President Obama’s move to provide not only ipso facto amnesty to the children of illegal immigrants but work permits as well, signals that he has come to grips with the notion that he very well may not achieve re-election. It also signals that for the remainder of his tenure he will be pushing through as many Progressive and, essentially, ideological agenda items as he can. With hyper-partisans Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer in control of the Senate, the damage could be significant.
No one should be surprised that Mr. Obama acted – on a political level – to satisfy his 2008 campaign promise to do something in support of immigration reform. But his move to provide legal worker status to what some estimate to be 800,000 people is a provocative move, especially when the U-6 unemployment rate stands at 14.8 percent among legal US citizens. Further, with a solid 2-to-1 advantage among the Hispanic voter demographic, there really is no political advantage to the move sans, currying favor with politically Progressive big money donors.
There is also the very real possibility that this move will anger many naturalized American-Hispanics who came to the country through the legally established process, not to mention those of the same demographic who are currently unemployed or under-employed. Mr. Obama didn’t ingratiate himself to the socially Conservative American-Hispanic community with his embrace of gay marriage and his confrontation with the Catholic Church over the issue of religious freedom. So, there is a very real possibility that this is an attempt at damage control or at least minimizing the damage done to this voter demographic where his re-election is concerned.
The bigger side-effect of Mr. Obama’s decision to provide ipso facto amnesty and legal worker status will play out in the undecided and independent voter demographic, and especially the sub-group of voters that are unemployed or under-employed. Mr. Obama’s announcement laid heavily on emotions and “doing what is right”; social justice, and exhibited little regard for those who already possess citizenship and who are suffering the economy brought upon in large part by Mr. Obama’s economic policies. The bottom line here is that an infusion of 800,000 people into a workforce demographic that is experiencing not only a U-6 unemployment rate of 14.8 percent, but a downsizing of the actual number of jobs available, is a move that heaps more pain and uncertainty onto the unemployed and the economy.
Understanding all of this it is hard to say that Mr. Obama is exhibiting compassion for those in the Middle and Lower-Middle Classes who are desperately seeking employment while struggling to make ends meet (read: pay their mortgages, their household bills, buy food and clothing, the essentials). But those who have identified Mr. Obama and his crew as hardcore Progressive ideologues realize he is fulfilling his campaign promise of “change.” And this is why it is so incredibly important for the politically unengaged to take a crash course in Progressivism so that they can be educated about what drives Mr. Obama and his ilk, if in just a cursory manner.
In an email, an acquaintance of mine wrote,
“The Germans didn’t read ‘Mein Kampf,’ before they got behind Adolf Hitler and, therefore couldn’t understand the incredible horrors that befell them for their lack of understanding about what he was and what motivated him. Today, the American Democrats, Independents and undecideds failed to read ‘Dreams From My Father,’ and the very same thing is happening, albeit not in such a violent and bloody way...yet.”
For the record, neither I, nor my friend, are equating Barack Obama to Hitler, so all you MediaMatters.org-type imbeciles can stand down. What he was saying, and I agree, is that the “Hope and Change’ crowd was so enamored with the idea of electing the first Black President of the United States – and because this generation has been brought up to believe that they know everything, regardless of whether they do or not – they elected someone they didn’t know or understand, and did so unencumbered by any factual examination provided by the mainstream media.
Mr. Obama, all who surrounded him through his youth and all who surround him now, are dyed-in-the-wool and radical Progressives with a very different vision for the United States of America than that of our Founders and Framers. Pepper in a bit of Black Liberation Theology and Liberal self-loathing and you have a lethal potion suitable for snuffing out American exceptionalism.
Progressives like Mr. Obama are not satisfied that our Charters of Freedom, when protected and advanced as our Framers intended (safeguarding opportunity for all, making sure liberty and freedom are guarded and that the rights of the individual are secured so as to balance with the general welfare) work properly. They believe that the Constitution is a living thing that morphs with any particular historical situation; any societal crisis, and that a government run by “wise men”; by an elite class – under the guise of providing for the “general welfare” – should take an ever increasing role in “engineering” a “more perfect union.”
