Obama: Fast and Fhürerious

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

How inaccurate?

A House Oversight Committee chaired by Daryll Issa (R) has passed a rare contempt measure against embattled Attorney General Eric Holder today after months of hearings over a controversial clandestine gun walking operation by the ATF ran aground.  From the Washington Post:

"The panel’s actions will be reported to the full House, where Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and GOP leaders have scheduled a floor vote for next week unless Holder hands over the documents before then. If passed by the House, the matter would then move to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Ronald C. Machen Jr., who is an employee of the Justice Department."

Holder has refused to publicly produce documents requested by the committee, but President Obama in the 11^th hour claimed executive privilege over the internal communications in question clouding the entire process with suspicion.

Republicans feel they have been “stonewalled” during the investigation of who knew what and when in the upper echelons of the Department of Justice (DOJ), while apologists of Atty Gen Holder claim it as a clear witch hunt and potentially a “never-ending process” aimed at threatening a Democratic administration during an election year.

Holder and the DOJ have thus far released over 7,600 pages of documents and 11 hearings, unfortunately it hasn’t satisfied Issa’s subpoenas.  Should it?  Given multiple major retractions by the DOJ over crucial elements of the case Republicans, 2^nd Amendment advocacy groups, open government activists and conservatives are chomping at the bit for resolution and Holder's job.  To be sure, both sides are unanimous that the documents sought would be damning not only to Holder, but possibly the entire administration.

In a letter to the president Holder claims the internal cables and documents focus mainly on the “response to congressional oversight and related media inquiries,” in other words, the DOJ’s public relations strategy.  Holder’s letter implies that internal communications did not necessarily weigh in on the moral issues at hand, which is to say, they did not address whether or not the DOJ and ATF wrestled with any constitutional or legal quandaries over flouting federal gun laws.

It is the absence of such discussion, rather focusing entirely on response, which Holder and Obama may wish to conceal.  To be fair the Republicans don't seem to care even though a similar strategy was operating under George W. Bush.  Therein lies the rub, this Fast and Furious scandal is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the War on Drugs and government entities circumventing law in order to uphold it and why hammering Holder is merely pruning the branches of corruption.  From CNN:

“In a letter to Obama seeking the assertion of executive privilege, Holder said…that release of internal executive branch documents would have “significant, damaging consequences.”

Holder also said releasing the documents would “inhibit the candor of executive branch deliberations in the future and significantly impair the ability of the executive branch to respond independently and effectively to congressional oversight.”

Saving Eric Holder and the administration from such “damaging consequences” Obama asserted executive privilege over the documents in question.  Coming from a President who has abhorred such “privilege” exhibited in previous administrations and who has promised unparalleled levels of transparency it is a startling move - that is if your new to politics.

Why So Fhürerious?

This is just the latest example of how the executive branch is becoming a dictatorship.  Most of the laws, embodied in the Federal Register, are passed by executive agencies – offices occupied by unelected officials appointed by the president to govern.  They are known within the Beltway as the czars.

Why a country, which heralds “democracy” ad nauseum would feel comfortable referring to its expanding politburo of czars is beyond the grasp of this author.  The fact of the matter is Congress has long since abdicated its role in the creation of most of the laws in this country.  Barack Obama is therefore merely an inheritor of this corrupt system similar to most dictators in the past, but he has thus far exhibited no qualms in exercising his “privileges” passed down to him – the Fast and Furious Scandal is merely the latest exhibition.

Since the beginning of the Obama presidency he’s shown to be an aggressive administrator.

Obama Care

Opposition to Obama Care was bipartisan.  In order for it to be passed it was necessary for the president and congressional leaders to convince those in their own party on the fence that they would be spared some of the onerous provisions within the legislation.  It is because of this arm-twisting and outright bribery that the Corn Husker Kickback and the 2^nd Louisiana Purchase are infamous.  Even “socialist” Bernie Sanders (D-VT) had misgivings of the special interest written bill, which he quickly dismissed once Medicare provided $10 billion for community health centers in Vermont were slid into the legislation.

The mechanism Obama used was Kathleen Sebelius, his Health and Human Services czar, to distribute ultimately thousands of waivers, through executive fiat, to corporations and special interests.  Obama has allowed thousands to escape, ad hoc what for the rest of us would be a universal mandate to purchase health insurance.  Not only is the mandate unconstitutional, which the Supreme Court will undoubtedly declare this week, but the entire mammoth legislation flies in the face of transparency and the “few and defined” powers delegated to the federal government under the Constitution.

NDAA

Tucked into a routine defense authorization bill is one of the most insidious provisions in American history.  The “indefinite detention” of those deemed to be terrorists by the administration and the National Security Council struck at the foundation of due process and legal mores dating back to the Magna Carta of 1250.  It has met the opprobrium of civil libertarians, the American Civil Liberties Union and has recently been struck down in federal court.  

