through gets credited to me. I believe it’s true even for things you put in your cart but don’t order till a bit later, although there’s a time limit on how long they can be there and still get credited when ordered (I’m not sure what that limit is, though, so best to order sooner rather than later).]

November 22nd, 2014

Breaking up isn’t hard to do

So, here’s my question: This was written by a guy?

In particular, I find it hard to believe that reason #3 for the breakup emerged from the mind of a man:

You are rude to my cat and that makes me feel uncomfortable.

Perhaps things have changed even more than I realize.

Plus, what does rudeness to a cat look like? Forgetting to say “please” and “thank you”? Kicking it across the room? Making fun of it?

November 22nd, 2014

The NY times calls Obama’s new policy on immigration “wise”

This editorial reaches a new level of sycophancy even for the fawning Times, especially considering the very real and very significant problems related to every aspect of what Obama did, and the criticism he has drawn even from some sources usually sympathetic to him.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the editorial (to me, at least) is not just that word “wise” in the title. It’s the perfunctory dismissal of the constitutional issues as settled and obviously in Obama’s favor, and merely the result of the Republican’s usual unjustified pique at him:

Mr. Obama’s initiative is a real gain, which must be held against the blowback from Republicans, who are grasping for justification to match their outrage and to block him on legal grounds. Presidential precedent, the law and Supreme Court affirmation all favor Mr. Obama.

And that’s the entirety of what the Times has to say in the piece on that subject, although it contains well over 600 words. If anyone needed more proof of the total morphing of the Times into the old Pravda, there it is. And if anyone needed more proof that their devotion to Obama has not waned in recent years, there it is.

The Times, of course, is not alone. And although we may mock and revile it, it still is highly respected by many people, and therefore highly influential.

November 22nd, 2014

Why, fancy that

About 30,000 of Lois Lerner’s permanently missing, absolutely positively disappeared-forever emails have been found by the U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), who has been investigating the case.

It turned out to be rather easy, once someone wanted to do it:

“They just said it took them several weeks and some forensic effort to get these emails off these tapes,” a congressional aide told the Washington Examiner.

This was the line the IRS originally gave out:

In June Koskinen told Congress the emails were probably lost for good because the disaster recovery tape holds onto the data for only six months. He said even if the IRS had sought the emails within the six-month period, it would have been a complicated and difficult process to produce them from the tapes.

It is unclear, say chairman Issa of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, whether all her missing emails have been recovered.

I would lay money that they have not.

November 22nd, 2014

Jonestown reflections: 36 years later

[NOTE: Yesterday a comment that referenced Jonestown caused me to revisit this post from six years ago. It was written on the 30th anniversary of the suicide/massacre; just a few days ago was the 36th anniversary. I think it holds some lessons for today, perhaps even more than when I first wrote it: about mind control, charisma, susceptibility to propaganda, idealism, the left, totalitarian systems, and press ignorance. You may think you remember, and yet the details could surprise you. So here it is again, slightly edited.]

The other evening I turned on the TV and came across this CNN documentary entitled “Escape from Jonestown.” I watched for the next two hours, because to my surprise it turned out to be riveting.

Even though I recall Jonestown well, and thought I had remembered most of the salient facts about it, there was still much more to learn. The story contains facts of tragic relevance even today, November 18, 2008, which is the thirtieth anniversary of that terrible mass suicide.

We call it a mass suicide because the evidence (and there is plenty of it, including an audiotape of the horrendous proceedings) indicates that many of Jones’ followers cooperated in their own deaths. In fact, the term “drink the Kool Aid” derives from that fact.

But what most people don’t know is the extent of the psychological and physical pressure that was placed on these people from the moment they entered the cult, as well as the fact that fully one-third of the nearly one thousand who died there were children who could hardly be said to have freely cooperated. There is also forensic evidence that those adults who did protest or try to escape were forcibly injected with cyanide as they attempted to flee.

So I prefer to call it a suicide/massacre. That places most of the blame where it belongs, on Jim Jones himself.

The first relevant lesson to be learned is the danger of blindly following a charismatic leader. Jones became more deranged later on, but as his congregation grew in the 60s and 70s, he was a respected member of the San Francisco community, with connections to Democratic politicians (I’m not sure there’s any other kind in San Francisco) and a strong reputation for racial equality.

