“Public service is my motto.” — Al Capone
Barack Obama, another notorious ‘public servant’ from Chicago, has spent the last three and a half years doing the same thing for the rule of law as his old Windy City predecessor — ignoring it:
He Can’t Wait | Washington Free Beacon.
Today, the Obama Administration, in an obvious attempt to boost the President’s flailing reelection campaign, announced that it would bypass Congress and rewrite the nation’s immigration laws.
This President is Virtually Criminal | American Spectator
This president’s abuse of executive orders, and executive authority in general, is moving into the range of authoritarianism — and lawless authoritarianism, at that. Today’s announcement of amnesty for 800,000 illegals is an outrage. It must not stand. And this president, this Occupier, must not be countenanced. By all legal means, he ought to be resisted.
Illegal Amnesty | National Review Online
[...]The president’s executive order violates the constitutional separation of powers that defines the political architecture of our republic. If Congress allows this illegitimate executive order to stand, it will have in effect delegated its power to make law to the president.This executive order would, therefore, be entirely unacceptable even if it represented good policy.
Obama Lurching Toward Tyranny | American Thinker
[...] Obama’s government is the biggest violator of law in our history. His very methods of governing, which include bypassing Congress’s constitutional authority to make law, actually show contempt for the Constitution and the American rule of law … Who needs the consent of the governed or their elected representatives? … By the scope and consistency of their lawbreaking, the Obama administration is Public Enemy Number 1.
Are We in Revolutionary Times? | National Review Online
Legally, President Obama has reiterated the principle that he can pick and choose which U.S. laws he wishes to enforce … If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do? Obama is turning out to be the most subversive chief executive in terms of eroding U.S. law since Richard Nixon.
Obama abuses power with immigration move | Times 247
[...] what we have here is a president who is refusing to carry out federal law simply because he disagrees with Congress’s policy choices. That is an exercise of executive power that even the most stalwart defenders of an energetic executive — not to mention the Framers — cannot support.
There’s another aspect to this that deserves consideration. Obama has the Occupy movement in his pocket, alongside the New Black Panthers, the SEIU and any number of unnamed socialist and communist groups just waiting in the wings for their opportunity to come out swinging. The more fires Obama lights with his illegal actions, the more voter frustration will grow. At some point, it will take only one hothead or one well-placed liberal plant with a molotov cocktail or a gun to light the fuse on a powder keg. If that were to happen, Obama has put in place several executive orders that would allow him to declare martial law and dispatch the military and federal agents to enforce it. While the media have been looking the other way, the DHS has been stocking up on 450 million hollow point rounds, other ammunition and arms, a move they’ve refused to clearly explain…
President Obama thwarted the will of Congress and shunned the 20 million under- and unemployed Americans by announcing he will grant work permits to 2 million to 3 million illegal workers. This unconstitutional fiat ignores the rule of law and bypasses Congress, which on three occasions rejected DREAM Act amnesties in part to protect unemployed workers born here or who came here legally. We have a long tradition of election-year pandering by sitting presidents, but it is hard to recall when a president has proposed a measure so destructive to the most vulnerable of our society.
Daily Caller’s Neil Munro interrupts Obama in Rose Garden | POLITICO.com.
Obama, announcing a change of policy that would allow the children of illegal immigrants to avoid deportation if they meet certain criteria, was interrupted mid-speech by Neil Munro of the website Daily Caller, where conservative commentator Tucker Carlson is the editor-in-chief.
“Why’d you favor foreigners over Americans?” Munro shouted.
“Excuse me, sir, but it’s not time for questions,” Obama responded.
Obama’s lefty apologists respond to the autocratic outrages of the Big Red One with — what else? — the race card. It’s all they’ve got left. But that’s like arguing that the reason Eliot Ness and the Untouchables went after Scarface Al was because they disliked Italians:
MSNBC Guest: Would A White President Get Heckled? | RealClearPolitics.
“This is just so unprecedented and outrageous, that you have to ask the question, would the right-wing be doing this if we had a white president there?” MSNBC guest and Democratic strategist Julian Epstein said on the channel this afternoon.
Cummings: Racism ‘has something to do with’ Obama interruption | The Daily Caller
On Martin Bashir’s Friday MSNBC program, Maryland Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings said that President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have received an “alarming” amount of disrespect, possibly because of their race.
“…these are two men who are doing an outstanding job, but there are folks who just don’t like it. And they never treated other folks like this, but here they are doing it to these gentlemen.”
Ulsterman’s White House Insider predicted a year ago that the White House would spend the summer before the election playing 52 (Race) Card Pickup:
“…So will he [Obama] stir up the race issue if it means guilting or scaring white voters to keep him in the White House? Hell yes he will. He’s been doing that sh*t his whole damn life! You wanna say so what to that? You wanna see this country torn apart by race because we have a president who sees it as a viable political tool?
The race card, the racial thing – whatever it’s gonna be called, it is the number one asset this administration believes it has to win in 2012 … But how far are they willing to push that? Race. The charges of racism? I believe all the way if they have to. And they are gonna get people stirred up. And if Barack Obama doesn’t win re-election, watch them stand back while the riots break out, and watch them mouth the words “Burn baby burn.” I don’t think they are willing to go that far, I know it. If they can’t have America, nobody will.”
So did Jeffrey Kuhner of the Washington Times:
The Democrats are settling on one major election strategy: Portray opposition to President Obama as a form of racism. In a nutshell, the liberal argument is that conservative dissent from Mr. Obama’s social democratic agenda – Obamacare, the nearly $1 trillion stimulus and Dodd-Frank – is driven not by the color of the president’s politics, but the color of his skin.
This line of attack first began several years ago. It was introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who compared critics of Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul to the defenders of “slavery” and “Jim Crow.” In other words, dislike for socialized medicine is akin to nostalgia for white supremacy. According to liberal Democrats, it can’t possibly be for legitimate reasons.
Americans can be pushed only so far before they start to push back. If opposing the ruination of the Republic by a Marxist imposter instituting socialism by decree constitutes racism, then the Democrats better plan on using the “R” word by the bushel during the next few months.