Many, many thanks to Caped Crusader for all of these wonderful posters:
Not to make you feel less fortunate than I am or anything, but I won’t be blogging for a few hours today because I’m going to hear Daniel Hannan speak!! Even better, I’ll be going with Charles Martel. Yay!
While I’m gone, please consider this an Open Thread. I can suggest a few topics, and I’ve got lots of posters to spur you on regarding Israel’s latest fight for survival:
1. Are the tunnels that Hamas has dug into Israeli territory a game-changer in terms of Israel’s commitment to a long war?
2. Is Obama going to get a way with erasing the border between the United States and Mexico?
3. If you had the ability to act today to change that border situation, what would you do?
4. Are Europeans going to look at the anti-Israel riots in their cities and learn that they’ve nurtured a Muslim viper in their bosom?
6. Any cheerful news to report?
And now the pictures. First, one to lighten the mood:
And second, a bunch from Israel. If you use social media, please think about sharing them. This is the first war in which Israel and pro-Israel NGOs are fighting back, not just on the field and in state houses, but in social media. We’re soldiers in this battle too and, if we support Israel, should help out:
People are asking why, with a potentially successful midterm election coming, the GOP has decided to go forward with amnesty, even though (a) only 3% of Americans care about the issue and (b) the base is strongly opposed to the GOP’s plan. On its face, this seems like an insane thing to do, since it can destroy the Republican party in two ways, first, by denying it success in the 2014 midterm and, second, by creating a permanent Democrat constituency.
I think that Glenn Reynolds might inadvertently have provided the answer by juxtaposing two posts:
Has the GOP House leadership been threatened into sabotaging the 2014 midterms? To answer that, consider that the NSA trolls indiscriminately for all cell phone and internet content. The sheer volume of information means that it’s unlikely that the NSA can review it in real-time so as to prevent an imminent attack. The best way to use that information is to pick a target and then, having isolated the target, to go back into the saved data and to fined content that damages the target.
Once the NSA has completed its targeting data troll, GOP politicians who have had affairs, used drugs, engaged in illegal transactions, etc., might find themselves facing a government official who says something along the lines of “Nice life ya’ got here. Shame if something happened to it. Kinda like the something that happened to Dinesh d’Souza, if you know what I mean.”
Yes, I know that sounds like paranoid wacko stuff. But consider that just five years ago, we would have dismissed as paranoid wacko stuff all of the following: IRS persecution of conservative political organizations; NSA spying indiscriminately on email and cell phone, as well as on the House of Representatives and media members; the Department of Justice engaged in gun-running; video makers getting imprisoned as Free Speech martyrs to hide an administration’s failure to prevent a terrorist attack; nuns being forced to pay for birth control and abortifacient pills; deals with Iran that effectively allow it to become a nuclear nation; and a president who uses executive orders, not to effectuate executive duties, but instead to nullify existing law or to create non-existent law out of whole cloth.
Given an administration that views the Constitution as a hindrance, why shouldn’t we believe that it’s engaging in the tried and true communist tactic of spying on opponents, getting dirt on them, and then using that dirt to force them to act against their interests?
In my earlier post today, I said that, in the wake of the lies the Gang of Eight told, followed by the Senate’s passage of a 1,200 page immigration bill that will go a long way to destroying the American working class, the Republicans have tearfully promised never to be fooled again. I doubt that promise. I likened them to the Charlie Brown scenario where he always believes that, this time, Lucy won’t pull the football. Having said that, I see that Trey Gowdy, a smart R from South Carolina, isn’t fooled. Maybe he can educate his fellow Rs. Plus, I like his sarcasm:
And a short anecdote regarding Gowdy’s monicker of “Trey.” When I arrived in Texas, I was overwhelmed by the number of guys I met who were named Trey. What an unusual name, I said. I’ve never heard it outside the South. My friends had a good laugh at my expense when they explained that Trey was a nickname for a guy who boasted the number III after his name (as in, he shared his name with both his grandfather and his father).
I freely admit that I will never be as brilliant as Thomas Sowell, either in my analytical abilities or in my writing quality. That doesn’t mean, though, that I can’t borrow his technique of writing the occasional post that consists of one or two sentence thoughts about interesting subjects. So, I am for his style, even if I lack his substance.