The second lesson is to beware of the trust that gullible and trusting human beings can place in that charismatic leader. Jones required that people give over their lives and their assets when they became followers—a danger sign. Members had varied reasons for joining, but it can probably be safely said that most of them were exceedingly idealistic. According to the testimony of many of the survivors (a small group, but an articulate one), once they realized the true character of the man in whom they’d placed such hope and faith, it was too late. They were in a prison, subject to various forms of physical and psychological torture in Jones’ attempt to control the inmates. And in the final year before the terrible end, the prison we know as Jonestown was at least as isolated as Alcatraz, because it was located in the heart of the Guyanese jungle.

Two forms the psychological torture/indoctrination took are especially instructive. The first is that as Jones became increasingly paranoid, he regularly harangued his followers that they would be under attack soon, either from the CIA or the Guyanese authorities, and that mass suicide would be the only way out. In fact, he had many rehearsals for the killings, which had the effect of getting people used to what would be happening and more ready to accept it, as well as more doubtful when the real thing began to happen that it actually was the real thing; maybe it was another rehearsal?

The second was a particular type of psychological coercion described in Deborah Layton’s very fine and highly recommended book Seductive Poison. I am describing this from memory (I read the book many years ago), but my recollection is that they were encouraged to inform on each other if they heard anyone complain about or criticize Jones or Jonestown. The tattler was then publicly praised, while the complainer was subject to public harangues, physical punishment, withdrawal of privileges, and ostracism. In a totally controlled environment, this was especially difficult to take, even for those with strong personalities.

What was even more terrible—and diabolical—was the fact that Jones made some of his close confederates pretend to be be discontented, confiding their criticism of Jones and Jonestown to others. The listeners had no idea that these were false “confessions.” If they listened sympathetically and perhaps shared their own discontent, they were reported and punished. But worse, if they failed to report the confidences of their “friends”—who were actually, unbeknownst to them, Jim Jones plants—then they were punished as well.

The entire system encouraged extreme distrust of sharing any complaints with or confiding in anyone. Therefore no mass rebellion or escape plans could be hatched. A resident never knew who was telling the truth, or who would go straight to Jones with the news. Even those who hated Jones and Jonestown had to wrestle with their consciences about whether to report on a friend; the consequences for failure to do so could be dire.

I doubt that even the KGB or the Stasi were quite as able to control all aspects of their subjects’ personal lives as Jones was. I mention the latter two organizations because it is not insignificant that Jim Jones was a Socialist/Communist, who greatly admired Cuba and the USSR. This little fact had escaped my memory as well, but it takes on a greater significance in retrospect. It is, quite simply, no accident.

One of the things Jones had been planning and contemplating in his last year was a possible mass exodus to the Soviet Union. He also instructed the Temple’s money to be left to the Soviet Union. Some of the dead left handwritten notes to that effect as well.

Watching the CNN documentary and hearing the survivors’ tell their fascinating stories, it became clear that they (like Deborah Layton) are hardly lacking in brainpower. This is the next lesson: intelligence has nothing to do with it. If these people were susceptible (and they were), it was not because they were not smart. It was because they were insufficiently skeptical of a charismatic demagogue, and of the limits of idealism.

Another lesson is how connected many on the Left were to Jones’ movement. Angela Davis and Huey Newton were involved, for example, in the rehearsals for suicide:

[Jones] set up a false sniper attack upon himself and begin his first series of White Nights, called the “Six Day Siege”, where Jones spoke to Temple members about attacks from outsiders and had them surround Jonestown with guns and machetes. The fiery rallies took an almost surreal tone as Angela Davis and Huey Newton communicated via radio-telephone to the Jonestown crowd, urging them to hold strong against the “conspiracy.”

