December 13, 2009 - December 6, 2009
. Just to correct the record, it wasn't only
Glenn Beck who expressed alarm, or at least misgivings,
about all the czars in the Obama administration who are empowered to
make policy without being accountable to congress:
Of course, Tom Ridge did eventually appear before congress to be
confirmed as Secretary of Homeland Security when the congress created a
cabinet-level department of homeland security. But there's little sign
that the Obama administration is willing to let congress have any
access to so-called White House staffers, even those who are not as regally titled as czars. For example, it appears that the concept of
"executive privilege" now applies even to the White House social
secretary whose ad hoc
approach to guest screening permitted gate crashers admission to a
state dinner attended by a foreign prime minister.
What's also becoming evident is that the Obama administration is fully prepared to work around congress on any issue the president thinks he knows better about, which is, basically, all of them. Here's an end-run not too many have heard about:
Yeah, this kind of thing has been done before, but it gets more
concerning when the administration is pursuing a radically new foreign
policy -- kowtow to our enemies and snub our friends -- that has even
our oldest and most loyal allies in a state of near
It gets even worse when the willingness to bypass congress becomes an expression of actual contempt and naked blackmail. Here's an excerpt from last night's panel on Special Report:
Interesting indeed. It also, I think, reveals the administration's real
modus operandi regarding healthcare. If EPA is willing to brazenly, retroactively rewrite the
1970 Clean Air Act to give itself the power to regulate emissions not
even remotely seen as dangerous when the bill was passed, how will The
HHS department approach the task of implementing any healthcare bill
passed by the congress? The slapped together nature of any legislative
language passed under the current artificially breakneck deadline will,
of course, require the writers of the enforcing regulations to sort out
what it all means. The bill, regardless of its incoherent content, will
become what the administration wants it to be. Meaning that if the real
objective is to destroy private health insurance and compel everyone to
accept a monolithic single-payer system, that objective can easily be
accomplished in the fine print of Obama's appointed bureaucrats. That's why the president endorses
every single version of the bill that surfaces momentarily from the
boiling congressional cauldron. He's not indifferent to the outcome.
He's indifferent to what congress ultimately passes because he can make what congress
passes into what he wants it to be.
[You see, for all his well advertised lack of executive experience, the president does excel in one sinister skill -- subverting the democratic political process for anti-democratic ends. That's perhaps the best possible definition of the term 'community organizer.' It consists of playing the democrat in public and manipulating the enforcement mechanics behind the scene. That's how feelgood ideas like "home ownership for the underprivileged" become catastrophic bubbles and sinkholes of institutional corruption. "Let me be clear." The man has "unprecedented" talent at this kind of dirty work.]
The same is conversely true of cap-and-trade legislation. The EPA can do what it wants by diktat. A piece of legislation would be convenient cover for what EPA is going to do anyway. The only remaining question is, just how big a dupe congress is willing to be. Pass a bill that EPA will nonetheless rewrite in the fine print to "destroy the economy" or resist the presidential extortion threat and pretend somehow that they won't be blamed for the terrible consequences regardless.
What's happening here is raw and in-your-face. The Obama administration is systematically dismantling the separation of powers, rendering congress irrelevant. The Democratic leadership, inflated by its own lunkheaded hubris (God, what f___ing fools they are), thinks it's leading the charge for Obama liberalism. Instead, they're playing directly into the hands of Obama, the relentless terminator of American economic power and individual liberty. Why does he prefer Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad, the Emperor of Japan, and the King of Saudi Arabia to Gordon Brown, Maliki, Karzai, the Queen of England, and the King of Norway? There is an answer that makes sense. It involves power, divinity, and contempt for compromise. You work out the rest. But the biggest part of it is power.
In the modern high-tech world, what do you need to establish totalitarian power beyond the administrative capacity to control absolutely the prospects for economic success (or failure) and the bodies, lifestyles, and access (or lack of it) to medical treatment of the citizenry? Play ball and win, and live, or resist and fail and die in a dirty hallway. (An aside: have you ever seen the man shed a tear?)
Well, maybe you'd want some additional control over the right to free expression. Heard about this, have you?
We all know that the real resistance to Obama isn't to be found in the
MSM; it exists primarily on the Internet. Maybe this is how you get
reelected even when everything you've done as president is directly
contrary to the interests of the people. As Kyle Reese said, "It can't
be bargained with, it can't be reasoned with, it doesn't feel pity or
remorse or fear, and it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are
What we have to fight back with is elections. It's time for us to make some electoral miracles happen. And, no, the answer isn't third parties. Remember, the Americans and Brits hooked up with some sorry-ass allies to win World War II. When they're coming for you like this, you better be willing to hold your nose and remember the sad truism, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Obama and his dupes must be turned out of office, legally, convincingly, and above all, peacefully. That's the only definition of victory that will stand the test of time.
Years ago, we pointed in passing at a necessary read by David
Horowitz, because the best way to understand the left is to read
the process by which leftists become conservatives. That's why this interview
with Andrew Klavan is a signal opportunity. Everyone should read
the whole thing, but I'll produce a few excerpts just to make the whole
Well. Read it all. It's the gold nugget of the day.
There's only one thing I want. I want the left to realize that they
hate themselves, civilization, and the whole human race. Then I'll be
content. Until then, I have to keep citing crap like this:
I could cite a lot of stuff here. Mark Steyn on the catastrophic
decline of the populations of the only civilized nations. Other
authorities on the relatively small earth area even occupied by human
beings. But I won't. All I'll do is observe that when someone comes up
with a truly lunatic notion of human social organization, no matter how
murderous it is, its leading exponents are somehow always women. Why is
that? Is it related to the phenomenon that when alpha males like Tiger
Woods set about exploiting women for sex his partners are somehow
always convinced that he actually loves them?
The answer is yes. When the ultimate deathlord descends and decides that he will lead mankind to species-wide suicide, his most ardent followers will be half-smart, half-educated women who are absolutely committed to the cause. They will be eloquent, articulate, and totally f___ing nuts on his behalf. Why? Because a small percentage of women are wise and wonderful, but a far greater percentage are permanently, completely, absolutely OUT OF THEIR F____ING MINDS about absolutely f___ing everything. Especially their conviction that the deathlord loves them in the deepest possible way, even though they only see him on alternate Tuesdays. The saddest thing of all is the plight of smart women. They don't want to blow the whistle on their sad sisters. But they know -- believe me, they know -- that most women are out of their f___ing minds.
It's worse when you let them pretend they're journalists. Enough said, Diane. Francis.
. Of course
the picture's a phony. She's had five kids and makes jokes about
stretch marks. But American men still love her. Witness the latest poll,
which has the intelligentsia running, as Stephen
Leacock would say, "madly off in all directions."
Kewl. Yeah. I know. It doesn't mean that Sarah would beat Obama head to
head in a real election. But I LOVE it. She's causing me to rethink everything. Which, at my age, is
like a shot of adrenalin mixed with crystal meth.
So here's the gamut of what I'm (re)thinking.
See what I mean? The song isn't favorable to American women, is it? But
we all appreciate the non-irony: Men don't like it when women see
though them. Which they usually do. Isn't that at least part of the
liberal fondness for Hillary Clinton? Except that Hillary has two
strikes against her in the 'wise woman' sweepstakes. She hitched her
wagon to a compulsive cheater who humiliated her at every turn. And
she's obviously -- even to liberals -- not macho enough to be the imitation man she so wants
Which is where the genius of Sarah Palin kicks in. She's not an imitation man. She's the woman some of us know, some of us wish we knew, some of us dream of, and some of us would do anything to believe in the possibility of. What's that? [Drumroll please: it's got to be BIG, given that liberals of every stripe, especially feminists, hate her so much that they're anxious to accuse her of not even being a woman...] Sorry to disappoint. She's the woman you'd go to with a personal problem in your home town. You'd be embarrassed to tell her what you did. But you'd tell her anyway because she'd understand and give you the right advice, even if it seemed too hard to do before she told you you could do it. Because you had to. And that's why you went to her in the first place. Because sometimes you have to hear the obvious truth all the smart folks won't tell you.
When did we get the idea that being president of the United States meant going to Harvard and Yale? They were the only two colleges I applied to, but I never thought going to either of them would qualify me for the presidency. I wanted to be a writer. Which has nothing whatever to do with being president of the United States. I can't emphasize enough how different these two ambitions are. Presidential candidates can come from Harvard or Yale. But they can also come from Eureka College and the University of Idaho.
I've written before about my prep school days. The ones who went on to Ivy League schools were a significant percentage of the graduating class, but guess what? They were never the student body presidents. They didn't necessarily get good grades, even in a grade-obsessed culture like ours. They weren't even always football stars or other kinds of jocks. They were the ones people liked because they liked other people in return, and everyone knew it.
I remember the president of my class. He was a big big boy, which is not to say fat, though you can draw your own conclusions. I liked him. So did everyone else. Which could not be said of me and my friends. He starred in a 'Stony Batter' production (where Jimmy Stewart and Benicio del Toro also got their start), and I recall as if it were yesterday that the stage collapsed under him when he stepped upon it. Mind you, I don't remember the play, some one-act melodrama, but I remember his incredible aplomb when the audience erupted in hilarity and he walked the tightrope of saying his lines while acknowledging the silliness of the situation. He never left his character, and he never pretended that a disaster hadn't happened onstage. HE KNEW EXACTLY HOW TO PROCEED. His name was Scott Bliss.
I don't know where he wound up going to college. I don't care. I always knew that he would be a success in his career and his life. There was something genuine about him, something sincere, something lovable. That's what we hope for in our political leaders. It's the most important thing.
I'm not saying that the kids who went to Ivy schools necessarily didn't have this combination. I knew one who did. When I was a freshman, the captain of the swim team, who went on to become captain of the Harvard swim team, was the kindest of all seniors to lowly freshmen. Mike Cahalan was a gentleman. Nature produces, well, rations, them out to us just to remind the rest of us what virtue is. But Mike Cahalan didn't have what Scott Bliss did. Mike was smarter, handsomer, more talented, and equally kind to his fellows... but Scott just glowed when you gave him an audience. (I think Mike Cahalan is now a doctor, still kind but nowhere near celebrity.)
So. Am I just blathering? Hardly. Presidents of the United States aren't the Mike Cahalans of this world. They're the Scott Blisses. Change the sex, the weight, etc, of Scott Bliss and you have Sarah Palin.
Now. Consider. The journalists are the ivy types like me who never got elected to anything. Not only did they not get elected to anything in high school, they burned with envy of the, uh, Sarah Palins of their schools -- the ones who were obviously destined for success because they were gorgeous and everybody loved them.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think that a degree from the Columbia School of Journalism eliminates that kind of hatred and envy?
I don't either.