As I understand it, striking down DOMA means that marriage in America is no longer defined as being between one man and one woman. More than that, it’s no longer defined as anything. In pre-21st century America, it was understood to be one man and one woman, but now those common understanding is gone. It seems to me that the feds better act quickly to define marriage as a relationship between two consenting adult humans. Otherwise, the door is open to polygamy, incest, bestiality, or NAMBLA- and sharia approved marriages with children.
Earl Aagaard forwarded to me a wonderful comment a friend of his made with regard to Obama’s disastrous efforts to engage with Russian President Putin regarding Edward Snowden, currently hanging out with impunity in the Moscow airport: “It seems that Barack Obama, not content with losing the war on terror, is also trying to lose the Cold War.”
I have to admit that I haven’t read closely any of the news articles about Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts to revitalize the Middle East peace talks. All I can think is that trying to get the Palestinians to agree to a two-state solution is a fool’s errand — and John Kerry is most certainly a fool.
I was saddened, but not surprised, to see that the Senate passed the Immigration bill (all 1,200 unread pages of it), including 14 “yes” votes from Republicans. I have only two hopes now. I hope that every Senate Republican who voted “Aye” gets killed in the primaries and I hope that House Republicans figure out that they can vote “no” on the bill by pointing to the fact that, as written, it destroys American jobs, both by drastically increasing the pool of legal, low-income workers and by blending with ObamaCare to give employers the incentive to fire current workers (for whom they must buy insurance or pay a fine) in favor of amnestied workers (who don’t fall under ObamaCare). I just know, though, the Republicans are going to be sufficiently stupid to sell this as fear of too many Hispanics. Raaacists!!
We’re having a heat wave here in temperate Northern California. Oh. My. G*d! It must be global warming. We’re all going to die! Oh. Wait a minute. Never mind. I just remembered that it’s June and we’ve had a heat wave in the Bay Area every June since my earliest memories in the 1960s.
There’s a saying that one should never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. There’s also a saying that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. If Obama was merely stupid, one would think that, in his approach to foreign policy, he’d occasionally get things right. But he never does. Think about his instincts: With the Iranian revolution, when he should have given moral support to the opposition, he was silent. During the Egyptian Arab Spring, when he should have supported and then gently eased out our ally, Mubarak, he was silent. He found his voice again with the Muslim Brotherhood, whom he supported — so much so that, now that ordinary Egyptians and, especially Coptic Christians in Egypt, are figuring out that they went from a bad secular government to a much worse theocratic government, Obama has fallen silent again.
Obama pulled us out of Iraq, where we had won, before we had a chance to consolidate a democratic infrastructure. Iraq is now becoming an Iranian satellite and falling into a dystopian Islamic anarchy. In Afghanistan, Obama didn’t even wait until we won. He announced that we had lost and would be leaving soon, and by the way, would the Taliban please refrain from killing Americans and instead sit down with American politicians to negotiate the terms of our defeat.
Of course one can’t forget Libya, where we helped destroy a neutral (which is what Qaddafi had become) and replaced the power structure with a toxic, anarchic combination of the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda. That chicken came tragically home to roost on September 11, 2012, when al Qaeda killed four Americans in Benghazi. Then there’s Syria, where Obama sat by the sidelines when he could have helped a democratic movement against Assad’s dictatorship, but decided to provide support only when the democratic movement had morphed into — yes, again — a toxic, anarchic combination of the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda. One starts to get the feeling that Obama likes the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda, despite their clearly expressed goals of world jihad, with Israel as target No. 1 and America as target No. 2.
Obama’s bestest friend in the international world is Turkey’s Erdogan, who is doing his damndest to turn secular, functional, democratic Turkey into another totalitarian dictatorship. Meanwhile, he’s alienated Russia’s Putin so much that Putin gleefully rubs America’s nose in its helplessness with regard to the gallivanting Snowden.
My conclusion: It cannot be random that Obama gets it wrong every time. This isn’t stupidity. It is malice.
Speaking of Snowden, I’m still sticking with my first instincts: Snowden did ordinary Americans a favor by revealing that the federal government is a spy state, and one that could easily tip into being like the East German Stasi. That he did something important, though, doesn’t mean that his motives were good. This is an anti-American man who was either working for a foreign power (probably China) from the get go, or who, having gotten his hands on America’s national security secrets, didn’t hesitate one moment when it came to selling out America. He’s not a hero. He’s a villain who incidentally did something helpful.
Do any of you feel like being epigrammatic? If so, please chime in.
Democrats are very organized. I’m not just talking about their ability to whip up a rally at a moment’s notice or to elect a President with the help of a substantial voter fraud and government chicanery. (I’m referring to the IRS scandal.) Those were just the visible signs of Democrat organization. As Mitch McConnell explained in a speech he delivered at the American Enterprise Institute, the Democrat effort to squelch conservative free speech goes back many years and does indeed start with Obama — but not quite in the way you’d expect.
I have to admit that I’m not usually very good at reading the transcripts from long speeches, but this was riveting. McConnell reminds us that, when Democrats speak or act, there are no coincidences. They are the well-ordered, always-got-a-plan crowd, while Republicans just muddle through, batting at balls as they come their way.
Whenever I look at the difference between Republicans and Democrats, I’m reminded of the Germans and the British in World War I. The Germans, either because they realized early that trench warfare would last a long time, or because they were simply more meticulous, built trenches that were things of beauty: deep, secure, and comfortable (given the limits on long ditches in the ground in the middle of battlefields). The British, by contrast, simply dug slap dash holes in the ground, and then made do with them for the next several years. The men had no protection from the elements, and simply wallowed in louse-ridden mud and filth for years. That the British prevailed was due to the resources of her Empire, the quality of her fighters, and the fact that America came in and finished the war for her.
When it comes to organization versus chaos, it’s no coincidence that the Senate is set to pass another 1,200 page monstrosity that no one has read, this time on immigration. The Democrats know precisely what’s in it and they do not want anybody to read it. If the public finds out what Democrats know, they’d be screaming to the rooftops. As it is, they’re supine as a bill that destroys American sovereignty and remakes her population (without any citizen input) is rushed into law.
My suspicion is that the Senate Dems actually don’t care if the House stops the bill. In that event, all they have to do is scream that the Republicans are racist immigration enemies. The fact that the bill is a disaster that no one should pass is irrelevant. Since no one knows what’s in it, the Dems and their media can simply set the narrative.
In other words, it’s a win-win for Dems: either they get a bill that turns us into a permanent low-income, welfare economy or they get to call Republicans racists. And, with all the aplomb of the British in WWI, the Republicans will stand there shell-shocked, unable to figure out what hit them.
If you go below the fold, I’ve included McConnell’s entire speech here. You’ll see that McConnell is trying to arouse Republicans and conservatives to intelligent efficiency. Good luck to him!
I was trolling the internet and I saw this headline for an article by Byron York (click on the image to go to the article):
Good question, I thought to myself, saving the article in a new tab as one I intended to read later. Then, still in trolling mood, I clicked over to Breitbart to see if there was anything there I wanted for my evening reading list. And I saw this headline (again, click on the image to go to the article):
I don’t know about you, but I think that Breitbart answers York’s question pretty darn well. If Obama is going to go out there and lie, it will affect the debate. The only real question about his precise effect on the immigration debate is whether people believe the lies or are disgusted by them.
One of the strawmen that Progressives like to set up in the illegal immigration debate is to imply that those who oppose illegal immigrants ought to give up liking or using anything that came from somewhere other than America’s shores. This is a perfect example:
Is it possible that all the people who “liked” that on Facebook do not understand that there is a difference between embracing ideas, on the one hand, and abandoning national sovereignty, on the other hand?
I’ve always made it perfectly clear that I think immigration is a marvelous thing. I am the child of immigrants and all my school friends growing up were the children of immigrants. Every man-jack of us in America is an immigrant or a descendent of immigrants. Even the indigenous people aren’t indigenous. They just immigrated here first, probably from Asia. The only continent with true indigenous people is Africa, because that is the cradle of mankind.
We in America should embrace new ideas and we benefit from replenishing our population. But part of being a strong sovereign nation is that we get to pick who comes in. If we make smart decisions, we benefit. If we make dumb decisions, either by inviting in too many immigrants hostile to our national values or by inviting in so few immigrants that we become desiccated, that’s our problem. If a nation allows self-selecting immigrants to breach her border at any time, she has ceded sovereignty to the hordes, and may as well give it up.
I promise that this post will be about what Sheldon Adelson had to say in an interview with Alana Goodman of Commentary Magazine. Before I get there, though, I need to begin with a little story of my own.
Readers of my newsletter know that I had lunch last week with seven other conservative women here in Marin. We had all found each other more or less by accident, not because any of us in Marin have proudly worn our conservativism in the open (our kids would be ostracized if we did), but because we listened for the little clues in their words that hinted at a conservative orientation. We then risked exposing ourselves by asking, “Uh, are you by any chance . . . um, you know, conserva-mumble, mumble, mumble?”
That shyness, of course, was before the last election. Since the 2012 election, we’ve all made a vow to each other to be more open about our political identity and to challenge liberals who lead with unfounded conclusions that demonize conservatives and their beliefs or that confer saintly virtues on Obama and his cadre.
Interestingly, the eight of us were a microcosm of conservative views, ranging from fiscally conservative but socially liberal conservatives all the way to both fiscally and socially conservatives. Our common denominator, of course, was fiscal conservativism. Dig deeper, and there were two other common denominators: an abiding belief in the Constitution’s continued relevance to modern America and a fierce devotion to individual liberty.
Where we differed was (a) gay marriage and (b) abortion. With regard to abortion, we did have one overarching point of agreement, which was that abortion is not a federal issue and should therefore be returned to the states. When it came to gay marriage, all of us were willing to recognize gay unions, but we differed about whether the answer is to declare gay marriage the law of the land or, instead, to preserve marriage for religious institutions, while making civil unions across the board (both straight and gay) the law of the land. As regular readers know, I hew to the second view, which acknowledges human relationships and state goals, without interfering in any way with religious freedom.
I walked away from the lunch realizing as clearly as I ever have that the strong fiber weaving us together is fiscal conservativism and individual liberty. The frayed strands at the edges are what are commonly called “social issues.”
The Democrats, recognizing that the quickest way to shred a piece of fabric is to tear at the frayed edges, rather than to try to destroy the sturdy center, worked hard during the election to blow the gay-marriage and abortion dog whistles. As the race in Missouri showed, social conservativism is a political landmine that routinely explodes in the face of struggling Republican candidates. Todd Akin could have won that race if he hadn’t been asked about abortion. When thinking about Akin’s repulsive and misinformed answer, which provided a solid Progressive rallying cry, don’t forget Richard Mourdock. His experience proves that, even if Akin had given a principled pro-Life answer, he still would have been pilloried and destroyed.
I’m a big believer that, when it comes to social issues, culture drives politics, rather than politics driving culture. For the past forty years, social liberals have been planted very firmly in the driver’s seat. They have infiltrated both media and education, which has given them the chance to shape a generation’s social views. They have sensitized this generation’s ears so that the dog whistles most people under 55 hear the loudest aren’t “debt” or “fiscal cliff” or “responsibility,” but are, instead, “women haters,” “homophobes” and “racists.”
What this cultural transformation means is that, in the short term, conservatives can win on the fiscal side (and, possibly, on the individual liberties side) because people haven’t been deafened by decades of dog whistles on those subjects. Until we take back the culture, though, which we do exactly the same way the Left did — namely, a slow march through the culture — we will invariably lose on social issues. Significantly as the most recent election shows, losing on social issues inevitably means losing on all issues.
Now, finally, have established my premise about the way in which social issues invariably play against conservatives in national elections, I can get to Sheldon Adelson’s interview in Commentary Magazine. For purposes of this essay, Sheldon Adelson is important for three reasons. First, he is a conservative who is willing to put his money where his mouth is (unlike Warren Buffet, a true-to-form liberal who wants to put other people’s money where his mouth is). The second reason Adelson is important is that, after his emergence as a money-player in this election, the Left has worked as hard to demonize him as they did to demonize the Koch Brothers and Mitt Romney. And the third reason is that Sheldon Adelson agrees with me that conservatives cannot win on social issues:
For someone whose name and face were a regular staple of the election coverage, the public does have many misconceptions about Adelson. His liberal social views rarely received media attention during the campaign season, though he’s certainly never hidden them.
