Enemy action. And–UNEXPECTED!–it’s the same old enemies it always was.
Back in 2008, Republican strategists were scared to death to be seen as inquiring into, much less attacking, Barack Obama’s radical background. No need to dwell on his ties to former terrorist Bill Ayers, we were told. As I (among others) protested at the time, while Ayers’s terrorist past was alarming, it was not the most troubling aspect of Obama’s association with him.
Ayers had remained a proud anti-American radical who openly argued that our country was incorrigibly racist and corrupt. Yet Obama had colluded with him on their joint left-wing passion: criminal-justice “reform.” They appeared on a panel together to argue for keeping even violent juvenile offenders out of the adult justice system. They worked together on boards of left-wing charities to direct funding to like-minded radicals. In 1997, Ayers wrote a book, A Kind and Just Parent: Children of the Juvenile Court, which (as Stanley Kurtz has observed) compares America’s juvenile-justice system to the mass detention of young blacks under South African apartheid. Obama, then a state lawmaker in Illinois, lavishly praised the book as a “searing and timely account.”
Understand then: For upwards of a quarter-century, we’ve enjoyed a staggering decrease in crime rates nationally, particularly in urban areas, because of engaged, intelligence-driven policing methods. During that time, Obama has been playing for the other team: academic and activist detractors who point to the overrepresentation of blacks in the offender population in a racially charged attack on policing — rather than emphasizing that the overrepresentation of blacks as crime victims is ameliorated by modern policing.
Locales under the control of progressive Democrats tend to invite the administration to come “fix” their police. Other cities and towns would like to fight but they cannot compete with the Justice Department’s $28 billion budget; agreeing to comply is their only realistic option. Holder lustily carried out the mission, but it is Obama’s policy.
Of course it is. Which is why the “fight” against Lynch’s nomination was, in the end, a futile waste of time: Obama was never going to nominate anybody better, and would probably have preferred somebody even worse.
Via Stanley Kurtz, who adds:
Obama’s old alliance with Ayers on crime policy is certainly relevant to his administration’s strategies today, but there’s another important connection as well. Obama pressed for so-called racial profiling legislation for years, and got it through the Illinois legislature just in time to make it a selling point in his run for the U.S. Senate.
Unfortunately, the whole effort was based on a false premise and likely did more to hamper the police and interfere with necessary crime enforcement than to protect civil rights. Obama pushed his racial profiling legislation by activating his alliance with radical clergy like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger. So the strategy that Andy lays out, in which Obama uses questionable civil rights accusations and demagoguery by the likes of Rev. Al Sharpton to effectively nationalize local police forces, was clearly prefigured during Obama’s Chicago years. You can read about Obama’s crime policy and the political strategy behind it toward the end of my 2008 piece, “Barack Obama’s Lost Years.”
As Andy points out, Obama laid the legal groundwork for his efforts to nationalize the police early on in his administration. Clearly, however, he’s waited until these last two years of his presidency to put that policy forcefully into action. And there’s nothing isolated about this pattern.
No, there certainly isn’t, on this issue as on all the others. Anyone complaining about the Obama junta’s “lack of transparency” is guilty at best of not being willing to open their eyes and look. And anybody who still thinks of Obama as a “failure” is simply delusional.