Ruling By Decree

Obama’s Rule by Decree

Barack Obama has never been clear on the distinction between sovereign and servant, between the American people and those, including himself, elected to do the people’s business. We saw that yet again this week with the president’s unilateral rewrite of the Bataan Death March known as the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare. For this president, laws are not binding expressions of the popular will, but trifling recommendations to be ignored when expedient.

The collapse of law — not just Obamacare but law in general — is the Obama administration’s most egregious scandal. With the IRS here, Benghazi there, and Eric Holder’s institutionalized malevolence crowding the middle, it gets little direct attention. Perhaps it is so ubiquitous, so quotidian, that we’ve become inured to it.

Above all else, though, the office of the president was created to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. For this president, to the contrary, law is non-existent — and not merely law in the traditional sense of our aspiration to be “a nation of laws, not men.” Obama has contorted the law into a weapon against our constitutional order of divided powers and equal protection for every American.

As with most things Obama, this Olympian outrage springs from a kernel of propriety. We want our laws enforced, particularly when they reflect basic obligations of government in a free, civil society. Nevertheless, we know that the resources of government are finite, that laws are numerous and elastic, and that a federalist system implies a significant enforcement role for states. Thus, our legal system is premised on executive discretion. Not every law can or should be enforced to its fullest extent — nobody would want to live in that sort of society. To execute the laws faithfully is to remain mindful of the federal government’s essential but finite role in our framework and to concentrate its limited resources on enforcement of the most vital laws.

As a practical matter, this necessitates selectivity — some laws will go unenforced, some wrongs unaddressed. With a president who acts in good faith, this is not a problem. For example, simple possession of prohibited narcotics is a federal crime. But it is also a state crime. Given the need to prioritize, it is sensible for the feds to focus their efforts on what the federal government was designed for — international and interstate challenges that the states are not well equipped to address. So the Justice Department targets major drug-importation and distribution networks, leaving less serious drug infractions to the local district attorneys. Notice: This does not mean the executive branch is effectively decriminalizing less serious drug offenses in contravention of Congress’s statutes. It means the public’s federal buck goes to where it gets the best bang.

The separation-of-powers principle also has implications for executive discretion. To promote liberty, the Framers constructed a central government of divided authorities in which each branch was given tools to check inevitable encroachments by the others. Congress has an irresistible propensity to enact laws that usurp the powers of the executive and the states, and that erode the rights of the people. But Congress can only write the laws. It must depend on the president to execute them.

A president who believes in good faith that a congressional act is constitutionally invalid may properly decline to enforce it — in fact, he would in good conscience be bound to decline — at least until the Supreme Court has ruled on its validity. Faithfully executing the laws has never mandated that a president enforce unconstitutional statutes.

But note that this is a matter of legal legitimacy, not policy preference. Faithful execution, abiding by the president’s oath of office, means enforcing even those laws a president disagrees with on policy grounds if the laws are plainly constitutional. The Constitution gives Congress a wide berth to enact unwise laws, to say nothing of perfectly sensible laws that are uncongenial to a hard-left ideologue. There is nothing wrong with a president’s working to change those laws; in the meantime, though, he breaks his solemn pledge by failing to enforce them.

Bona fide concerns over resource allocation and constitutionality are narrow exceptions to the general rule that obliges presidents to execute the laws. In Obama’s hands, however, executive discretion has become an affirmative license for lawbreakers. Worse, it has seamlessly devolved into an invitation — an inducement — to official malfeasance. Again, only the executive branch can enforce the law. When executive-branch officials know that illegal actions on their part will not be pursued, they are encouraged to commit them.

Thus, Obama eschews enforcement of the immigration laws not because they are comparatively trivial or adequately covered by state police — indeed, his most notable enforcement efforts are directed not at illegal aliens but at states who dare attempt to see to the law’s faithful execution. Obama’s discretionary non-enforcement is not a good-faith husbanding of federal resources, but a cynical enterprise in rewarding lawbreakers and cultivating them as a dependable political constituency. His Justice Department practices racial discrimination in the enforcement of the civil-rights laws, a grievous betrayal of the Constitution, in order to appease and empower his political base.

