Congress’s next step on immigration

The New Neo Posted on by

What’s planned for the new Congress:

The House plans to vote next week on legislation that would defund President Obama’s executive action on immigration.

Republicans also plan to include language rolling back a 2012 order from the Obama administration that gave legal status to illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children.

The two measures would be considered as part of a bill funding the Department of Homeland Security through September. An earlier government-funding measure approved last month only funded that agency through February…

Mulvaney said Republicans debated in their closed-door meeting whether to focus solely on Obama’s move to shield illegal immigrants from deportation, or whether to attack the president’s policies on multiple fronts.

Some more moderate, swing-district Republicans “wanted the rifle shot, … maybe didn’t want to muddy the waters,” Mulvaney said. “But there were other voices in the room who said they wanted a chance to get at DACA, to get at the Morton memos” that relaxed some immigration laws in 2011.

Apparently the latter group won—for now.

However, there’s the Senate:

Even if the funding bill passed in the House, it’s unclear whether Senate Republicans would be able to muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a likely Democratic filibuster.

And the White House:

The White House has repeatedly said President Obama wouldn’t sign a spending bill for DHS that undermines his executive actions, and Democrats quickly went on the attack.

The first step is Republican unity, and that seems to be in place. But it’s only the first step. Unfortunately, the Republicans don’t have the numbers to overcome a filibuster or a veto, so they need to either enlist enough Democrats to make a difference (good luck with that), or do something more “creative,” perhaps involving changes in the filibuster rule? Either way, they also must be prepared to have a showdown over a possible government shutdown.

The election of 2014 was merely the beginning of a fight that will be long and hard, and will require much intestinal fortitude on the part of Congressional Republicans. I have no idea whether they have the stomach for it, but I fear they don’t.

Reporting from France

The New Neo Posted on by

The fog of war is operating in France right now, but reports are that the Charlie Hebdo killers have themselves been killed in a shoot-out with police, and the hostage they took has been freed.

However, a related French terrorist/hostage situation seems to have not ended so well:

The police also killed another hostage-taker, described as an associate of the brothers, in a separate assault on a kosher supermarket in Paris.

Three hostages were killed and five injured at the market, although it was not immediately clear how many of those may have been shot in the final assault. Five hostages were reported to have been freed unharmed, a senior French police official said.

Some news outlets are reporting that four hostages were killed at the market. At this point all of this information is subject to change, although the death of the Kouachi brothers and freeing of their hostage seems to have been confirmed by a police spokesman, who said:

The special counterterrorism forces located where the terrorists are and broke down the door. They took them by surprise. It lasted a matter of minutes.

The Jews of Paris have been leaving for years, as the climate there becomes more and more hostile to them. These recent incidents are a sign as to how right they were to do so, and I wouldn’t be surprised if emigration from France goes up a notch once again.

There are many questions remaining about these attacks that may never be answered, but here are a few that seem important:
(1) How on earth did the Kouachi brothers evade surveillance long enough to plan and execute these killings? They were well known to authorities. The gap here must have been the size of the Grand Canyon.
(2) How on earth was security lax enough at Charlie Hebdo for them to succeed? The fact that the periodical was a huge target was well known to authorities.
(3) How did the woman perpetrator at the kosher supermarket escape, if the site was ringed by police?

And above all is the overriding question: what on earth will it take for the West to wake up?

Independents rising

The New Neo Posted on by

The number of US citizens who call themselves “Independents” has risen in recent years. Here’s the graph:

independents

You can see that the increase in Independent affiliation has come at the expense of both parties, although slightly more from Democrats during the Obama years. However, Democrats had spiked right before Obama’s election, so the number had been especially inflated.

What does it all mean? Who are Independents, anyway? For example, I am an Independent, but the truth is that I don’t vote Democratic and can’t envision doing it again. Most people lean more one party or another, and probably choose the designation “Independent” more to signify disillusion with the party of their choice and/or both parties than much of anything else:

The decline in identification with both parties in recent years comes as dissatisfaction with government has emerged as one of the most important problems facing the country, according to Americans…

Although independents claim no outright allegiance to either major party, it is well-known that they are not necessarily neutral when it comes to politics. When pressed, most independents will say they lean to one of the two major parties. For example, last year an average of 17% of Americans who initially identified as independents subsequently said they “leaned” Republican, 15% were independents who leaned Democratic, with the remaining 11% not expressing a leaning to either party.

Since partisan leaners often share similar attitudes to those who identify with a party outright, the relative proportions of identifiers plus leaners gives a sense of the relative electoral strength of the two political parties, since voting decisions almost always come down to a choice of the two major-party candidates. In 2014, an average 45% of Americans identified as Democrats or said they were Democratic-leaning independents, while 42% identified as Republicans or were Republican-leaning independents.

That the three-point Democratic edge was down from six points in 2013, and among Democrats’ smaller advantages the past 25 years. Democrats usually hold an advantage in this combined measure of party affiliation. In fact, the only year Republicans held a notable edge since Gallup began tracking independents’ political leanings was in 1991, the year Republican President George H.W. Bush’s approval ratings soared after the United States’ victory in the Persian Gulf War…

A year later, Clinton became president, so that margin didn’t mean all that much, did it? Of course, the 1992 election featured a third-party candidate, Ross Perot, who siphoned away some of Bush’s support. Politics is unpredictable; who could have foreseen that in 1991?

The Charlie Hebdo terrorists and Western tolerance

The New Neo Posted on by

The still-at-large suspects in the Charlie Hebdo massacre in France fall into the dreaded category of native-born jihadis. The brothers Kouachi, one of whom had served time for trying to get to Iraq to fight the Americans, apparently fell off the radar screen afterwards—or at least enough off the radar screen to have successfully perpetrated the heinous attack yesterday.

Or did he? I was wondering how, considering that the assailants were masked, the brothers had been identified so quickly by police. This is the only information I’ve seen that sheds any light on that subject:

It said that the police had identified the suspects after one left his identification papers in the abandoned Citroé«n vehicle used to escape after the attack on Charlie Hebdo.

To me that seems rather odd. Why would either suspect be carrying ID in the first place, under the circumstances? And why would that ID have been kept in the car? It’s certainly not outside the realm of possibility, of course. But it’s also at least remotely possible that the ID was a plant of some sort in order to deflect attention from the real perpetrators.

Islamist terrorist perpetrators in Europe rely on the tolerance of Western countries in order to operate. That tolerance takes several forms. The first is a tolerance of immigration; the Kouachis were born in France, but they are of Algerian descent, and most terrorists so far have either been immigrants or the children of immigrants. The second is, of course, religious tolerance; Islam is not the traditional religion of the West and yet Muslims are not discriminated against and are allowed to practice their religion freely. The third is freedom of speech, and that is the one that terrorists utilize when it serves their purposes but fight when it allows speech they consider offensive and/or blasphemous.

That’s the hallmark of the Muslim presence in the West: take advantage of the tolerance they need, and fight the tolerance that bothers them, relying on the goodwill of the locals to accommodate their contradictory demands. The Charlie Hebdo attack was not an act of terror perpetrated on random individuals; it specifically targeted freedom of speech and of the press, two of the pillars of Western society. Will this function as any sort of wake-up call for Europe?

It will be very interesting to see how France—and the rest of Europe—reacts. If the brothers are captured alive, will they be tried as murderers or terrorists? France has abolished the death penalty—would there be calls to reinstitute it?

The Blue Blood family dinner

The New Neo Posted on by

I recently watched a few episodes of the popular TV show “Blue Bloods” and was struck by two things: the topical nature of so many of its themes re the police and New York City, and its unusual depiction of a family that eats together every Sunday.

It’s that big family dinner that grabs many of the viewers. I like it, too. As I’ve written in this post on family dinners, I grew up in a world where getting together every evening to have dinner as a family group was a non-negotiable event. I wasn’t allowed to be absent unless I had some bona fide activity or a fever, but I wouldn’t have wanted to skip it anyway. The food was good, and although it certainly wasn’t always smooth sailing emotionally (in fact, verbal altercations and tension were pretty common), it was the only time the four of us got together and talked.

On “Blue Bloods,” the dinner (and the family) is bigger than mine was. So is the house. But the attraction to the meal is similar.

When they film the dinner sequences, the food is real and not just props. The family is portrayed as devout Catholics, and they say grace at every meal with hardly a hint of irony, which is rare on TV.

The public seems to love it. At the table there’s a lot of talking about substantive issues, but it’s the family back and forth that people seem to enjoy most. Note what Donnie Wahlberg says at the end here:

[NOTE: Wahlberg is one of my favorite actors on the show. He originally hails from South Boston, and his family has quite a story, too (see this and this).]

Terrorists kill 12 at satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo

The New Neo Posted on by

This was no lone wolf attack; three gunmen were involved. As you might imagine, they appear to have been Islamicist terrorists enraged at satire focusing on Islam and the Prophet Mohammed. The killings were organized and focused, and successfully targeted most of the publication’s cartoonists, who were at a weekly meeting of the staff.

It was not the first time the magazine had come under attack—there had been a firebombing in 2011 when the building was empty, and the editor had been under police guard for some time due to death threats. But this was not just a threat. It was a lethal attack, and the bodyguard was helpless against the force of the assault (as usual, the British papers seem to have a lot more detail than US coverage):

…[A witness] said the men ‘spoke French perfectly’ and ‘claimed they were ‘Al Qaeda terrorists’.

Gunmen reportedly told another witness: ‘You say to the media, it was Al Qaeda in Yemen.’

They are said to have sought out staff ‘by name’, according to a police source, adding that Charbonnier, known as Charb, a cartoonist responsible for an anti-Islam front page, was among those killed…

French journalist, Stefan De Vries, told Sky News: “There was protection at the door but they killed the police officers, they executed them and they started shooting in the offices.”

The following quote is an example of a man who’s seriously out of touch:

Charlie Hebdo’s editor-in-chief Gerard Biard escaped the massacre because he was in London.

He told France Inter: ‘I am shocked that people can have attacked a newspaper in France, a secular republic. I don’t understand it.

‘I don’t understand how people can attack a newspaper with heavy weapons. A newspaper is not a weapon of war.’

Does the man not understand Islamist terrorism and its goals? Where has he been all these years?

[NOTE: This article gives the background of the magazine, with illustrations:

The BBC’s Hugh Schofield in Paris says Charlie Hebdo is part of a venerable tradition in French journalism going back to the scandal sheets that denounced Marie-Antoinette in the run-up to the French Revolution.

The tradition combines left-wing radicalism with a provocative scurrility that often borders on the obscene, he says.

Back in the 18th Century, the target was the royal family, and the rumour-mongers wrought havoc with tales – often illustrated – of sexual antics and corruption at the court at Versailles.

Nowadays there are new dragons to slay: politicians, the police, bankers and religion. Satire, rather than outright fabrication, is the weapon of choice.]

[ADDENDUM: This was how the gunman gained access to the magazine’s offices:

A young mother and cartoonist, known as ‘Coco’, who survived the massacre told how she had let the suspected Al Qaeda killers into the office.

Corrine Rey said she had returned from picking up her daughter from a nursery when she was confronted by two armed men wearing balaclavas.

‘I had gone to pick up my daughter at day care, arriving in front of the building, where two masked and armed men brutally threatened us,’ said Ms Rey.

‘They said they wanted to go up to the offices, so I tapped in the code,’ said Ms Rey, referring to the digi-code security system on the interphone.

Ms Rey and her daughter hid under a desk, from where they saw two other cartoonists being executed.]

Boehner retaliates?

The New Neo Posted on by

According to Randy Weber, R-Texas, Boehner has already begun to retaliate against those who voted against him. Weber claims he’s been removed from sponsorship of a bill, but Boehner’s office denies the allegations of targeting.

Who’s telling the truth? We don’t know. But I don’t much care, and it may not be for the reasons you think. I don’t care because I accept that politics ain’t beanbag*, and when you strike at a king you must kill him (metaphorically, that is). In other words, if try to remove a Speaker of the House and fail, you must be prepared to experience some negative consequences.

