Monday, September 17, 2012

The Rule of Obama

Historically the American ideal has been that all men should be equal before the law.  While America hasn’t always achieved that it’s part of American DNA as evidenced by the anger that people have when it’s perceived that a rich or famous person gets preferential treatment in court.

We’ve known for a long time that Obama holds a different view of how the law is to be applied.

Among the first examples of Obama’s belief that not all men are created equal was in 2011 when roughly 1200 entities, representing 3% of Americans, received exemptions from certain aspects of ObamaCare.  Outside of the MSM significant concern was raised about the fact that those entities seemed to disproportionately consist of friends of Obama.

For example the AARP that lobbied heavily for ObamaCare was given an exemption from government oversight on the rates it charges for its lucrative “Medigap” coverage.

At the time it seemed that perhaps the Chicago rule of who you are not the law was coming into play.  The law being merely a guideline that could be modified by politicians to benefit the good--ie those who contributed--people and punish the bad--those who voted for your opponent--people.  That of course is a classical example of the corruption that most Americans associate with the Third World.

Another example of the Rule of Obama is his decision to not defend, in direct contravention of his Oath of Office, the Defense of Marriage Act, a law fully supported by Bill Clinton and the Democrats when it was passed. 

Under the Rule of Law Obama would have had to defend the law until it was either modified or repealed by Congress or the Supreme Court determined that the law was unconstitutional.  But under the Rule of Obama the President has the power to decide what laws are to be enforced and who those laws will be enforced on.

Just recently there have been two other major examples of Obama’s “nuanced” view of the law.

In early August the Obama administration told defense contractors to ignore the WARN Act, a law which requires large companies to give a 60 day warning when they are planning to lay off a large number of workers--note that Solyndra too did not provide warning to its workers.

The supposed Obama rationale was that sequestration was not foreseeable even though it is written in the law.

Defense contractors are clearly leery about this guidance from their prime customer.  They can either break the law, and suffer consequences as Solyndra has discovered--Solyndra was just ordered to pay those laid off back pay-- or they can risk alienating their only customer.

The real motivation behind the Obama administrations guidance is of course that the warning notices that the defense contractors need to send to employee’s whose jobs are at risk because Obama insists that everyone making more than $250,000 a year should pay more taxes would go out mere days before the election.  To avoid this potentially negative impact on Obama the Rule of Obama gives Obama the authority to unilaterally modify any laws which may hurt him.

Just today another example of the Rule of Obama came out.  It turns out that in the sort of ironic parody only liberals can produce the IRS has said it will not enforce the ObamaCare “tax”. 

In response to Obama’s declaration that if he is reelected he will figure out how to work around Congress conservative pundits gave an example of Romney, if elected, “working around Congress” by enacting tax cuts by ordering the IRS to not enforce the tax codes as an example of why the Rule of Obama was not a good idea. 

Today we learn that Obama apparently listens to conservatives but is apparently sarcasm challenged since he himself has just unilaterally enacted a “tax cut” for people, at least until after the election, by having the IRS not enforce the ObamaCare tax law.

The Rule of Obama appears to be that what benefits Obama, and to some extent fellow Democrats, is legal and what hinders them is not.

If Obama is reelected we can expect to see the further Chicagoization of America as who you know becomes more important than what the law says and the law ceases being a set of rules but becomes merely guidelines that the President can modify as he sees fit.

It appears that Obama is truly aiming at the first “Imperial” American presidency.

No comments: