‘When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.’
Google “Bush breaking the law,” and you’ll find an avalanche of left-wing websites and blogs accusing the former President of, well, breaking the law. You’ll see that virtually all of it has to do with Bush authorizing the National Security Agency to perform warrantless wire-taps on communications had between Americans at home and certain people outside of the country. It is certainly reasonable to argue that such an action amounts to a violation of the Constitution, as well as various state and federal laws. And Bush was called out for it, even by some in his own party. The Administration’s reasoning for the move was to combat terrorism. You can make your own judgments as to whether that argument is sufficient.
That’s about all the left has on Bush. Yes, they’ll tell you the invasion of Iraq was illegal (it wasn’t), or that waterboarding is illegal (it might be), but the wiretapping is as close as they get to a blatant violation of the law. And the left continues to complain about it to this day.
I bring up the foregoing because our current president has done more to circumvent the law since just about any president I can think of. As opposed to Iraq, the current President’s action in Libya was actually against the law, since Congress never approved it. The assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki, an American citizen, without due process, unquestionably violated the law. Every time the administration leaks classified information to the press, such as the identity of the Pakistani doctor who told us where OBL was hiding, it’s a violation of the law. And then you have the Department of Justice sending guns to Mexican drug cartels, which resulted in the death of an American border patrolman.
Well, he’s done it again. On Friday, our little Dictator-in-Chief informed America that deporting young illegal immigrants makes him sad, so we’re not going to do it anymore. That’s it. No Congressional involvement, despite that part of the Constitution which grants it the sole authority on immigration policy. You see, in The Soviet Socialist Republic of Obamaland, the Administration only references the Constitution when it helps, which is rare.
But he obviously has a good reason, right?
Obama described his decision as the ‘right thing to do for the American people,’ but many Democrats and immigration advocates also saw it as the right strategic move to boost his reelection chances.
Oh, that’s right. There’s an election coming up. But wait, there’s more:
‘These are young people who study in our schools, they play in our neighborhoods, they’re friends with our kids, they pledge allegiance to our flag,’ Obama said during an afternoon Rose Garden appearance. ‘They are Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper.’
How sweet. They’re all Americans…in their hearts. And no one should be denied a seat at the Table of Freedom if it breaks their heart. And paper? Screw paper. Are we a nation of
laws paper or a Nation of Happiness, Fairness, and Unicorns for All?
So where’s the anger from all the people who accused Bush of breaking the law? Here we have a President who decided to circumvent the legislative process because it was taking too long, or because he wanted more authentic Mexican food NOW, and so he decided to say to hell with the law.
Arguments in favor of illegal immigration still confound me. I can usually come up with something to support just about anything, but illegal immigration isn’t one of them. Every debate has to end with: an illegal immigrant breaks the law every second of his or her life. And don’t whine to me about how they’re being taken advantage of, and they have to live the shadows, and other nonsense…they shouldn’t be here. Their mere existence violates the law. Does the law matter? Does anyone actually care? Our President doesn’t, and hasn’t for a while now.
Barry’s relationship with Mexico is interesting, I’ll give him that. He’s basically trading automatic weapons for Mexico’s uneducated and unskilled labor. And it’s all happening when there aren’t enough jobs for our own uneducated and unskilled labor. He’s either an incompetent felon or something worse. I just haven’t decided which.
Now that we’re getting closer to election season, I will attempt to write more often. Who knows…maybe I’ll even start my own radio show. I’m certainly popular enough, and I have very profound things to say. And I’m really smrt. (Note: I spelled “smart” wrong on purpose. Unlike that Alanis Morrissette song, doing so made the statement ironic. I had to “note” this because, if I hadn’t, certain somebodies would be embarrassed that they
married know me).
As you’ve probably figured out by now, I am a member of the group that does not support our current commander-in-chief. I’m a member of this group for a lot of reasons. The most recent reason has to do with his stance on, well, killing Americans. Here’s the framework that the prez will work through before deciding to kill you, courtesy of Attorney General Eric Holder:
Mr Holder said there were circumstances under which ‘an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a US citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful.’
Such circumstances included that a thorough review had determined the individual posed ‘an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States’ and that ‘capture is not feasible.’
Thirdly, the ‘operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles,’ Mr Holder told the audience at the Northwestern University School of Law.
Some have called such operations ‘assassinations.’ They are not… assassinations are unlawful killings,’ Mr Holder said.
Look, I’m down with killing terrorists. But the foregoing is asinine. First, there is so much ambiguity built into the foregoing analysis that it might have been written by one of my kids. What does “imminent threat of violent attack” or “capture not feasible” mean? Who decides? The President decides, that’s who. All by himself.
Keep in mind, this framework was made up by the government that just did the killing. It hasn’t come from courts, legislatures, or the Constitution. The Obama Administration simply made it up to support the killing of an American citizen. That should concern you. Why? Well, because there’s nothing in the framework that keeps the government from arbitrarily bombing you; at home or abroad.
I know, I know…I can hear you now. “But Holder’s comments above were only related to terrorists in ‘foreign countries.’ San Francisco may be full of crazy people, but it’s still America.” Well, here’s Holder again:
‘Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefield in Afghanistan… We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country,’ he added.
In other words, the battlefield exists everywhere. Maybe even outside of an abortion clinic. Of course, all of this stems from our government shooting a missile at Anwar al-Awaki, while he was presumably stroking his ample beard in Yemen. Anwar was a U.S. citizen at the time. Our government could have gone through the simple process of renouncing his citizenship or indicting him, but they didn’t. Instead, they simply decided he was a terrorist and blew him up. Again, this should concern you.
The Constitution guarantees due process. What is due process? It’s basically the government accusing you of something, while giving you the presumption of innocence and the opportunity to defend yourself in open court. Why do we have due process? Because the country we ran away from, England, had a habit of arresting people on rumor and imprisoning/executing them without fair trials. According to the Obama Administration, however, due process doesn’t mean, er, due process:
As Holder put it, ‘Due process’ and ‘judicial process’ are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security.’
When it comes to U.S. citizens, due process and judicial process are one and the same. The Administration’s position on this is astonishing, and it makes any past criticism of water-boarding and Iraq by the Dems border on lunacy. Here, you have the Attorney General, a guy appointed by the President, abolishing the Constitutional requirement of due process, not to mention mountains of laws and decades of Supreme Court case law, all by himself. There’s been no vote; no legislative process. Just one man’s ideas.
I’m not one of those people who likes calling the president a Nazi. It’s generally inaccurate and otherwise dilutes the point I’m trying to make. That being said, unilaterally changing laws to centralize more power in one person has been practiced by totalitarian dictators throughout history. Stalin murdered millions of his own people, simply because they disagreed with him. So did Hitler. And Pol Pot. The list goes on and on, and they all justified it by calling the exterminated “enemies of the state.”
Am I being extreme? Maybe. After all, the only reason you, the reader, probably hasn’t heard about Holder’s statements is because no one really thinks it could happen here. And maybe they’re right. Of course, once it begins happening, it’ll already be too late.