Thursday, September 15, 2011

Obama Admits to NOT Enforcing the Laws and The Press Says Nothing

As I am going through my normal reading patterns, I stumbled upon this article in the Washington Examiner (HERE).

In it, Obama talks about how he wants to work around Congress until he can get his lapdog Nancy Pelosi back in charge.  Work around Congress.  If George Bush or any Republican said that the MSM would be screaming from rooftops about dictatorship.  Trolling through the cable news channels, I have yet to hear anyone mention this.  Drudge has it up on his website, but that is about it.

On top of that, Obama all but admits that he is not enforcing the laws on the books as his way of circumventing immagration law.  Once again, the main street media is not saying anyting about this.  Obama is all but bragging that he is choosing to not enforce the laws and not a peep.

Of course, Obama makes remarks to say that while he tempted to do his own thing, that is not how our rule of law works. 

So in one side we have Obama saying he cannot override the rule of law, but on the other side he is saying I can do what I want by deciding how and when I am going to enforce the laws.   Bush was called a dictator for his actions in Iraq even after receiving Congressional approval.

The corruption and arrogance of this administration is appaling.  They will go after Gibson Guitars for what they see is illegal purchase of wood (story found HERE) but they will not legally deport illegal aliens.  What's worse is in this example, Obama's admin would rather shut down a company based upon their interpretation of a foreign law rather than enforce the laws that are on the books.

This is what we get when we elect a community organizer for President of the United States.  A community organizer that said in 2001..
"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."
While Obama is speaking in the context of the civil rights movement, he is talking about redistribution of wealth and the government being granted rights.  This is a man who does not understand the Founding Fathers' concepts of individual freedoms.  This is why he believes that it is ok to not enforce the laws on the books and instead shutdown companies that may not be doing anything illegal.

If this does not explain why we need a change in 2012, nothing will.

No comments: