The Democrats have trotted out Alinsky's Rule for Radicals No. 4, in an effort to fend off legitimate outrage over Obama's usurpation of power on immigration.  Rule No 4 is "hoist them on their own petard," or accuse your enemy of doing the same thing they are criticizing in you.

So, the arguments are out that both Reagan and Bush used executive orders to establish immigration policy, and Obama is only doing the same thing that they did.  However, their argument is a lie (what else is new?).

There is a proper use of executive orders, to tweak existing legislation in order to implement the wishes of Congress.  That's because small tweaks are easier to implement by executive orders than to run the whole legislation back through both houses of Congress to correct small errors or ambiguities. Both Reagan and Bush used executive orders properly in this regard -- with the knowledge and consent of Congress, to tweak legislation already passed.  Unlike Obama, they did not misuse executive action in the place of legislation, as an end-run around Congress, to install sweeping new laws by the dictate of a totalitarian.

David Frum has more details on the Reagan/Bush executive orders in his article "Reagan and Bush Offer No Precedent for Obama's Executive Order."  Read it at this link.

Don't be fooled by the Alinskyites in their efforts to justify fascism.

Lawrence Auster discussed another key reason why the GOP lost the 2012 presidential election:  several million white voters stayed home.  Had they showed up as expected, Romney would have won the election, in spite of the non-white vote for Obama.  Auster writes:

It appears that the reason Obama won was that many conservatives, including readers of this site, disliked Romney so much that they preferred to have Obamacare, preferred to have the contraceptive mandate, preferred to have the destruction of the private health insurance industry and of the private medical care industry leading to outright socialized medicine, preferred to have an annual trillion dollar increase in the deficit, preferred to have a president allied with and actively facilitating the spread of jihadist regimes in the Mideast, than to have Romney as president. In short, if what the commenters are saying is true, it appears that the most terrible event in the history of this country, the final destruction of the constitutional American Republic, was brought about by conservatives for whom McCain was conservative enough, but Romney was not conservative enough.

Why did they stay home?  Was it because Romney is a Mormon?  Probably not, or the evangelical South would not have gone heavily for Romney.

Some speculation says that many whites are simply fed up with the GOP being too liberal and not adequately conservative.  I hope that answer is true...but I really don't know.  It sounds too simplistic and self-serving.  I suspect that Obama's negative campaign, which started very early in the campaign, was a major factor.  It was exacerbated by Romney's late entrance into the fray and a less than effective rebuttal of the Obama slander against him.

See the discussion at View From the Right here.

Yesterday, Mark Levin swore not to compromise with liberals on essential things, saying "We will not be compliant in our demise."  I very much agree with him.  He said:

We conservatives, we do not accept bipartisanship in the pursuit of tyranny. Period. We will not negotiate the terms of our economic and political servitude. Period. We will not abandon our child to a dark and bleak future. We will not accept a fate that is alien to the legacy we inherited from every single future generation in this country. We will not accept social engineering by politicians and bureaucrats who treat us like lab rats, rather than self-sufficient human beings. There are those in this country who choose tyranny over liberty. They do not speak for us, 57 million of us who voted against this yesterday, and they do not get to dictate to us under our Constitution.

Interestingly enough, Levin openly discusses the latino demographic which has proven so deleterious to the American ethos, stating the obvious, that the Democrats support unbridled immigration of third-worlders because such immigrants will become Democrats and vote for the welfare state.

See the video here.