The faithful execution of laws is never partisan; under Obama, the execution of laws is intensely partisan. He purports to make “recess appointments” when Congress is not in recess. He skirts Congress’s constitutional war powers by pretending that attacking another country (Libya) is not making war. If his core supporters are damaged by the suffocating laws he champions — most prominently, Obamacare — he claims the power to “waive” their provisions selectively. Meanwhile, huge bureaucracies are encouraged, expressly or by nod-and-wink, to harass the president’s opponents and push forward his redistributionist, production-strangling, Islamist-empowering agenda. The executive order — formerly an intra-branch efficiency device designed to organize the exercise of the president’s constitutional powers and the enforcement of Congress’s laws — has effectively become legislation, the president substituting his edicts for our laws.

In a vibrant, pluralistic society, law as an expression of the sovereign will is unavoidably a product of compromise. In the contentious process, the competing sides bend; they settle on something that neither, given their druthers, would support; and they honorably agree to abide by the result. Under Obama, however, massive laws are enacted — such that no one can conceivably know what the law is. Then the president enforces the parts he approves of, contemptuously disregards the parts that enticed naysayers into compromising, and presumes to amend or repeal inconvenient provisions at his whim.

That is not the rule of law. It is how a dictatorship works.

This column was published at National Review. It subsequently appeared on AIM.org and Western Journalism

Video:  Defying the King 

Another Posh Vacay…The Obamas To Spend A Week At Martha's Vineyard 

After all… “Living in the White House is Often Like Living in A Prison”

Technorati Tags: Obamaland,Big Brother,Big Brother tactics,dictatorships,Ronald Reagan,speeches,you be the judge,Wild Bill,ObamaCare,Berlin Wall,freedom,EO's,Executive Orders,Immigration,Obama Vacations,White House,WH

Remembering The Berlin Wall, 50 Years On August 13th 2011

John Gaps II/AP

Visitors pass a camera through a hole in a remaining part of the Berlin Wall at the Documentation Center for Nazi Crimes in Berlin, August 13, 2011

The wall between East and West Germany was torn down after 28 years on Nov. 12, 1989

The Berlin Wall has now been torn down for nearly as long (22 years) as it stood (28 years). Yet it was such a powerful symbol of the Cold War that it still evokes a strong response today, a half-century after it was constructed in the summer of 1961.

Germans on Saturday marked the 50th anniversary of the rise of the Berlin Wall, which divided Berlin and came to define the Cold War.
The city observed a minute of silence at noon in memory of those who died trying to escape.

Berlin Mayor Klaus Wowereit told a ceremony that the construction of the wall 50 years ago must be a constant reminder to maintain freedom and democracy.

German President Christian Wulff and Chancellor Angela Merkel also attended the ceremony.

After the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945, the victorious World War II allies divided Germany into four zones of occupation.  The U.S., French and British sectors became West Germany, while the Soviet sector became communist East Germany.

On August 13, 1961, authorities in the communist East ordered all crossing points from East Berlin to West Berlin to be sealed off with barbed wire, later reinforced with concrete.  The wall divided streets and neighborhoods and tore apart families and friendships.  The wall was designed to keep residents in the east from fleeing to the West.  The 161-kilometer wall would later include 45,000 cement blocks and dozens of watchtowers.

Historians say 125 people died trying to cross the wall from communist East Berlin, but some experts have said the death toll is much much higher, it has to be!! East German border guards had orders to shoot to kill anyone they spotted trying to escape.

In June of 1987, U.S. President Ronald Reagan delivered a speech in Berlin in which he challenged then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall." 

In November 1989, East German residents brought down the wall and the government in the communist state.  East and West Germany reunited October 3, 1990.

Some information for this report was provided by AP, AFP and Reuters.  Voice of America

We thought with the fall of the USSR a few years later that we had defeated Communism.  How wrong we were.  We are now fighting it from within… just has Nikita Khrushchev had predicted!

We were fools to think the fall of the Berlin Wall had killed off the far Left. They're back - and attacking us from within

Twenty years ago today, supporters of freedom and human rights cheered and wept for joy as the Berlin Wall was torn down by jubilant young Germans.

To so many, that heady day seemed to herald the emergence of a better world. The spectre of communism had finally been laid to rest. Liberty had triumphed over tyranny.

The end of the Cold War even led some to proclaim that this was 'the end of history' - which was to say that liberal democracy was now the dominant and unchallengeable force in the world.