“See that paper on the wall?” he asked, gesturing toward a poster with rows of names on it. “That is a list of some of the scientists that we give a lot of money to conduct collaborative medical research, including stem cell research. What’s wrong if I help stem cell research? I’m all in favor. And if somebody wants to have an abortion, let them have an abortion,” he said.
Adelson has not said whether he will use his influence to try to change the GOP internally. But he does believe social issues cost the Republicans the last election.
“If we took a softer stance on those several issues, social issues, that I referred to, then I think that we would have won the most recent election,” he said. “I think people got the impression that Republicans didn’t care about certain groups of people.”
You should definitely read the whole interview.
Adelson is precisely what my self-admitted conservative friends are: fiscally conservative, socially fairly liberal, very receptive to legal immigration (because a nation, for health, national security, and economic reasons should control its own borders), and supportive of Israel. What’s funny, though, is that Adelson is also pretty close in actual outlook to all the upscale, white collar liberals I know who reflexively vote Democrat because of the conservative issues. These people are also fiscally conservative in their own lives; they what their country safe and fiscally sound for their children; they like immigrants but recognize that illegal immigrants pose risks both for American citizens and legal, Green Card immigrants; and they like Israel’s values.
The problem at the ballot box is that, after forty years of Leftist indoctrination, these educated liberals are unable to harmonize their values with their politics. Despite recognizing the wisdom of fiscal management in their own homes, they think a state can survive indefinitely by spending more than it takes in; despite training their children in self-reliance, they believe that we should destroy self-reliance in “the poor”; despite believing that people should be able to protect themselves and their homes, they are embarrassed when their country tries to defend itself; and despite admiring a pluralist, democratic society, which is what Israel is, they bemoan the plight of the poor Palestinians who have allowed their (now sovereign) territory to devolve in a crazy mix of anarchism and Islamic fundamentalism.
What makes this cognitive dissonance possible for white collar liberals is their unswerving allegiance to unlimited abortions and (of late) to gay marriage. Just as fiscal conservativism, the Constitution, and individual freedom bind conservatives of all stripes together, so too do abortion and gay marriage (with a soupçon of illegal immigration) bind together Progressives of all stripes. We cannot entice Progressives to fiscal conservativism if we insist on a purity test for abortion and gay marriage. It’s just not going to happen. And here’s the kicker: abortion and gay marriage become moot issues if our nation collapses entirely under the weight of debt or if our walls our breached by Islamists or if we become “tuberculosis central” because we cannot assert even a modicum of polite control over our borders.
As a parent, I hew socially conservative, so those are values I want to advance. But I’m a pragmatist who recognizes that the ballot box isn’t the place to make it happen. The ballot box is how we manage issues of sovereignty (including national security and border control) and fiscal health. Our social institutions are where we make headway on social issues. If we can keep those lines from crossing, we can be a resurgent conservative political party and, eventually, a somewhat more traditional America, one that preserves the best and healthiest social policies of the past and the present.
I thought I’d share with you some of the things my friends have posted on Facebook. First, a cartoon that’s obviously meant to support the Progressive open border policy, but that just as obviously proves the opposite:
I understand that you’re supposed to read the cartoon to mean that, without the Native American’s open border policies, we white people would still be floating around the Atlantic. Therefore, open borders are good. I have this strong urge to explain to the Progressives reading the cartoon that, if one looks at what happened to the Native Americans, they would have been wiser to adopt the policies that Republicans now advocate.
The next thing I found on Facebook was this anti-Romney poster:
I get it. Romney is an incredible hypocrite because his ancestors weren’t monogamous. He therefore has no basis for asserting that marriage is between one man and one woman. My response?
Dear Progressive, yes, some cultures are polygamous, but they’ve still involved a man on one side of the bed and a woman on the other. You see, historically, marriage has always been about two things: procreation and a wealth transfer system that allowed the man (who historically created wealth) to be assured that his own progeny, whether from one woman or from several, received his wealth. It’s kind of atavistic.