Obama’s efforts to subordinate civil rights to the perpetual war on terror is borne from the corrupt system mentioned earlier exacerbated by pressures from determined and deep forces within our government and his own lack of a constitutional rudder, all the markings of a modern dictator.  Today's tyrants after all don’t need to wear ridiculous costumes or black leather, they understand that when they refrain from the cartoonish people often don’t notice them.

Let us never forget that Obama “deemed” Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen born in New Mexico, a “terrorist” and without due process, formal indictment or any attempt to capture al-Awlaki summarily dispatched him along with his teenage son.  Obama claimed his “due process” was protected during private deliberations within the NSC.  While many now may rest easy, convinced by his words, students of history understand this is often the first act in a long tragedy.

Unconstitutional Wars 

Often flying under the radar like the thousands of drones under his command, Barack Obama, has been wildly successful at dismantling the anti war movement since his inauguration.  While it may have simultaneously exposed their partisan bent and ignorance to world affairs it more profoundly exposed the repulsive progressive hypocrisy and has helped plunge the American public into denial over the endless warfare being waged in the Middle East and throughout the world.  Both liberals and conservatives can hardly believe that there are over 100 ways Barack Obama is just like George W. Bush.

To Bush’s credit he did seek Congressional approval for Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama saw it fit to seek international approval only when he imposed a no fly zone over Libya.  Albeit the Senate passed a resolution against Libya, Obama never conceded he needed their support in spending over $1 billion in taxpayer money deposing Muammar Ghadafi.  In fact Leon Panetta in shocking testimony reminded Congress he would “inform” them should international approval be acquired and force deployed in the growing Syrian civil war.

The Cult of the Presidency

When Congress becomes ineffectual “talking shops” and the people become restless for change they invariably wish for a strong and charismatic leader.  Trusting in an amorphous body of representatives and or unelected judges isn’t tangible enough mankind at times, thus we’ve supercharged the office of the presidency.  We’ve imbued the head of state with all the powers we believe necessary to solve the problems we ourselves have created.

From the Cato Institute’s review of The Cult of the Presidency:

“When our scholars lionize presidents who break free from constitutional restraints, when our columnists and talking heads repeatedly call upon the “commander in chief ” to dream great dreams and seek the power to achieve them—when voters look to the president for salvation from all problems great and small—should we really be surprised that the presidency has burst its constitutional bonds and grown powerful enough to threaten American liberty?”

Until we address the how all presidents have similarly run roughshod over our the Constitution we will never be able to reduce the executive office back to its proper role.

What if a Dictator is Boring? Can We Laugh at Ourselves?

Topher Morrison

www.PurpleSerf.com

The Dictator starring Sasha Baron Cohen

In what was anticipated to be Sasha Baron Cohen’s magnum opus, “The Dictator”, has unfortunately suffered a critics coup prior to its U.S. release.  But, we shall see how the peasants react at the box office this week.

According to co writers of “The Dictator”, Jeff Schafer and David Mandel, Mr. Cohen is essentially playing the amalgamated personification of Kim Jong-il, Idi Amin, Serdar Turkmenbashi and of course what we all suspected since we first saw the baby blue uniform – the late Muammar Ghaddafi of Libya.

After all, this particular dictator, His Excellency Admiral General Shabazz Aladeen (nod to 1001 Arabian Nights) of the Republic of Wadiya (nod to common middle eastern geographical features), is a fascistic, misogynistic, anti-Zionist from North Africa.  He’s also an ophthalmologist (probably a last ditch effort to wrap Bashar al-Assad of Syria into the mix).

Alas, critics across the globe have offered their long knives rather than the typical enthusiastic appraisal of Mr. Cohen’s comedic command.  The Boston Globe asked if Mr. Cohen’s act was “getting old” and even after the Los Angeles Times gave “The Dictator” a polite golf clap Betsy Sharkey left her readers with something to think about:

"Still, by the end [of the movie] it’s hard not to think that this particular joke has gone on too long. Perhaps it is time for Baron Cohen to have a go at pushing other acting boundaries harder, and give the Borats, the Brunos, the Aladeens of the world, and us, a rest."

Rene Rodriguez of the Kansas City Star went a bit further, anticipating Mr. Cohen may have even jumped the shark and turned around to give it a high five:

“The Dictator” does for “Sacha Baron Cohen” what “The Love Guru” did for Mike Myers: Reveal that this sharp, revered comedian with an uncanny ear for absurdist humor is a mere mortal capable of great folly.