The collapse of communism was actually a slow-burning process. Its moral and political bankruptcy became obvious decades before that glorious Berlin day in November 1989

However, the 9/11 attacks on America tragically proved this to be absurdly over-optimistic. The eruption of radical Islamism revealed that, while the West may have been rid of one enemy in the Soviet Union, another deadly foe had risen to take its place. So much is, sadly, all too evident.

But what is perhaps less obvious is that communism did not just vanish in a puff of historical smoke. The Soviet Union was defeated and fell apart, for sure. But the communist ideology that fuelled it did not so much disintegrate as reconstitute itself into another, even more deadly form as the active enemy of western freedom.

Subversive

Soviet Communism was a belief system whose goal was to overturn the structures of society through the control of economic and political life. This mutated into a post-communist ideology of the Left, whose no-less ambitious aim was to overturn western society through a subversive transformation of its culture. It is lead by the children of the leftist of the 60’s.

To grasp the extent to which this has in fact taken place, we have to go back in time to well before the moment the Berlin Wall fell. The collapse of communism was actually a slow-burning process. Its moral and political bankruptcy became obvious decades before that glorious Berlin day in November 1989.

For many communist fellow travelers, the scales fell from their eyes when the Hungarian uprising was crushed in 1956. Others, over the years, lost faith not just in communism but in its less radical sister, socialism, as their core tenet of 'equality' proved itself in a myriad different ways to be the enemy of freedom and justice, with market forces appearing to carry the torch of liberty instead.

But as communism slowly crumbled, those on the far-Left who remained hostile towards western civilization (and capitalism) found another way to realize their goal of bringing it down.

This was what might be called 'cultural Marxism'. It was based on the understanding that what holds a society together are the pillars of its culture: the structures and institutions of education, family, law, media and religion. Transform the principles that these embody and you can thus destroy the society they have shaped.

This key insight was developed in particular by an Italian Marxist philosopher called Antonio Gramsci. His thinking was taken up by Sixties radicals - who are, of course, the generation that holds power in the West today.

Gramsci understood that the working class would never rise up to seize the levers of 'production, distribution and exchange' as communism had prophesied. Economics was not the path to revolution.

He believed instead that society could be overthrown if the values underpinning it could be turned into their antithesis: if its core principles were replaced by those of groups who were considered to be outsiders or who actively transgressed the moral codes of that society.

So he advocated a 'long march through the institutions' to capture the citadels of the culture and turn them into a collective fifth column, undermining from within and turning all the core values of society upside-down and inside-out.

This strategy has been carried out to the letter.

The nuclear family has been widely shattered. Illegitimacy was transformed from a stigma into a 'right'. The tragic disadvantage of fatherlessness was redefined as a neutrally-viewed 'lifestyle choice'.

Education was wrecked, with its core tenet of transmitting a culture to successive generations replaced by the idea that what children already knew was of superior value to anything the adult world might foist upon them.

The outcome of this 'child-centered' approach has been widespread illiteracy and ignorance and an eroded capacity for independent thought. It was the process of Purposely Dumbing Down America and especially the youth or children.

Misdeeds

Law and order were similarly undermined, with criminals deemed to be beyond punishment since they were 'victims' of society and with illegal drug-taking tacitly encouraged by a campaign to denigrate anti-drugs laws.

The 'rights' agenda - commonly known as 'political correctness' - turned morality inside out by excusing any misdeeds by self-designated 'victim' groups on the grounds that such 'victims' could never be held responsible for what they did.

Feminism, anti-racism and gay rights thus turned men, white people and Christians into the enemies of decency who were forced to jump through hoops to prove their virtue.

This Through The Looking Glass mindset rests on the belief that the world is divided into the powerful (who are responsible for all bad things) and the oppressed (who are responsible for none of them).

This is a Marxist doctrine. But the extent to which such Marxist thinking has been taken up unwittingly even by the Establishment was illustrated by the astounding observation made in 2005 by the then senior law lord, Lord Bingham, that human rights law was all about protecting 'oppressed' minorities from the majority.

None of this is to say there has been a giant, organized conspiracy to undermine Britain in this way. Admittedly, some Left-wingers did so conspire, but many others bought into these ideas for different reasons.

Of particular importance was the demoralization of the British ruling class by the loss of Empire and the indebtedness of Britain to America at the end of World War II - a profound loss of cultural nerve that made the Establishment vulnerable to any ideas, however outlandish, that promised to bring about the New Jerusalem.

These ideas gained general traction within the intelligentsia, the universities and the media - which is why the BBC is so institutionally skewed towards political correctness.

Totalitarian

However, the terrifying fact is that they form a totalitarian mindset that replicates the way communist societies clamped down on any other than permitted views. Thus the intolerance - or even arrest - of Christians opposed to gay adoption and civil union, or the vilification as 'racists' of those opposed to mass immigration (as they have tried of vilify Lou Dobbs from CNN for his arguments to secure US borders. And laws like the Hate Crimes bill that was just snuck by the American people and signed by Obama are designed with this end in mind… to be used against Christians, Jews, patriots, etc.)

This mindset also led to the belief that a sense of nationhood was the cause of all the ills in the world, precisely because western nations embodied western values. So transnational institutions or doctrines such as the EU, UN, international law or human rights law came to trump national laws and values (which is where we find ourselves now if we allow Cap and Trade to pass and Obama to sign the Copenhagen treaty or if Senator Boxer and Secy Hillary Clinton have their way and push us into the UN’s - Rights of the Child treaty taking away parental rights and giving it to the UN.)

But the truth is that to be hostile to the western nation is to be hostile to democracy. And indeed, with the development of the EU super-state we can see that the victory over one anti-democratic regime within Europe - the Soviet Union - has been followed by surrender to another.

For the republic of Euroland puts loyalty to itself higher than that to individual nations and their values. It refused to commit itself in its constitution to uphold Christianity, the foundation of western morality.

Instead, it is committed to moral and cultural relativism, which sets group against group and guarantees supreme and antidemocratic power to the bureaucrats setting the rules of 'diversity' and outlawing all dissent from permitted attitudes.

When the Berlin Wall fell, we told ourselves that this was the end of ideology. We could not have been more wrong.

The Iron Curtain came down only to be replaced by a rainbow-hued knuckle-duster, as our cultural commissars pulverize all forbidden attitudes in order to reshape western society into a post-democratic, post-Christian, post-moral universe. Lenin would have smiled.

by Melanie Phillips – MailOnline

Related:

Political Correctness – Revenge of Marxism - “Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job. Multiculturalism is not about tolerance or diversity, it is an anti-Western hate ideology designed to dismantle Western civilization. If we can demonstrate this, an important part of the battle has already been won. The battle is being won through various subtle types of brainwashing and invading through population growth and re-settlement.

-------------

Obama Snubs Berlin Wall Ceremonies

President Barack Obama's decision to spurn German President Angela Merkel's invitation to attend ceremonies commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago is "the most telling nonevent of his presidency."

That's the view of National Review Editor Rich Lowry, who notes that Obama has visited more foreign countries than any other president during his first year in office, yet has begged off going to Berlin to celebrate the Nov. 9 anniversary because of a crowded schedule.

"It's hard to imagine any other American president eschewing the occasion," Lowry writes.

"Wouldn't Obama at least want to take the occasion to celebrate freedom and human rights — those most cherished liberal values? Not necessarily. He has mostly jettisoned them as foreign-policy goals in favor of a misbegotten realism that soft-pedals the crimes of nasty regimes around the world.

"During the Cold War, we undermined our enemies by shining a bright light on their repression," Lowry writes. "In Berlin, JFK called out the Communists on their 'offense against humanity.' Obama would utter such a phrase only with the greatest trepidation, lest it undermine a future opportunity for dialogue."

The Berlin Wall came down because the free world, led by America, stood resolute against communist tyranny. But for Obama, "we are less an exceptional power than one among many, seeking deals with our peers in Beijing and Moscow," Lowry observes.

"Why would Obama want to celebrate the refuseniks of the Eastern Bloc when he won't even meet with the Dalai Lama in advance of his trip to China?"

Many would say, “Of course our Marxist leaning president would not want to go to a celebration of the event that marks the fall of Communism in Europe and then the USSR. Perhaps he’d rather be putting it back? He is surrounded by Marxists and Socialists… and calls them his friends. It was he himself who said if we want to know him, judge him by his friends. Well…”

Source: NewsMax