I strongly urge each and every one of you to read the several articles at DiscoverTheNetworks.org on Progressivism. And then I urge you to print it all out and pass it on to everyone you know, especially those who are unengaged in the political issues. What you learn will sound like a terrorizing 1984 story plot, but it is reality and one that we are living now...right now.
But back to Mr. Obama and his possible realization that he will fall short of achieving another term as President of the United States...
Because Progressives see themselves as not only more intelligent than the average American, but mandated, by virtue of this perceived superiority, I guarantee you that you will see Mr. Obama and his crew moving on several controversial measures; measures that are detrimental to the United States, to the Constitution and to sovereignty.
Should Mr. Obama find his back to the wall and inevitable defeat at his political door, he will advance more “executive” moves like the ipso facto amnesty we saw on June 15th, 2012. We will see him advance:
▪ The Law of the Sea Treaty: As put succinctly by Julie Borowski, “Under this treaty, the UN would have control over 71 percent of the Earth’s surface. This would be a huge step towards global governance...President Ronald Reagan rejected LOST back in 1982, stating it would grant the UN the power to tax US companies and redistribute wealth from developed to undeveloped nations. For the first time in history, the UN would have the authority to collect taxes from US citizens. The thought of global taxation should send goose bumps down the spine of every American.”
▪ The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: As pointed out by Jackie Ammons, of Global Governance Watch, “The oversight responsibilities [of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child] fall to the United Nations as a whole, not necessarily to the individual countries that ratified the CRC. In an ideal situation, a country’s courts would use the CRC as guidance in its own rulings. But the CRC mandates more than guidance. If the United States ratified the CRC, it would give UN international courts the power to bypass US local, state, and federal courts and even the Supreme Court. Giving up the power of self-governance for the sake of an unclear and sometimes contradictory document is by no means a good decision for the US, for ratifying the CRC could make the US a target of UN sanctions.”
▪ Acquiescence to the International Criminal Court: Marion Smith of The Heritage Foundation rightfully points out, “The most significant objection to the ICC...is one of principle. The spirit and the text of the Rome Statute, the ICC's founding treaty, foster an ever-reaching, ever-presumptuous global court. There's little respect for the local rule of law - even though that's historically where justice is usually realized, when self-governing people constitute a legitimate, accountable government and judicial system. Although Americans support justice, the United States shouldn't support the ICC because of the grave risk to American self-government.”
Each of these engagements, opposed by past Presidents and rightfully stalled by the Legislative Branch in the past, would be pursued by the Obama Administration and more likely to receive senatorial approval, given the fact that the Senate is lorded over by Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, two of the most hyper-partisan political miscreants ever to be admitted to Congress, and for the fact that the Senate has a Democrat majority held hostage by Progressives.
Dr. Thomas Sowell, the Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University,recently wrote:
“What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people -- like themselves -- need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.
“The left’s vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, ‘We the People...’
“That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution’s limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges’ new interpretations, based on notions of ‘a living Constitution’ that will take decisions out of the hands of ‘We the People,’ and transfer those decisions to our betters.”
If you are starting to recognize the arrogance of Progressivism in The Audacity of Hope, then you are paying attention, or starting to anyway. A tip-in would be to watch how incredibly irritated Mr. Obama’s became in his interaction with The Daily Caller’s Neil Munro after Mr. Munro, perhaps over-exuberantly, engaged Mr. Obama in the announcement of his ipso facto amnesty policy, and especially how he declares – unilaterally – that it is “the right thing to do.”
In February of 2009, Pres. Obama said:
“If I don’t have this done in three years...then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”
If you’re paying attention – and by our obligation to protect the Charters of Freedom per our very existence we damn well should be – then you can see why he wouldn’t be so heartbroken over the notion of being a one-term president. Bottom line, he has done more to advance the Progressive Movement into government and the Progressive ideology into the mainstream, than any Progressive before him. Quite frankly, I wouldn’t be too surprised if at his concession speech a banner hung behind his podium, complete with hammer and sickle, that said, “Mission Accomplished...Comrade.”