Poster from The 4th Media.com
In an article titled The Great Immigration Betrayal, Ross Douthat writing in the New York Times identifies two basic arguments Obamanistas are using to justify executive edicts particularly as regards amnesty for illegals. Accordingly it is a very good reference but he does not offer any specific recommendation on how to stop it, clearly objecting, lamenting and warning but stating no methodology such as “defund” or “impeach” or even sue.
But it is a well-written piece underscoring the lawlessness of Obama and by omission perhaps, the helplessness of the American people to stop it. One need only read the KC Star and listen to CNN or MSNBC. They speak for the anti-American left. They are actively applauding and urging Obama to do his executive orders.
And our side warns, “this will really damage Obama’s legacy if he does it”. I can’t even imagine how they say this with a straight face.
Douthat is not one to make bombastic claims against liberals but this article, is chilling. I believe, we are in an unimaginable time of crisis (even my most cynical and pessimistic predictions did not see this playing out this way.) Excerpts from Douthats’s article, the entirety of which we commend to you for its additional insight:
The legal issues first. The White House’s case is straightforward: It has “prosecutorial discretion” in which illegal immigrants it deports, it has precedent-grounded power to protect particular groups from deportation, and it has statutory authority to grant work permits to those protected. Therefore, there can be no legal bar to applying discretion, granting protections and issuing work permits to roughly half the illegal-immigrant population.
This argument’s logic, at once consistent and deliberately obtuse, raises one obvious question: Why stop at half?
The reality is there is no agreed-upon limit to the scope of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law because no president has attempted anything remotely like what Obama is contemplating . . .
And none of them had major applications outside immigration law. No defender of Obama’s proposed move has successfully explained why it wouldn’t be a model for a future president interested in unilateral rewrites of other areas of public policy . . .
the executive branch is effectively acting in direct defiance of the electoral process …
The election just past was not, of course, a formal referendum on the president’s proposed amnesty, but it was conducted with the promise of unilateral action in the background, and with immigration as one of the more hotly debated issues. The result was a devastating defeat for Obama and his party . . .
So there is no public will at work here. There is only the will to power of this White House. . . .
Presidential systems like ours have a long record, especially in Latin America, of producing standoffs between executive and legislative branches, which tends to make executive power grabs more likely. In the United States this tendency has been less dangerous — our imperial presidency has grown on us gradually; the worst overreaches have often been rolled back. But we do seem to be in an era whose various forces — our open-ended post-9/11 wars, the ideological uniformity of the parties — are making a kind of creeping caudillismo more likely . . .
Our view is that a Republican majority Congress, if they refuse to at the very least use the power of the purse to stop Obama’s actions, constitutes consent to the executive power grab. And Republicans leadership should not be immune from shame.
DLH with R Mall