Mark Lane, the Kennedy assassination conspiricist, was also quite influential as Jones’ lawyer, which I also hadn’t before realized. He helped fan the flames of paranoia:

In 1978, Lane began to represent the Peoples Temple. Temple leader Jim Jones hired Lane and Donald Freed to help make the case of what it alleged to be a “grand conspiracy” by intelligence agencies against the Peoples Temple…

In September of 1978, Lane visited Jonestown, spoke to Jonestown residents, provided support for the theory that intelligence agencies conspired against Jonestown and drew parallels between Martin Luther King and Jim Jones. Lane then held press conferences stating that “none of the charges” against the Temple “are accurate or true” and that there was a “massive conspiracy” against the Temple by “intelligence organizations,” naming the CIA, FBI, FCC and the U.S. Post Office. Though Lane represented himself as disinterested, the Temple paid Lane $6,000 per month to help generate such theories….Lane later wrote a book about Jonestown that repeated his paranoia about CIA involvement, parroting the Jones party line.

Another important lesson that’s also forgotten is that Ryan and his entourage, including the reporters, seem to have been fooled by Jones and Jonestown. This has happened time and again in history, when people go to investigate a controlled environment. Although Ryan, his aides, and the reporters who went with them (almost all of whom were killed by Jones) are to be commended for their heroism and are deeply mourned, they also showed naivete in failing to understand the total control Jones had over his flock, and the depths of his evil. The extent of true evil, and the techniques it can use to coerce and silence, can be difficult for the good to understand:

Before leaving Jonestown for the airstrip, Congressman Ryan had told Temple attorney Charles Garry that he would issue a report that would describe Jonestown “in basically good terms.” Ryan stated that none of the sixty relatives Ryan had targeted for interviews wanted to leave, the 14 defectors constituted a very small portion of Jonestown’s residents, that any sense of imprisonment the defectors had was likely because of peer pressure and a lack of physical transportation, and even if 200 of the 900+ wanted to leave “I’d still say you have a beautiful place here.” Similarly, Washington Post reporter Charles Krause stated that, on the way back to the airstrip, he was unconvinced that Jonestown was as bad as defectors had claimed because there were no signs of malnutrition or physical abuse, while many members appeared to enjoy Jonestown and only a small number of the over 900 residents elected to leave.

It is tempting to think “it couldn’t happen to me.” We all like to think of ourselves as strong, both psychologically and physically. I have very little doubt, for example, that I would never join such a group in the first place. But I can see how anyone would be vulnerable once placed in that environment, with no way out.

I hope and trust I could resist, even then. But extreme isolation, brainwashing to stir up paranoia, constant rehearsal for death, and the sort of coercion and control Layton describes to isolate each person and make him/her think there is no escape, could take an enormous toll. In the case of the Jonestown inhabitants, they were extreme idealists who had ceded a great deal of autonomy to a leader and a group at the outset. Very few of them had a chance.

The survivors are suffused with guilt, and continue to mourn every day of their lives. Time has not healed these wounds. Some of them still live in the San Francisco area, and those who do sometimes visit the site of the mass grave in Oakland, the final resting place of those who died at Jonestown whose bodies were never identified. Many of these were children.

This is a moment to remember them and all who died there, as well as the suffering survivors. We can honor them by attempting to learn the lessons of their lives and deaths:


November 21st, 2014

Spambot of the day

Not sure what this means, but it sounds tres intense. I think maybe this bot is in love with me:

You are my breathing in, I possess few web logs and infrequently run out from brand :).

November 21st, 2014

How the left wins political arguments: keep it simple, stupid

Commenter “Mrs Whatsit” send me a link to this article by Megan McArdle about the influence of elite insiders on the making of policy recommendations and explaining the rationale behind them to the public. Worth reading.

I want to highlight the following:

The net effect…was that the administration could make claims that were impossible to effectively refute in debate, because doing so required voters to follow lengthy technical discussions, and the readers had whole lives to live and didn’t have time to master the arcane art of…

The actual ending of the sentence was “CBO budget rules,” because McArdle is talking here about the passage of Obamacare. But it occurs to me that you could fill in the blank with almost anything politicians do and that the MSM covers, actions that neither the politicians nor the MSM actually want the public to understand in any deeper meaningful way. You would be talking about one big reason why spin and propaganda work.

I often make efforts on this blog to get the story behind the story, to research my posts and write in enough depth so that I’m not just repeating talking points or slogans. If it sometimes helps to make what I write tedious or long, so be it, but I tell myself that at least the process of doing the research has helped me understand the truth better, although never completely.

It happens all the time that I find the story behind the story to be fascinating, and very different from the spin. I came across that yesterday with the “Reagan and Bush gave executive orders on immigration, so what’s the big deal if Obama does the same thing?” argument Democrats were making. It’s the talking point you see everywhere from Democrats and the left and their minions in the MSM, sometimes accompanied by photos of Reagan. Obama last night alluded to the idea that he was only doing what all presidents have done (the unspoken corollary, by the way, being that acting as though it were different could only come from animus and/or racism towards him in particular).

It is completely untrue that he is only doing what Reagan or Bush or other presidents have done before him. Not all executive orders are alike. Not all executive orders that deal with loosening or extending a rule on immigration are alike, either, as I explained in this post yesterday. But understanding the reasons why what Reagan and Bush did was not at all the same as what Obama did would “require voters to follow lengthy…technical discussions” (in McArdle’s phrase about Obamacare). Obama and the Democrats and their supporters are bargaining right now, in the constitutional crisis over immigration that Obama has initiated, that (exactly as Gruber admitted re Obamacare) the majority of American voters are too stupid and/or too lazy to understand what’s really happening, and will passively accept the “Reagan and Bush did it” argument.

Therefore, especially if the MSM is on your side, it’s easy as pie to tell effective lies, if you’re bold and blatant enough, and no one has an interest in checking up on you.

Because the “Reagan and Bush did it” argument will be heard over and over again, it’s a good idea to revisit some of the salient facts, and the discussion isn’t really all that “lengthy and technical” (although perhaps more lengthy and technical than most people are willing to follow). I wrote some of the facts in my post yesterday, as I said, but I think the most interesting ones were actually quotes from Powerline in the “addendum” to that post. I’m going to repeat those quotes here, because I think it really shows how shameless the MSM is in ignoring and/or distorting history in order to influence people politically. Here’s Paul Mirengoff with a little history lesson:

The Act [passed by Congress in 1986] also authorized the Attorney General to allow other illegal immigrants who did not qualify for the amnesty to remain in the U.S. if needed “to assure family unity.”

Accordingly, in May 1987, the Justice Department issued regulations that interpreted the the term “family unity” as calling for the maintenance of the “family group.” Family group was defined as including “the spouse, unmarried minor children under 18 years of age who are not member of some other household, and parents who resided regularly in the household of the family group.” Thus, not all spouses and children were included.

This regulation was not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion or the assertion of a generalized right to suspend “oppressive” immigration laws. Rather, the administration made it clear that it was carrying out the direction of Congress. It even cited the section of the law that provided this direction (section 245(d)(2)(B)(i) of the 1986 Act).

House Democrats, including one of the authors of the 1986 Act, criticized Reagan for interpreting too narrowly the executive authority they had granted him. They wanted all spouses and children to receive amnesty in the name of family unity. If anything, then Reagan acted too cautiously, exercising less than the full discretion afforded him by Congress.

Enter President George H.W. Bush. In 1990, he expanded the Reagan DOJ’s interpretation of “family unity” to encompass all spouses and children. Like Reagan, Bush merely interpreted the 1986 Act, as Congress called on the executive to do.

There, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

November 21st, 2014

Well, now we know: there is nothing Obama’s enablers wouldn’t excuse and justify

We used to ask the joking question: what could Obama do that would get his supporters to cross that imaginary line from defending him to condemning him?

The joke was that the answer was “nothing.” There was nothing he could do that they would not try to justify.

It was a joke, but not really a joke. The very harsh reality is that it seemed clear that almost all Democrats, pundits on the Democratic side, liberals, and the left were so in the tank for the man that they had abandoned all principle—that is, those who had ever cared about principle in the first place (other than “power forever”), or had seemed to care about principle, or had mouthed words that sounded like caring about principle. They would now find other words to explain why those principles were really not being violated by things Obama was doing that obviously violated them, or why this or that violation had to happen because somehow the opposition (Republicans, conservatives) had driven Obama to it.

And so, if Obama literally had crowned himself king last night instead of merely doing it figuratively, his enablers would say that Reagan had done the same thing, since he once wore a crown on Halloween.

If Obama had called a Republican senator into the Oval Office for a talk and then had taken out a gun and shot him dead, Obama’s enablers would say that Reagan had done the same thing, since he once spoke harshly to a Democratic senator. What’s more, they would say, the Republican made Obama do it by being so mean and racist to him—and, furthermore, it shows the need for more gun control.

You get the idea.

Obama has crossed many many important and heretofore sacred lines; too numerous to mention them all. This blog is one of many that describe/demonstrate the reaction of the right in real time. But the line he crossed last night into trashing the Constitution and dictatorship was the most important line of all that he’s leapt over—so far, that is. I have little doubt that he has other lines he intends to violate, especially if there is no effective pushback to this action of his.

It was midway in Obama’s first term that it suddenly occurred to me that in a second term (if he managed to win one) he would be far, far worse in terms of boldness and willingness to act out his radicalism, because no fear of the public in a future presidential election would check him, and he felt himself to be unimpeachable. What I didn’t think about was that the radical nature of what he was willing to do would take still another leap after the 2014 election, because then there would be no more voter feedback towards Democrats in Congress during the rest of his term, and time would be getting short for him to accomplish that Hope and Change stuff (that is, changing America into a leftist dictatorship with a permanent Democratic majority dependent on Big Government).

Obama would be nothing without his enablers in his Party, in the press, in the schools, in entertainment, and in the public at large. They are legion.

So here we are.

November 20th, 2014

Obama’s address: open thread

Today I have a very busy day and evening ahead—and, perhaps fortunately for me, I plan to be out enjoying myself when Obama gives his address tonight.

Some of you may choose to watch, because it promises to be a historic and interesting occasion, as in the Chinese curse “may you live in interesting times.”

So here’s a thread for the discussion that will no doubt ensue, for those of you who can bring yourselves to watch it and those who cannot.

I’ve been thinking about tyranny lately; why it is that some people are horrified by it and recognize it when it is threatened, and why some excuse it as long as the tyranny is in a cause they favor. I’ve written about tyranny many, many times before (most of those posts would come under the category “liberty” on the right sidebar), but never have I felt its hot breath breathing down my neck as I do tonight.

As preparation for tonight’s events, I thought it might be advisable to review the Enabling Act of 1933 in Germany, and how it went down:

The Enabling Act allowed the cabinet to enact legislation, including laws deviating from or altering the constitution, without the consent of the Reichstag. Because this law allowed for departures from the constitution, it was itself considered a constitutional amendment and thus its adoption required a two-thirds majority, with at least two-thirds of deputies attending the session.

The Social Democrats (SPD) and the Communists (KPD) were expected to vote against the Act. The government had already arrested all Communist and some Social Democrat deputies under the Reichstag Fire Decree. The Nazis expected the parties representing the middle class, the Junkers and business interests to vote for the measure, as they had grown weary of the instability of the Weimar Republic and would not dare to resist…

The passage of the Enabling Act reduced the Reichstag to a mere stage for Hitler’s speeches. It only met sporadically until the end of World War II, held no debates and enacted only a few laws. Within three months after the passage of the Enabling Act, all parties except the Nazi Party were banned or pressured into dissolving themselves, followed on July 14 by a law that proscribed the founding of political parties. With this, Hitler had fulfilled what he had promised in earlier campaign speeches: “I set for myself one aim … to sweep these thirty parties out of Germany!”

There’s much, much more; please read the whole thing if you have a moment. In Hitler’s case, he got the Reichstag to eliminate itself through the legislative process. In Obama’s case, he’s not eliminating Congress, he’s usurping it and using it as his tool to follow or not follow at his discretion, a more subtle approach, and he’s doing it by an executive action that he believes Congress will be unable to effectively oppose.

Another usurpation of power you might want to mull over is that of Chavez, whom I’ve long thought Obama resembles. I wrote this in September of 2009:

At present, it’s Chavez whom I see as closest to Obama, both in goals and in modus operandi. Fortunately, our Constitution is more of a stumbling block to tyranny than that of Venezuela, but it’s not an absolute impediment.

Please read the whole thing.

November 20th, 2014

Boston Ballet’s “Swan Lake”

I recently attended Boston Ballet’s new production of the old warhorse “Swan Lake,” and enjoyed it despite (or maybe because of?) the fact that I’ve seen the ballet about twenty-five times before, in many difference guises.

I’ve seen companies from the sublime to the not-so-sublime. I’ve seen choreography with the usual sad ending and ones with happy endings. I’ve seen ones where there are Freudian overtones and ones danced by all-male casts. But to me, the very best ones adhere to the tried-and-true “Swan” basics. For the most part (with a few stupid exceptions, at the very beginning and the very end, plus a too-short fourth act) Boston succeeded in doing just that, and it was a beautiful sight to see.

I had a perfect seat, just a few rows up in the mezzanine, the better to perceive the patterns in the “white” acts, the second and the fourth. The music by Tchaikovsky, and the choreography of those particular acts (by Lev Ivanov in the last years of the nineteenth century) are sublime, and merge into one seamless work of art. It sounds hokey to say it, but when that “Swan” corps gets moving fast, in winding circular patterns with arms raised as if in flight, the audience cannot help but be stunned at their transformation into birds (or actually, bird-maidens). The illusion is perfect.

What’s more, Boston’s smoke machine—which begins both acts by suffusing the stage with a romantic mist that is hugely enhanced by a dappled lighting effect—draws involuntary oohs and ahs from the audience. No matter what stage effects you’ve seen before, and how jaded and sophisticated you might be, this hits the spot with its otherworldly glow, and a special touch has the swan corps lying in lovely poses underneath all that smoke and then gradually emerging as it clears.

The Swan Queen I saw the night I attended was Anaïs Chalendard. She’s not in the first or even second cast; maybe third or fourth, and I’d never been aware of her before. Maybe not the technically strongest of Queens, she was plenty strong enough, despite a thinness that was extreme even for a ballet dancer. Her Swan Queen managed the neat trick of being simultaneously swan and human about as well as anyone I’ve ever seen (and that’s saying something), and with a very baroque style that was also very French. Her Prince was somewhat of a dullard, but the Prince is a somewhat thankless role anyway that’s very hard to pull off, so I forgave him.

The costumes were extremely ornate but not the least bit garish. Lovely! But I have a quibble: that gold trim on the swans’ costumes is not a good idea. It somewhat dilutes the effect, which should be of pure whiteness.

I highly recommend the production if you’re in the Boston area. Unfortunately, this run is over. But I bet it will be repeated in the future.

As an added bonus, here’s something I’ve posted on this blog before. It’s a photo of neo-neocon, age sixteen, in costume for a role in Act III (Italian variation) of an arts camp production of “Swan Lake.” I also was a swan in the second and fourth acts, but I don’t have a photo of that handy—although I have the pictures somewhere, in some drawer or file or envelope or other.


[NOTE: For a previous post I wrote on the wonderful moment in which Odette, the Swan Queen, is transformed from swan-maiden back to swan, see this.

Here are drawings for some of the costumes and sets. Some behind-the-scenes video here (I can’t seem to figure out how to embed it, so you’ll have to go to the link to watch it). This video shows very brief glimpses of some of the beautiful effects I’ve mentioned.]

November 20th, 2014

Our wannabee sovereign will address the nation this evening

We’ve been waiting for this for quite some time, haven’t we?

For months Obama has been saying, “I’m gonna do it, I’m really gonna do it—unless of course you give me what I want.” He even told us the timing; it would be after the election. So he had made a promise to his radical base (Hispanic and otherwise) and a threat to the Republicans in Congress, as well as thumbing his nose to the American voters who had expressed disapproval of him on November 4. You don’t get a trifecta like that every day from a president.

I wrote that what Obama is about to do is a threat to Republicans in Congress. But actually, it’s a threat to Congress itself. Democrats should be just as disturbed as Republicans by it, because it’s not the ends that are as important here as the very dangerous means. But if you’ve listened to most Democrats talk about it, you’d think ends are all they care about—and for most, it is.

Obama has the strong support of leading Democrats, who seem only too happy to cede the power of Congress to the president to get something they think will benefit the Party. Of course, they don’t state that it’s a dangerous executive power overreach; they say this is just like what other presidents have done when they use their executive discretion to tweak immigration laws. Surely they must be aware of the differences. But being aware has nothing to do with it; ideologues of the left have no trouble telling themselves that 2 + 2 = 5, and that what Reagan and Bush did was just the same as what Obama is poised to do now, even though only political junkies have even heard of the former actions before because they were relatively non-controversial.

