Parade politics

We went to the 4th of July parade here in our small northern Virginia town.  I love the way such institutions usually include politicians marching down the parade route, waving and smiling to voters no matter how hot it gets.  It is a sign of American liberties that we don’t have to kiss up to our rulers–our rulers have to kiss up to us!

Anyway, Virginia is one of those battleground states, a toss-up that will help determine who wins the presidential election.  There are many polls, which are inconclusive.  I will offer political observers a bit of evidence from the parade.  When the Democratic Party contingent came by with their cool cars, pro-Obama signs, and supporters handing out Obama tracts, NO ONE CLAPPED.  The crowd was pretty boisterous otherwise, with everybody applauding each float and firetruck and antique car.  But when the Obama people marched by, an ominous silence accompanied them up and down the parade route.  I felt embarrassed for them.  I at least waved.

Now when the corresponding group of Republicans with their pro-Romney signs marched by, there was some applause, though it seemed notably unenthusiastic.

My impression is that, based on the parade sampling, Virginia voters a aren’t wild about Romney, but they like him better than Obama.

We’ll see how that stands up on election day.

Presidential lawlessness

Charles Krauthhammer on how President Obama is acting lawlessly, doing something that he himself earlier said would be unconstitutional:

In late 2010, he asked Congress to pass the Dream Act, which offered a path to citizenship for hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants. Congress refused.

When subsequently pressed by Hispanic groups to simply implement the law by executive action, Obama explained that it would be illegal. “Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. . . . But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

That was then. Now he’s gone and done it anyway. It’s obvious why. The election approaches and his margin is slipping. He needs a big Hispanic vote and this is the perfect pander. After all, who will call him on it? A supine press? Congressional Democrats? Nothing like an upcoming election to temper their Bush 43-era zeal for defending Congress’s exclusive Article I power to legislate.

With a single Homeland Security Department memo, the immigration laws no longer apply to 800,000 people. . . .

Imagine: A Republican president submits to Congress a bill abolishing the capital gains tax. Congress rejects it. The president then orders the IRS to stop collecting capital gains taxes and declares that anyone refusing to pay them will suffer no fine, no penalty, no sanction whatsoever. (Analogy first suggested by law professor John Yoo.)

It would be a scandal, a constitutional crisis, a cause for impeachment. Why? Because unlike, for example, war powers, this is not an area of perpetual executive-legislative territorial contention. Nor is cap gains, like the judicial status of unlawful enemy combatants, an area where the law is silent or ambiguous. Capital gains is straightforward tax law. Just as Obama’s bombshell amnesty-by-fiat is a subversion of straightforward immigration law.

It is shameful that congressional Democrats are applauding such a brazen end run. Of course it’s smart politics. It divides Republicans, rallies the Hispanic vote and preempts Marco Rubio’s attempt to hammer out an acceptable legislative compromise. Very clever. But, by Obama’s own admission, it is naked lawlessness.

via Charles Krauthammer: Obama’s amnesty-by-fiat — naked lawlessness – The Washington Post.

Amnesty and the economy

From Victor Davis Hanson:

Economically, why would we formalize nearly a million new legally authorized workers when unemployment is approaching its 41st consecutive month over 8 percent — especially when Democrats used to label 5.4 percent unemployment as a “jobless recovery”? Here in California, the slowing of illegal immigration, due mostly to the fence and tough times, has led to steep wage hikes for entry-level and farm labor, and given a little more clout to Americans in so-called unskilled-labor fields. In other words, it really is true that the real beneficiaries of border enforcement are low-paid Hispanic-Americans and African-Americans who become more valued when they are not competing with virtually unlimited numbers of illegal-alien workers.

via Are We in Revolutionary Times? – By Victor Davis Hanson – The Corner – National Review Online.

Obama as the new Nixon?

The president as above the law.  From Victor Davis Hanson discussing the de facto amnesty for illegal immigrants:

Legally, President Obama has reiterated the principle that he can pick and choose which U.S. laws he wishes to enforce (see his decision to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, his decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and his administration’s contempt for national-security confidentiality and Senate and House subpoenas to the attorney general). If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do? Obama is turning out to be the most subversive chief executive in terms of eroding U.S. law since Richard Nixon.

via Are We in Revolutionary Times? – By Victor Davis Hanson – The Corner – National Review Online.

For another comparison of our current president to Nixon, see this.

Obama decrees amnesty for young illegals

President Obama, not by Congressional lawmaking but by executive order, announced that illegal aliens whose parents brought them here would no longer face deportation:

The Obama administration announced Friday it will stop deporting illegal immigrants who come to the country at a young age. . . .

The change in policy could allow as many as 800,000 immigrants who came to the United States illegally not only to remain in the country without fear of being deported, but to work legally, according to a senior administration official speaking to reporters Friday. . . .

The new policy will not grant citizenship to children who came to the United States as illegal immigrants, but will remove the threat of deportation and grant them the right to work in the United States.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the policy change will apply to those who came to the United States before they were 16 and who are younger than 30 if they have lived here for five years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or served in the military.

via Obama makes election-year change in deportation policy – TheHill.com.

What do you think about that?  What do you think about the way it was done?

Obama: “The private sector is doing fine”

President Obama said something that will be a much-replayed sound-bite in the presidential race:

Laying out his economic argument at a morning news conference, Obama said that cutbacks in state and local government spending have slowed the nation’s recovery and that Congress has “no excuse” for not supporting his jobs bill that would provide funding to retain public workers.

“The private sector,” the president added as a point of comparison, “is doing fine.”

The remark struck a discordant political note in the current economic climate, and Republican adversaries pounced on the assertion to lampoon him for being out of touch. And at least politically, Obama played directly into the GOP argument that he does not understand the depths of the economic crisis and that he is too dependent on government to solve the economy’s problems.

via Obama blames Congress for inaction on jobs while Romney calls president ‘out of touch’ – The Washington Post.

Unlike Republican operatives, I refuse to pounce on the remark and am willing to accept it as  careless speech.  But what concerns me about it is the assumption behind the remark and the ideology it demonstrates.  What the president wants is to increase PUBLIC SECTOR jobs.  What he thinks is wrong with the economy is that there aren’t enough GOVERNMENT workers.  Obama’s job plan is to hire more teachers, policemen, and firemen, which may be well and good but they are all government employees.  This orientation helps account for the Democrats’ uprising in Wisconsin when public sector unions were challenged.  (I don’t remember such an uproar when the autoworkers’ union in Racine had its plant shut down.)  The underlying issue, again, is how big government should be.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X