I’m not saying that atavistic human behavior is a good reason to keep the marriage status quo. As you know, I think the state should get out of the marriage business and get into the civil unions business, with an eye to promoting whatever conjoinings of people are best for the state. However, it’s foolish to pretend that relationships that never have natural procreative abilities are the same as the heterosexual marriages that have been normative throughout history. And no, please don’t hurl the words “adoption” or “artificial insemination” at me, and don’t mention that the English aristocracy so embraced cuckolding that the wife’s marital duty was limited to an heir and a spare. The fact remains that our lizard brains have always focused on getting a man to impregnate a woman, safe in the knowledge that she wasn’t cheating and that it would be his genetic offspring that got the benefit of his labor.
And lastly, a video that several of my friends posted. I don’t know about Prop. 37 and I may discover after researching it that I support it. Nevertheless, watching these vapid, alcoholic, misogynistic Hollywood types promote Prop. 37 (in insulting and condescending tones) inspires in me a visceral dislike for the proposition, and a strong desire to vote against it:
In ordinary times, criminals disregard the law. In the PC Obama era, however, elected officials and state government agencies don’t have much use for the law either. Take Obama, for example. Contrary to the original headlines regarding Obama’s newly discovered immigration rights, Obama’s recent announcement regarding illegal immigration isn’t an executive order. Instead, it’s simply an abandonment of his executive responsibilities, insofar as he has now publicly announced that he refuses to enforce the laws that the legislative branch has passed. He’s still King Obama, taking the law in his own hands but, instead of making the law, he’s breaking the law.
It turns out that, in Obama’s America, the federal executive branch is not the only government agency that has no use for explicit laws. In California, the State Bar is vigorously arguing that it doesn’t need no stinkin’ laws either. Let’s begin this discussion with the law itself.
Under California law (Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code sec. 6068), a licensed attorney is obligated to support both federal and state laws:
It is the duty of an attorney do to all of the following:
(a) To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state.
Attorneys cannot plead ignorance of this requirement, as they must expressly state this obligation as part of the oath of office they take as a prerequisite to becoming fully licensed (Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code sec. 6067):
I solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney and counselor at law to the best of my knowledge and ability.
Put simply, California requires that, to practice as an attorney, the licensee must orally and explicitly promise that he or she will to support, not break, either state or federal law.
With this in mind, how in the world can the State Bar of California argue that an illegal immigrant should become a licensed attorney? Shouldn’t both the Bar’s and the newly licensed attorney’s first obligation be to turn the attorney in for violating explicit federal immigration laws?
An illegal immigrant who passes the bar exam and demonstrates good moral character should be eligible to practice law, the State Bar has declared in a court filing.
The bar, which oversees California’s 225,000 lawyers, told the state Supreme Court on Monday that federal law leaves regulation of the legal profession largely up to the states and does not appear to prohibit Sergio C. Garcia, 35, of Chico from obtaining an attorney’s license.
The court cited two federal laws as potential obstacles. One prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving any “state or local public benefit,” including a professional license provided by a “state agency.” The other prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.
In Monday’s filing, the bar said the first law doesn’t apply because the court is a branch of state government, not a “state agency.” In 1995, the bar noted, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal courts aren’t government agencies.
“There is no reason to believe he cannot take the oath and faithfully uphold his duties as an attorney,” the bar said. It said the policy considerations are similar to those the California court addressed in 1972, when it declared unconstitutional a state law requiring attorneys to be U.S. citizens.
It’s pure sophistry to say that the federal laws don’t apply just because the California court system is a self-regulated branch of state government. This argument ignores entirely the fact that California’s own law, which does indeed govern, imposes upon attorneys the obligation to support the Constitution. The Constitution, in turn, is the umbrella for federal legislation. The same sophistry holds true when it comes to comparing legal immigrants, who have not violated any laws on their way into the country, with illegal immigrants, whose very presence is an offense to law.
What’s going on here is open-and-above-board, so it’s we’re not concerned here with ordinary “cash corruption.” That is, this is not a situation in which a private citizen makes a payment to a government official in return for the latter’s promise to look the other way.
What we have here is worse. We are witnessing a profound ethical corruption that sees public institutions deliberately flouting their own laws. This is a dangerous slippery slope. Once the reliability of law is gone, the only thing left is despotism or anarchy, with the former being the tyranny of an individual or group and the latter being the tyranny of the mob. When political officials expressly ignore the law, they are no better than ordinary criminals. What’s being stolen, though, is more valuable than money or jewels. It’s the essence of our liberty.