Suddenly there are tons of articles from the left explaining how Obama is only doing exactly the same as what Reagan and Bush did with their executive orders on immigration. The left has its talking points and marching orders, and is dutifully complying. And of course there are many from the right explaining why this action of Obama’s promises to be radically (in every sense of the word) different.

Frum summarizes the differences here, and they are substantial:

Reagan and Bush acted in conjunction with Congress and in furtherance of a congressional purpose. In 1986, Congress passed a full-blown amnesty, the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, conferring residency rights on some 3 million people. Simpson-Mazzoli was sold as a “once and for all” solution to the illegal immigration problem: amnesty now, to be followed by strict enforcement in future. Precisely because of their ambition, the statute’s authors were confounded when their broad law generated some unanticipated hard cases. The hardest were those in which some members of a single family qualified for amnesty, while others did not. Nobody wanted to deport the still-illegal husband of a newly legalized wife. Reagan’s (relatively small) and Bush’s (rather larger) executive actions tidied up these anomalies. Although Simpson-Mazzoli itself had been controversial, neither of these follow-ups was…

…[Obama's about-to-be announced action] would not further a congressional purpose. It is intended to overpower and overmaster a recalcitrant Congress…

Another summary is here:

Reagan and Bush…made administrative corrections designed to carry out congressional intent.

…In short, while Reagan and Bush worked closely with Congress to implement the comprehensive legislation that Congress had passed (in the case of Reagan) or would pass shortly thereafter (in the case of Bush), Obama is bypassing Congress entirely. He is unconstitutionally revising existing law and, without Congressional approval, imposing new ones that have been explicitly rejected by Congress time and time again, thereby setting himself up as a kingmaker (or king) on immigration policy.

By doing so, the president is establishing a dangerous precedent that violates fundamental principles of separation of powers that serve as a bulwark to protect our liberties and that established a government of laws and not of men.

That’s not the only way that Obama’s action is unique, and uniquely awful. I can’t think of another case in which a president himself has made the case that an action is unconstitutional, and made it repeatedly while in office, and then reversed himself and said it’s perfectly constitutional because he’s grown impatient and wants to do it. Obama himself has clearly said, over and over (22 times, to be exact), that he can’t do it. But we are supposed to forget that, like those Soviet photos that removed Communists who had incurred the wrath of the Party and become unpersons.

Let’s hear the opinion of a legal expert who happens to mostly agree with Obama’s ends, but deplores Obama’s means in the very strongest of terms. Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, says, “It’s a very sad moment, but it’s going to become a particularly dangerous moment.” When asked specifically about resemblances to Reagan and Bush’s executive actions on immigration, he says simply and unequivocally, “this would be unprecedented, and I think it would be an unprecedented threat to the balance of powers within our system.”:

Reports of the death of the republic are perhaps premature. But it is in critical condition. Much will depend on the reactions of Republicans, and on whether a significant number of other liberals join Turley (for example, even Ruth Marcus, of all people, is at least uneasy about the precedent being set by Obama) in expressing condemnation, and joining with Republicans to fight Obama with great vigor and intelligence.

[ADDENDUM: Paul Mirengoff at Powerline further explains the details of just how different the executive actions of Reagan and Bush were from that Obama is about to issue:

The Act [passed by Congress in 1986] also authorized the Attorney General to allow other illegal immigrants who did not qualify for the amnesty to remain in the U.S. if needed “to assure family unity.”

Accordingly, in May 1987, the Justice Department issued regulations that interpreted the the term “family unity” as calling for the maintenance of the “family group.” Family group was defined as including “the spouse, unmarried minor children under 18 years of age who are not member of some other household, and parents who resided regularly in the household of the family group.” Thus, not all spouses and children were included.

This regulation was not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion or the assertion of a generalized right to suspend “oppressive” immigration laws. Rather, the administration made it clear that it was carrying out the direction of Congress. It even cited the section of the law that provided this direction (section 245(d)(2)(B)(i) of the 1986 Act).

House Democrats, including one of the authors of the 1986 Act, criticized Reagan for interpreting too narrowly the executive authority they had granted him. They wanted all spouses and children to receive amnesty in the name of family unity. If anything, then Reagan acted too cautiously, exercising less than the full discretion afforded him by Congress.

