Executive action

A few points on this piece by Justin Sink at the Hill where Obama defends executive action.

Obama vows to "scour our authorities" looking for opportunities to act wherever he has the legal authorities to make progress. 

That means have his  advisors, ideologues all, do the scouring for him to act on his and their ideology while he twiddles his thumbs.

I am quite weary of the conceit that "the American people" do not want Obama standing around twiddling his thumbs waiting for Congress to do something. That threadbare and re-patched chide wore out years ago, apparently he doesn't know that it only still works on his IQ<85 Party faithfuls. He does not speak for the American people anymore than a parrot, he only thinks that he does, he does not read our minds properly, he only thinks that he does or says that he does. And his catchall 'Congress doing nothing' refers here to Senate that is sitting on hundreds of bills passed by the House. So, Congress is doing something, the House is writing bills and the Senate is sitting on them. The lauded most deliberative body on Earth has ceased deliberating due to one man specifically, his own Harry Reid. Traducing all Congress for the malfeasance of one individual, his individual, is flatly transparently disingenuous. I so tire of this form of gas lighting that works so well on his supporters who constantly repeat his conceits in comments everywhere. And then using that to find ways to use his departments to sidestep the House is completely unacceptable. Obama gives Republicans and Independents reason to disband those departments so that they cannot be used this way so inappropriately. What remains of his base of course agrees with his simplified one-sided  and childish churlish uncooperative approach, for now, but they will be screaming bloody murder at the top of their voices when the situation is reversed inevitably -- and reversed precisely because of actions like this.

Of course Obama has hundreds of advisors for every area of governance.  Chief among them: 

Nancy-Ann DeParie, 

Susan Rice

Kathy Ruemmier 

Lisa Monaco 

David Plouffe

Valerie Jarret

Hundreds of foreign policy advisors. It would be difficult enough sorting through advise of a few dozen if one were serious, imagine sorting the whirlwind of advice of thousands in total. On immigration specifically there is T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Dean of Georgetown University Law, Senior Associated at Migration Policy Institute. Mariano-Florentine Cuéllar Faculty Scholar at Stanford Law whose work focuses on migration, international security and criminal justice.

On national security Obama has James Steinberg, dean of LBJ School of Public Affairs. Susan Rice recently Senior Foreign Policy (and known bald-faced liar) with a team of over 40 members.  

Additionally advisors on Health Care, on Energy and Environment, Education, Economic advisors.

For Technology, Innovation & Government Reform Obama's advisors are Blair Levin a media and tech regulatory and strategy analyst at Stifel Nicolaus. Sonal Shal who heads Google's global development. Julius Genachowski of Rock Creek Ventures and LunchBox Digital. Warren Buffett on board as group member along with over thirty other  members. 

They will all be scouring for ways to subvert Congress beyond the damage Reid has already inflicted, that tired withered shell of an old man that does so much damage by doing nothing at all save for attacking two particular citizens so that their names fall off the tongues of anyone and everyone who knows exactly jack shit about current events, so that when the name "Koch Brothers" is invoked the shibboleth is uttered that reveals the speaker knows nothing at all save for one single thing. The thing Harry Reid said a million times, so insignificant in total to everything else.  That is what Obama means when he states "I will be scouring," he will be twiddling his thumbs while all these ideologues scour ways to subvert Congress and present their cherry ideas, for him to sign in his clumsy way, full arm taking the whole table to mechanically scribe a giant O as a three-year old struggling to hold onto chopsticks. 

On immigration the pressure from Democrats and from immigration activists say the president should act since the House has ignored the Senate's immigration reform legislation.

Well, Democrats and immigration activists really do need to have a crash elementary course on how legislation is passed by United States government. Hint: laws do not arise in the Senate. They arise in the House. Laws are not written in the Senate, that august body does not write them, should not write them, they overstep their duty by writing them, they are exceedingly presumptuous to write them then hand them to the House to be handed back to Senate for approval of the law they wrote themselves. 

Perhaps a cartoon would be useful. One such as run on Saturday mornings to instruct children on how laws are passed in the United States so they grow up with this basic awareness by the time they are of age to vote. Perhaps immigration activists missed that early American type of  education, perhaps by not being in America. (disclosure: I missed these too by not being in America) Obviously Democrats and activists are talking about bills originating in Senate committees, and that's fine, but they are completely and subversively ignoring the bills originating in House committees. 

