Si Se Puede!: The Imperial Presidency of Barack Obama
June 19, 2012 by Ben Crystal
Had I been present in the Rose Garden when President Barack Obama issued his royal proclamation decreeing essential amnesty to 1.4 million illegal aliens, I would not have interrupted “his majesty” the way The Daily Caller’s Neil Munro did on Friday. Toward the end of Obama’s announcement that he would be further ignoring the Constitutionally mandated separation of powers, Congress, the will of the American people, pre-existing laws regarding immigration, his own previously stated position on the issue and basic common sense, Munro recognized Obama wasn’t kidding about his refusal to entertain any questions about his latest crime against the Nation. And Munro acted, asking why Obama favored “foreigners over American workers” before Obama could hightail it off to his next multimillion-dollar fundraiser.
Kudos to Munro for at least trying to do what the sycophants who make up the rest of the White House press corps either can’t or won’t. But I wouldn’t have remained mum out of any sense of respect for the office of the Presidency. After all, during the eight years of George W. Bush’s Administration, the Democrats not only murdered respect for the office, they dismembered it and buried it in the Rose Garden. Besides, if Obama wants my respect (and I doubt he cares much, one way or another), he should consider earning it. I know, I know: “Earn” is a curse word to liberals — much like “Constitution” or “law.”
But I would have stayed quiet for two reasons:
- The longer the tyrant of the teleprompter speaks without interruption, the more likely he is to do exactly what he did: garrote himself with own tongue. In announcing to the world that he would grant amnesty to more than 1 million illegal aliens, Obama reminded the Nation that he considers blowing perverse political kisses to criminals and their liberal enablers far more important than the rule of law and national social and economic security.
- By giving the Democrats something to whine about — in this case, the sort of tactic they routinely deploy with much more fervor against their conservative betters — Munro allowed them a chance to change the topic of discussion away from the Obama regime’s latest crimes and toward a perceived lack of respect for the President.
The usual suspects in the Democratic Party rocketed out of the gate with the predictable — and predictably spurious — charge of racism. Some pencil-necked junior varsity Al Sharpton type who calls himself “Touré” led the way with the tinfoil hat brigadiers at MSNBC, definitively stating: “This disrespect of this human being cannot be disconnected from the fact that he’s black.” His remarks are silly, but Touré simply might be upset about getting short-changed on a last name. While others in the corporate media — including Sam Donaldson, who made a habit of shouting questions at President Ronald Reagan and who (I was surprised to learn) is still on this side of the grave — chimed in, few examined the content of Obama’s revelation.
While hysterically assigning racist motives to Munro’s interrogative in particular and conservatives in general (a laughably predictable tack for people who cry “racism” when the barista over-soys their lattes), the Democrats are also mincing around the latest example of Obama’s increasingly imperial regime. Obama’s suspension of immigration law by fiat will not only grant essential amnesty to nearly 1.5 million illegal aliens, it will grant them a leg up against legal citizens in areas including higher education, social services and job opportunities. By engaging in such a craven political maneuver, Obama has signaled to the actual citizens of the United States that votes mean more than a populace already staggering under the weight of his enormously bad economic policies. Even The Washington Post cautioned: “the policy could create significant new competition for jobs and university slots at a time of nationwide recession.”
And let us not forget the fact that Obama himself opposes his move: “…there are laws on the books that I have to enforce…perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true…” It is hardly news when Obama defies Constitutional and legal dictates in the name of politics. It ought to be news when he defies his own tenuous principles in the name of same. Then again, hypocrisy defines liberalism. Perhaps the liberals and their corporate media consider it newsworthy only when Obama actually sticks to principle. When he does, we’ll let you know.