Enter President George H.W. Bush. In 1990, he expanded the Reagan DOJ’s interpretation of “family unity” to encompass all spouses and children. Like Reagan, Bush merely interpreted the 1986 Act, as Congress called on the executive to do.]

November 19th, 2014

Justifying tyranny

Obama is attempting to rely on people’s ignorance about the makeup of our government, and why it’s structured the way it is, when he argues that he has every right to ignore a duly-passed law on immigration just because he happens to feel like it. And Eugene Robinson, one of Obama’s loyal Ministers of Propaganda, is relying on that ignorance of the public as well when he writes this column in favor of such action.

This is how the propagandists for tyranny argue:

Oh, please. All the melodramatic Republican outrage isn’t fooling anybody. The only reason President Obama has to act on immigration reform is that House Speaker John Boehner won’t.

I repeat: That’s the only reason. The issue could have been settled a year ago. It could be settled in an afternoon. The problem is that Boehner refuses to do his job, preferring instead to spend his time huffing and puffing in simulated indignation.

The rest of the piece is a discussion of how wonderful the Senate immigration bill was, and how the House should and would pass it if it came up for a vote. I don’t even think it would get past the new Senate, much less the new House. But of course Robinson ignores the fact that he’s wanting to push this through a lame duck Congress because time is about to run out.

At any rate, all of that is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter why the bill hasn’t come to a vote in the House. It doesn’t even matter that Harry Reid has done the same stalling thing to countless bills in the Senate since Republicans came to control the House. The point is that Congress is Congress and does what Congress does, and the president is a president and must stick to what presidents do.

The only one throwing the hissy fit is Obama. “I’ve run out of patience” is not a justification for tossing out the Constitution. Neither Obama nor Robinson has even tried to explain what the big rush is—but of course we know what the rush is. Obama had to postpone the action till after the 2014 election in hopes that we stupid Americans wouldn’t catch on to the game, and now he has to race to finish it before the new Congress is sworn in, because that would make it even more likely that they would defy him in some way. What he’s really hoping for is that his bullying of Congress will successfully intimidate them into passing the law before the next session begins, but it’s not going to happen. Even Republicans in the House aren’t that stupid (at least, I think they aren’t).

Robinson ends with this: ” If House Republicans won’t consider the national interest, Obama has no choice but to act.”

No choice. The Republicans made him do it, see?

That rang in me a distant, fading bell of recognition, and I realized it recalled the very first astoundingly awful thing I ever noticed Obama doing, back in June of 2008, when he broke his campaign finance pledge. Remember that? It wasn’t so much that he went back on his word; I could handle that if he acknowledged it and took responsibility. Instead, what did he do? Why, blamed Republicans, that what:

It’s not just that he reneged, either–it’s how he reneged. Who’s to blame, according to Obama? Why, John McCain and the nasty Republicans, that’s who. James Joyner writes that this charge of Obama’s does take “a bit of gall.” I’d say it takes substantially more than a bit, as well as a heavy dose of the whining, blaming, audacity in which the holier-than-thou Obama tends to specialize:

“‘The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.’”

As they used to say in the schoolyard, takes one to know one. Actually, it’s Obama’s campaign that’s been doing virtually all of the latter, as Jim Kuhnhenn of the AP points out:

“Despite that claim, few Republican-leaning groups have weighed into the presidential contest so far. In fact, Obama allies such as are the ones that have been spending money on advertising against McCain.”

But Obama doesn’t want to let a little thing like this fact get in the way of a good argument, or at least an argument that sounds good. And once again, he’s relying on the American people not to know or care—and, if the comments by his supporters are any indication, he could be right…

Note the occurrence of three themes back then that we’ve become very very used to in the six years since it happened. The first is the choice of the word “broken” to describe the system Obama’s aiming to flout. The second is the blaming of the opposition rather than taking responsibility for his own choice. The third is a lie about what that opposition is actually doing.

Back then, what Obama was proposing wasn’t unconstitutional, of course. What he’s proposing to do now is far, far worse. Back then, much of the MSM defended him, too. I remember understanding that it meant they were in his corner for the long haul, and would go far in abasing themselves on his behalf.

And so they did.

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge