THE BRIEF AGAINST OBAMA The Rise, Fall & Epic Fail of the Hope & Change Presidency by Hugh Hewitt Nationally syndicated radio host and New York Times bestselling author Hugh Hewitt makes it perfectly clear-President Obama is not just a failed president, but the most spectacularly failed president of modern times. And the path for the American people is clear and urgent: Barack Obama must not be allowed to run the country for four more years. Before you cast your vote in the upcoming election, get all the facts. Read THE BRIEF AGAINST OBAMA. Click for more. |
NRO Newsletters . . . Morning Jolt . . . with Jim Geraghty
June 26, 2012
|
Here's your Tuesday Morning Jolt. Enjoy! Jim |
| 1. Arizona Can Check If Criminals Are Here Illegally . . . but Then What?
The debate about illegal immigration in this country is particularly infuriating. Is it terribly controversial to say, in an ideal world, the government of the United States would be able to control who comes in and goes out? That that sort of ideal circumstance would prevent terrorists, gang members, drug smugglers, people smugglers, etc. from coming in and creating problems ranging from the minor to the catastrophic? I realize the government will never have 100 percent control over our borders. I realize we live in an imperfect world, but shouldn't we aim for as much control over the border as possible? Okay, good. Now, I'm glad we have more boots on the ground than we used to have on our southern border. I'm glad that we have improvements for Janet Napolitano to brag about, but as PolitiFact noted: The data DHS gave us is not enough to prove definitively that Napolitano's claim that the agency has "seized more currency, more drugs, more outbound arms in the past year than any year in our country's history." We can say that seizures increased recently under the Obama administration, but they were so low in the past that the bump is not a major accomplishment. Also, the seized contraband is likely such a small percentage of what crosses the border that the increase's impact on the illegal drug trade is slight. A safer border is not necessarily a safe border. Back in 2010, the federal government felt the need to post signs in Arizona that "warn travelers that they are entering an 'active drug and human smuggling area' and they may encounter 'armed criminals and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates of speed.' Beginning less than 50 miles south of Phoenix, the signs encourage travelers to "use public lands north of Interstate 8" and to call 911 if they "see suspicious activity." (The signs then got modified, "Visitor Information Update -- active federal law enforcement patrol area, clean-up and restoration crews at work, contact BLM rangers for current area status.") Once the public perceives that law and order has been restored to the border, the entire discussion about illegal immigration will change. Whatever option is decided for those currently living in the country illegally -- an amnesty, deportation, a guest-worker program, a DREAM Act -- the country will at least feel secure that the situation isn't going to get worse, that thousands or tens of thousands will not attempt to cross the border to get included in an amnesty. Anyway, this is just to point out that the state of Arizona got into the immigration-enforcement business out of a widespread sense that the federal government refused to do its duties in immigration enforcement -- and that there was some perverse cruelty in the federal government that had so thoroughly failed to mitigate the problems of an unsecure border and widespread illegal immigration going to court to prevent states from trying to do their job. And now, thanks to five Supreme Court justices, Arizona is largely out of the immigration-law-enforcement business, with one exception. Over at Bench Memos, Ed Whelan declares: For anyone who entertains the hope that the majority's ruling on section 2(B) makes the case some sort of significant victory for Arizona, I invite you to have your illusion dispelled by reading Justice Scalia's dissent. As Scalia puts it in his final two paragraphs: Arizona bears the brunt of the country's illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona's estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants -- including not just children but men and women under 30 -- are now assured immunity from enforcement, and will be able to compete openly with Arizona citizens for employment. Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty -- not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. Donald Douglas isn't so glum: "Progressives will highlight that 3 of 4 of the law's provisions were struck down. But the thing to emphasis is that it's really the key provision that was upheld by the court -- the authority for local law enforcement to determine the legal residency status of suspects in a lawful stop. That's what's been called "racial profiling" for these past few years. It's what progressives targeted for defeat at the Court. In that sense, no matter what the left says, this is a huge defeat for the open borders extremists in the Democrat Party and the radical netroots fever swamps." William Jacobson sums up, "The net-net? The federal government did better than many expected, particularly on section 6. I don't think many people thought state criminal sanctions and other state requirements would survive. Section 2(B) remains in effect for now, which politically is a lot more palatable, because the immigration status check only takes place after a lawful detention. But there will be more litigation once the law is put into effect and applied." |
2. Every Once in a While, a Lefty Sees the Same Obama We See
Every once in a while, I begin to think that a big division in American life is not merely between the Left and the Right but the Informed and the Uninformed. The lefties who cheer the individual mandate might have a worldview that is deeply disturbing to us, in its view of unlimited government authority and power, but at least they have a worldview. There are millions of Americans whose view on the individual mandate will change depending on how you phrase the question. Many Americans' views on health care are basically, "I should be given as much as I want, whenever I want, and someone else should pay for it," and they never think about it beyond that. Liberal idealists and conservative idealists at least have a common passion, while the infuriating low-information voters who will decide this election cannot be bothered to pay attention long enough to make an informed decision. And sometimes when you read a liberal idealist, you find them starting to echo some of your own themes. I give you Matt Stoller, deeply disappointed lefty: Jokes show how someone really sees the world, and the joke I'm thinking of is one [President Obama] made during a speech in March 2009, when the revelations of AIG's massive retention bonuses became public. It had been less than two months since Obama's inauguration, but the major policy framework of the administration -- the bailouts -- had been laid down. The AIG bonus scandal was outrageous to the public, a symbol of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars being funneled to an arrogant corporation that had helped destroy the economy. Barack Obama had stepped up to the lectern to deliver a stern rebuke to AIG executives who had taken bonuses with taxpayer money. Obama talked of the outrage of an irresponsible company, and how his administration would do everything within its power to get the money back. But a few minutes in, he coughed, slightly, choking a bit, as his mouth was a bit dry. But after he coughed, he stopped, and reflected on the gesture with a joke. "I'm choked, choked with anger", he said. Obama chuckled. Reporters laughed. And it was funny, really funny. Because everyone in the room knew that Obama wasn't actually angry about the AIG bonuses, and never intended to do anything about it. No one there was angry about the bonuses, and everyone knew nothing would happen to AIG executives. The House would pass bills, which would die in the Senate. The only people angry were Americans at large, who could not believe that their government worked for Wall Street. So the joke was funny, ironic, cool. But the moment wasn't right for it, because this was a serious time for outrage -- so Obama quickly reverted to form, and the teleprompter took over. . . . Yves wrote about this narrative a few weeks ago, when she pointed out his career in the Illinois state Senate was based on working for billionaire developers to destroy poor neighborhoods. Few really gets who he is, at his core, and almost no one is willing to publicly point it out. There are some who went to law school with him, who saw his enormous grasping social climbing tendencies, his eager corporate good old boy persona, his narcissistic calculations. But they are drowned out by the institutional left-wing voices, the fanboy reporters, the sycophantic labor leaders, the slavishly worshipful foundations, and the voters who cannot hear any alternative to the hope and change they know and love. The only mainstream narrative challenging hope and change is the stupid right-wing storyline that he's a Kenyan Muslim socialist. That's just racist idiocy. But there are those on the right who understand Obama's narcissism, and they may just make that their electoral narrative. Think about this problem in a slightly different way. It's been three years. Why hasn't been there a great iconic impersonator of Barack Obama, like Tina Fey and Sarah Palin or Will Ferrell (or James Adomian) and George W. Bush? A comic impersonator reveals something about the core of an individual. The people imitating Obama seem to think that he's far more left-wing and principled beneath the surface, that if he let out who he really was, how really angry he is at the Republicans, that's the parody they hit. It falls flat, because it's not true to who he is. The truth is that he's a narcissistic sociopath dressed up as a cool corporate brand. The real Obama parody is an Obama who wears an Air Force One fleece over an Obama t-shirt, who says to a reporter "Now hang on, let me finish, speaking slowly and avoiding your question, which is, by the way excellent." He's President, and if you're upset with him, don't worry, look at that beautiful photo of Obama smiling and pointing. There are large chunks of Stoller's blog post that conservatives will disagree with, but . . . it's pretty fascinating to see where his perspective of Obama as a narcissist overlaps with many conservatives. |
3. No More Debbie Downer at the DNC?
The Shark Tank: "According to our source within the Democratic Party, who is also a close associate of Wasserman Schultz, the arrangements have already been made for her to leave DNC regardless if President Obama wins re-election or not. This same source believes that Wasserman Schultz will be forced to resign behind closed doors and then stage a press event in which she tells Americans that her job as the DNC chair was a temporary one and that she is moving on with her congressional career." Sister Toldjah: "If she were to be out as DNC Chair and voted in in any type of leadership position in the US House, whether Democrats are in the majority or not come November*, it would still be more advantageous for Republicans than Democrats -- especially if she maintains the high profile she currently enjoys. So, whatever happens, keep up the "good work", Debbie." Echoing Erika Johnsen, the fact that Nancy Pelosi still leads House Democrats -- and that there was apparently no serious talk of replacing Vice President Biden -- suggest that Democrats have a completely different mentality than we do when it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of their party leaders. |
4. Addenda
I realize that this YouTube video is supposed to show me that Aaron Sorkin is a tired hack who reuses dialogue from his previous work. And it does so pretty effectively. And yes, as Entertainment Weekly points out, he does return to the same stock characters (tempestuous former lovers in the same office, wise father figure, evil suit) and environments time and again. But mostly that YouTube video reminds me how much I miss Sports Night, easily the lightest, funniest and least preachy work in the Sorkin oeuvre. . . . I'm on Hannity's Great American Panel tonight. Topics to be determined! |
| | | | Save 75% . . . Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the regular subscription rate. Click here for details. Check out all of NRO's free newsletters: Morning Jolt, The Goldberg File, NRO Digest, and NROriginals. Click here for details. 
|
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Join the Morning Jolt Mailing List - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | | | |
Comments
Post a Comment