Forget the smarmy political desperation of it.
Forget the Third World despotic nature of it.
Forget even the cynical, Machiavellian deceitfulness of it.
Let’s just consider how President Obama threatens to slash to ribbons the very fabric of the world’s greatest free republic by unilaterally thwarting Congress to grant amnesty to untold numbers of illegal aliens who illegally crossed our borders and are presently residing here now. Illegally.
Will it be a million? Four million? Will Fuehrer Obama grant amnesty to 7 million illegals?
Remember, the very people now demanding amnesty be granted are the same ones who just a few years ago accused “right-wing racist xenophobes” of drastically inflating the number of illegals residing in the U.S. Maybe a million at most, they said. Today, all sides seem agree that the number is more like 12 million — exactly what the right-wing racist xenophobes were saying.
And now the world-without-borders crowd want at least seven million of them legalized.
Why would President Obama do such a thing?
It is simple. When people like him suffer crushing election losses, it is never because he is wrong, that his policies are terrible, or that nobody trusts him anymore. It is because there is something terribly wrong with the people who voted. That is why Mr. Obama actually declared after the election that he would dismiss the voices of this year’s election voters in favor of the message he heard from all those people who didn’t vote. He really did actually say that.
Literally, Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-il or Vladimir Putin could not pull this off. They at least win elections by — at most — 99.7 percent. Of course that 0.3 percent might get rounded up and thrown into work camps and gulags. But at least those leaders have the decency to make it appear that elections matter.
Not this cat. He suffered a brutal drubbing at the polls. So what is the first thing he does in response? Set out to dramatically change the electorate.
The reason President Obama and his handmaidens of despotism cannot say how many illegals they are going to legalize is because they haven’t yet figured out how many they need. Literally, they need to add up exactly how many illegals they need in Texas to shut those loud and rowdy Texans up once and for all.
And Florida — how many do they need to get that Election Night nail-biter solidly into the Democrat column?
And what about Ohio? If the Democrats could just shut down all that plain, middle-America, common-sense spewing from all those bowling alleys and karaoke bars, then they could have a fairly iron grip on this country for a long, long time.
Constitutional scholars and historians will argue for years over whether there was ever a more brazen, dishonest, tyrannical abuse of power by a sitting president to hijack the American electoral process and openly thwart the will of the American people.
But don’t just take their word for it. After all, they might be some more of those right-wing racist xenophobes.
Take this, for example, from a vaunted and widely revered constitutional scholar from Harvard, one whom the president holds in the very highest regard. Higher regard, really, than anyone in his Cabinet or anywhere else.
“There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. And often this argument is framed in moral terms: Why should we punish people who are just trying to earn a living?
“I recognize the sense of compassion that drives this argument, but I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally.
“Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.”
That is from a speech the great scholar delivered in June 2010. In an interview last year, he said that any such executive action granting amnesty to illegals would be “violating our laws” and “very difficult to defend legally.”
The great constitutional scholar issuing these dire warnings was none other than President Obama himself. But that was before he began hearing voices of people who did not vote.
Charles Hurt can be reached at email@example.com, and on Twitter at @charleshurt.