Thoughtful, creepy, and perfectly on target, this column . Of Worms and Dragons by Richard Fernandez writing at PJ Media.
Speaking of “worms”, Bob Goodlatte, GOP Chairman of the House Judiciary committee was on FOX this AM. By Golly, Ol’ Bob’s not taking this Executive Action on immigration sitting down (well, maybe so). Yessir, Bob reported he’s going to push back strongly…He’s gonna hold hearings!
Let’s hear it! Hurray for Bob! Nothing terrifies Obama more than a good congressional hearing.
Two articles illustrate two different attitudes. The article which demonstrates valuing civility and fairness above all is presented by Peter Shuck’s New York Times piece on why “The Impeachment of Obama on Immigration May Be Legal — But It’s Wrong”, referring to his amnesty of illegal aliens by executive order.
Shuck says Congress may have good grounds to file an impeachment but it would be impolite, cause discord, sow resentment and generally lead to unpleasantness. Therefore don’t do i t . . .
In contrast to Shuck is a piece by William Greider in the Nation which lays out the case for Chief Justice John Roberts’ head. “Republicans like to talk about impeaching President Obama, but there is a far more deserving candidate for impeachment—Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court. While the Republicans in Congress have blocked Democrats from enacting much of substance, the GOP majority in control of the Court has been effectively legislating on its own, following an agenda neatly aligned with their conservative party. Step by step, the five right-wing justices are transforming the terms of the American political system—including the Constitution.”
Greider draws up a bill of outrages . . . Then he issues a call to action. “Barack Obama can win this fight by not giving in to the Supreme Court, even if he temporarily loses there. The president has to call out his opponents and tell the hard truth about their illegitimate abuse of power. People may listen if he genuinely fights for them.”
The difference between the two articles is bigger than the reasoning embodied in each. What truly distinguishes them is the attitude of the authors. One is afraid to cause offense. The other wants to cause offense because his enemy has got it coming.
Saul Alinsky understood that attitude was everything; that most well-bred people are like the audience Shuck addresses; who value politeness, reason, compromise and non-confrontation above all. To such people, forbearance, manners and restraint are the mark of a civilized person. Insofar as political action are concerned the well-breds are as inert as rocks.
By contrast, Greider displays all the hallmaks of a person with a liberated consciousness. His attitudes manifest what Saul Alinsky called “radicalization”. Radicalization is the experiential knowledge that one can demand things if only one will shed inhibitions and fear. It is a process of coming out. It is end result of losing the retraint of deference, custom — even decency.
The entire article is commended to you, illustrating what we are up against (the Alinsky method) and what we are fighting with. The “battle” so far is the equivalent of Republican leadership bringing a knife to a gunfight -actually more like a fingernail clipper. Stop funding Obama’s edicts – naw. Republican leadership at best at this point is going to make a concerted effort to prove someone was wrong over a fate accompli they are in the process of allowing. They might even get all righteous and indignant for us rubes.
DLH with R Mall