We (and I include myself among this “we”) might like it to be otherwise. It would be awfully pleasant if, after a factional war like this, the parties within the party could kiss and make up. I’ve written many times on this blog about my own wish for party unity against the more dangerous opponent, the left. But I’m not unrealistic enough to think it will happen; I understand why it won’t. The two sides of the Republican Party—let’s call them the moderates and the conservatives—are at odds both philosophically and in the practical sense. That is, they disagree in their political beliefs and they each want to seize power. Why would they not play hardball with each other, even if it sometimes seems as though the leftists are the ones who benefit most?

[NOTE: That famous “politics ain’t beanbag” quote is from an 1895 column by Finley Peter Dunne, with the words placed in the mouth of his fictional Irish-American character Mr. Dooley. The full quote is as follows::

Sure, politics ain’t bean-bag. ”˜Tis a man’s game, an’ women, childer, cripples an’ prohybitionists ”˜d do well to keep out iv it.”

Couldn’t get away with that today.]

[ADDENDUM: Amy Miller observes at Legal Insurrection, after quoting Charles Krauthammer’s “the days of hiding under Harry Reid’s desk are over”:

This is important, and it’s not a point that should be ignored by conservatives. Starting today, we’ll be holding accountable not just a newly-minted leadership, but a President who now finds himself in the minority after six comfortable years of playing pen-and-phone politics.

…I’m not saying we should treat the new Congress with kid gloves, but as the new session begins, we should take time to remember how we felt during the last week of October, when we were running on no sleep while campaigning for new candidates we claimed to believe in. Democrats will be playing defense for the next two years as bill after bill lands on Obama’s desk, and it’s our job to make this as miserable a time for them as possible.

This is not the moment to waste time eating our own. It’s time to pile on the Obamas and Reids of the world who made progress next to impossible, then turned around and blamed Republicans for the terrible policies that did manage to make it into law.

We didn’t stumble upon this majority; we earned it. Let’s make the most of it.]

Why would Cuba follow through on its promises?

The New Neo Posted on by

I can’t think of a single reason.

Promises, shmomises:

An air of secrecy surrounds the fate of 53 political prisoners whom Cuba agreed to free in its historic deal with the United States last month, as Washington and Havana’s refusal to publicly identify the dissidents is fueling suspicion over Cuba’s intentions…

…[O]fficials said a prisoner release was not a precondition for renewing diplomatic ties. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday that not everyone on the list has been set free yet, but it was always understood that they would be released “in stages.”…

The lack of transparency is contributing to a growing sense of concern that Havana will not follow through on its promises.

If there’s “a growing sense of concern,” it’s certainly not on the part of the Obama administration, for which this quid pro quo was only for show. As in many of its “negotiations” with countries hostile to the US, the appearance of getting something in exchange for what we were giving up was only a thin veneer, because the administration was dedicated to capitulation.

But even if the Obama administration really did care about the fate of these prisoners, it has done nothing—absolutely nothing—to convince the Castros or any other government on earth to fear retaliation if they don’t follow through with the terms of any agreement they might make with the US.

This is the Obama legacy. And it goes beyond the time frame of Obama’s presidency. Prior to Obama, although there were periodic changes in the US government and its policies, the world knew it could count on a basic steadfastness, sameness, and reliability. No matter what party the US president was from, or how hardline or conciliatory, with a few exceptions (Vietnam in the 70s, for example) a certain basic commitment was there no matter what changes occurred in administrations.

No longer. Obama has left that assumption in tatters, and the world will act accordingly.

The first

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday I read that Bess Myerson, the first Jewish Miss America, had died at 90.

Which led me to wonder why virtually all the articles used that phrase, “the first Jewish Miss America.” Was there ever a second? The answer is no:

Myerson was urged by the pageant director to change her name to sound less Jewish and, unlike most Miss Americas before her, Myerson did not pose with Ford cars or model Catalina bathing suits. “Those companies didn’t want a Jewish woman representing them,” Myerson recalled in an interview.

Here’s Myerson in her heyday:

Myerson

RIP.

[NOTE: It reminds me of JFK’s being referred to as “the first Catholic president.” Actually, to this day he’s still the only Catholic president.]