In your humble author’s opinion, the proper analogy would be Baron Cohen and Tom Green.  After everyone eventually came to recognize who they were the precious candid camera comedy was no more.  The real magic was seeing how unwitting clerks would react to Tom Green using tens of thousands of pennies to buy groceries or unsuspecting patrons of a country and western bar in Tucson, Arizona joining Baron Cohen in a sing-along version of “Throw the Jew Down the Well.”

Whether Sasha Baron Cohen is going downhill as all other comics seem to be tragically destined to do is not our concern.

It is easy to make fun of cartoonish characters like Col. Ghaddafi, his guilded wardrobe of flowing dessert robes, colorful military ensemble and praetorian of virgin women. Ghaddafi has been the poster dictator for this type of comic cruelty since he co-starred with Fidel Castro, Yassar Arafat, Mikhail Gorbachev and Ayatolla Khomeini in 1988’s “The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!”

The creators of South Park and Team America, showed us it was ok to be racist when satirizing a despot (that is its own article), but didn’t his HD glasses, throwback tunic and cognac on tap deserve some barbs?

What about Serdar Turkmenbashi who turned the former Soviet republic of Turkmenistan into his own private Disney World replete with golden statues of himself in every public space?  Sure, gas is only cents on the dollar, but isn’t a man who renamed the days of the week after himself a prime candidate for public humiliation, even posthumously?

Initially I’d have to agree with Aristotle that the right genre for dramatizing bad men is indeed comedy.  If we can’t remind those who refuse follow history or current events that these men still linger how else are we to reach them other than through Hollywood?

Then again, is it good to depict for the masses these buffoonish characters in caricature?  Is this robbing us from learning about some dark part of humanity we instinctually admire, gravitate to and are suckered in by?  In this case I would have to agree with Confucius; dead leaders need to be respected even when you hate them – they’re us.

What about when dictators, despots, tyrants – whatever you want to call them – aren’t funny?  What happens when they are banal, quiet or aplenty?  Who’s making fun of oligarchies?  It will doubtfully reoccur, while photos still circulate, that evil will once again feel like dawning black leather, jack boots, red arm bands and skulls.  If so they’d be easy to spot, wouldn’t that be nice?  Likewise, they won’t always resemble a human rainbow.

The Human Rainbow

While not originally comedic 2004’s film “Downfall” turned Hitler’s rants into a viral meme allowing anyone to subtitle the footage.  “The downfall of arguably the most evil man in history was thus transmuted through satire into everyday yip-yap” writes Stuart Jeffries of the Guardian.

Imagine trying to satirize the concept of “tyranny of the majority,” universal healthcare, repealing the 2^nd Amendment, states rights or the U.S.’s growing drone army.  Political cartoons accomplish this in small does, providing an almost ethereal comic relief, but nothing for a broad audience like “The Dictator” and other blockbuster movies.

Besides handily sating those who understand green fascism with Zoey’s (played by Anna Faris) zany eco-terrorizing rants “The Dictator” seems to come close to sacrificing a politically sacred cow.  Baron Cohen’s characters may be loosing steam, but his jabs at “democratic” systems of government as dictatorships couldn’t be a more prudent critique (if it is in fact a critique) of the West’s longstanding fetish with democracy.

In our “Responsibility to Protect” and the century long quest “to make the world safe for democracy” Baron Cohen may have opened some eyes to the idea that maybe democracy isn’t the summom bonum we’ve been sold for so long.  Since after World War II America has overthrown dictators left and right and in the last decade alone our foreign adventurism has cost America trillions of dollars and arguably millions of lives in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.  Our actions have solidified Russian and Chinese opposition effectively raising the prospect of renewed global tensions similar to the Cold War.

Seeking peace through democracy couldn’t be any more absurd.  Democratizing states are some of the most violent on Earth.  Democracies may not fight each other, but internally they’re a demonstrable mess.  In fact it is pure democracies which often yield the dictators we loath the most.

From F.A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, commentary on the rise of Nazi Germany:

“The inability of democratic assemblies to carry out what seems to be a clear mandate of the people will enevitably cause dissatisfaction democratic institutions.  Parliaments become regarded as ineffective talking shops unable or incompotent to carry out the taks for which they have been chosen.  The conviction grows that if efficient planning is to be done the direction must be taken out of politics and placed into the hands of experts – permanent officials or independent autonomous bodies.”

Just look at the popularity of Congress, can anyone make fun of that?  Is there any doubt left that the executive branch over the last decades has accumulated more and more power?  F.A. Hayek’s observation was based upon the German’s desire for “efficient planning” not liberty.  Under liberty individuals do the planning and democracy is subordinated to merely checks and balances not the ethos of a nation.

If we continue down this road of alienating other nations, what Barack Obama promised he would reverse, the real question becomes – will we be able to make fun of ourselves.