Schoolhouse Rock, I'm just a bill  

And that deadlock, Friends, is how our system is supposed to work. It shows the system is working. Deadlocked at impasse until something shakes. Either in the House, the body closest to the people (folks, as it is), as the situation has developed now, or conversely by Senate majority changing in alignment to House by voting. As is occurring now. Deadlocked until something shakes. Give it a few months and observe the shakes. Brace yourself, it's going to be something. Not by presidential fiat. That is desperation. That means the writing on the wall is read and understood, "mene, mene, tekel, upharsin." You are weighed and measured and found wanting. New laws are not made by Executive departments using their regulatory power granted them by Congress. Again, ideologues all. Those things, those departments can be removed as easily as they were established by Congress.

Lazy Congress, see what happens?  

At the same time, Obama said his administration will "make sure every time we take one of these steps we are working within the confines of my executive power." 

And therein lies the real problem. Congress has allowed far too much executive power through government departments that the executive branch controls. 

"We have a broken system, it's under-resourced and we've got to make decisions in how we allocate personnel and resources.

That conceit too is threadbare. I must have heard and read it previous iteration "our healthcare system is broken" at least 1,000 times if not more. It's axiomatic. It is the primary premise required for predetermined conclusion in the liberal syllogism leading to doing whatever they wish including turning a whole nation socialist. Actually out socializing the straight up socialists while claiming otherwise. 

Goes like this: You have the conclusion, single payor healthcare, we will have socialized medicine in the form of single payor. It can take a few steps to get there but that is beside the point. We're being honest with ourselves here, for once. You contrive the primary premise, Our healthcare system is broken, and drill that premise until it is the only statement that remains. All other statements follow that one. Keep repeating it until it is axiom. Everyone accepts it. If even to challenge it, they still accepted the sentence as premise to challenge. It's there, and Man is it ever there. It precedes every position statement.

1) our healthcare system is broken

2) ___________

3) Healthcare reform (-----> single payor)

See how the thinking proceeds? What goes in the second syllogistic premise? Anything you like. Anything that makes sense to you. 2) Americans always fix broken things 2) We'll fix this with you or without you 2) Congress must fix things while it can 2) We must bust a move while we have the chance 2)We're the only advanced nation without universal healthcare. Pretty much anything goes into premise 2 there to complete the liberal syllogism. 

And now we have the same setup for immigration. What, our immigration is not clearly broken? Then break it and claim it needs to be fixed, then fix it in the manner desired all along. If you cannot see right through this then perhaps it need be finger spelled into the palm of your hand Hellen Keller style. 

Immigration experts, those ideologic advisors vast in number mentioned earlier, say Obama could issue a prioritization memo on deportations directing prosecutors to focus deportation efforts on individuals (illegal immigrants) convicted of serious crimes rather than immigration violations.

Woah, Nelly.

Immigration violation is a serious crime. That is where we differ in outlook. That is precisely what makes reformers ideologues. They are forcing their way legalistically, having created an immigration crisis then using departments contrary to American law so that 99% of illegal immigrants are granted citizenship skipping due process, to advance the aims of Party and not to the benefit of United States and making each state complicit in their scheme, complicit in their crime.

The rest of Obama's immigration syllogism, stated so acceptably.

1) premise: our immigration system is broken (No it is not!)

2) premise: it is under resourced (No, it is not! That portion of government purposefully overwhelmed due to contrived crises, yes, but we still have all of various government departments, divisions, and units to respond in a multitude of ways to enact law as written. The laws are fine, our resources admirable.)

3)conclusion:  We've got to make decisions on how to allocate personnel and resources. (Yes! Precisely. That is the job of executive. Just make sure the allocation is not ideologic in subverting laws and Congress to advance Party over nation -- the thing Democrats and immigration activists are insisting. That is what the "folks" are demanding. That is the writing on the wall you are reading.)

The second area of presidential law-making through executive action is less interesting but equally important and pressing, the area of tax inversion. This refers to action being considered apart from Congress to curb American companies from relocating their head offices outside the United States in order to avoid onerous U.S. taxes, at this point completely out of line with international standards. Unreasonable corporate taxes to keep in place an unwieldy oversized, overarching, overreaching, over regulating government. Who wouldn't want to relocate given all that? Stockholders insist. The one alternative seen is higher taxes on citizens to make up the shortfall. That is the only alternative available by their thinking. Their lights illuminate no other way. That is how government as a whole thinks. It never ever considers shrinking itself on its own, the way, say, a state would do, the way a company would do and does, a household would do, an individual would do and does every day. No. It will think of new ways of making new laws apart from Congress, apart from traditional United States law, using its thousands of high level ideologic advisors to keep companies captive. In effect, build a wall that rivals the iron curtain to keep its companies inside and not wander off to less hostile lands. That is how they think, and they'll have a million reasons to justify their thinking, considering themselves just so essential, but they will never think of shrinking themselves and unburdening corporations nor individual citizens. They view everyone as captive and pack mules to their version of utopia. 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/214549-obama-defends-executive-action

http://change.gov/learn/policy_working_groups

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0