A left-leaning newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor, has noticed that Mr. Obama might be an imperial president, but don’t get too excited, they barely noticed and they certainly see how it might be acceptable. If it wasn’t for liberal professor Jonathan Turley, we would only hear how annoying or dangerous the Tea Party is on the issue or how whiney Republicans can be.
The Christian Science Monitor (CSM) has noticed that Mr. Obama might be an imperial president. They said, however, that for some, he hasn’t gone far enough, and the “some” included Ju Hong who was an obvious plant at an Obama speech last year. Hong, an illegal immigrant, yelled out demanding deportation be stopped, giving Mr. Obama time for a soundbite proclaiming his need to follow the rule of law, something he has been quite lax on.
The CSM refers to Bush’s overuse of Executive Actions in the piece, but the fact is that Bush couldn’t hold a candle to Obama.
They also state that Obama has been reluctant to use executive power, which would be laughable if it weren’t such a serious matter.
The Imperial President and how little it means to the Christian Science Monitor
The entire article was meant to appear as if they were balanced and putting the controversy in perspective but it had more the effect of greatly minimizing what an imperial presidency is in fact, an imperial presidency that is about to get a whole lot worse thanks to the leftists from The Soros’ Center for American Progress.
John Podesta, President of the Center, is coming in to help Obama push through his entire agenda with executive actions, particularly those extreme mandates Obama wants on Climate Change.
Republicans cozying up to Dr. Evil isn’t helpful. John McCain is seen here kvetching with George Soros at the World Economic Summit this week. Soros should be deported but instead he is given a seat at the table.
However, CSM does make statements that lend some credibility to the article:
The president (or his administration) has unilaterally changed elements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA); declared an anti-gay-rights law unconstitutional; lifted the threat of deportation for an entire class of undocumented immigrants; bypassed Senate confirmation of controversial nominees; waived compliance requirements in education law; and altered the work requirements under welfare reform. This month, the Obama administration took the highly unusual step of announcing that it will recognize gay marriages performed in Utah – even though Utah itself says it will not recognize them while the issue is pending in court.
To critics, Obama is the ultimate “imperial president,” willfully violating the Constitution to further his goals, having failed to convince Congress of the merits of his arguments. To others, he is exercising legitimate executive authority in the face of an intransigent Congress and in keeping with the practices of past presidents.
On the eve of Obama’s fifth State of the Union message, on Jan. 28, the president faces a steep challenge. His job approval has plummeted to the low 40s, following the disastrous rollout of his health-care reform and public outrage over massive data collection by the National Security Agency. Unemployment is falling steadily but remains high, at 6.7 percent.
“I think [White House officials] were naturally preoccupied with legislating at first, and I think it took them a while to make the turn to execution. They are focused on that now,” Podesta told Politico last year before agreeing to join the White House staff. “They have to realize that the president has broad authority, that he’s not just the prime minister. He can drive a whole range of action. They always grasped that on foreign policy and in the national security area. Now they are doing it on the domestic side.”
Mr. Podesta could hardly be much more left-wing.
CSM quotes liberals in the article, but to their credit, they quote a liberal who disagrees with Mr. Obama’s actions:
“It’s really the character of the actions, and their subject,” says Jonathan Turley, a constitutional scholar at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. “In my view, Obama has surpassed George W. Bush in the level of circumvention of Congress and the assertion of excessive presidential power. I don’t think it’s a close question.”
They cite several controversial uses of executive power:
Obamacare. Last July, when the president delayed the mandate for large employers to provide health coverage for their employees by a year, his critics cried foul.
“Obama’s not interpreting the law; he’s changing the law,” says Mr. Turley. “He’s changing deadlines that were the subject of intense legislative debate
Last August, the Office of Personnel Management issued a rule allowing Hill employees to keep their federal subsidy for health insurance. The plans offered through the exchanges qualified as “health benefit plans” for the purposes of the subsidy, OPM said.
Gay marriage. Another bracing move by the Obama administration came in 2011, when the Department of Justice announced it would no longer defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that banned federal recognition of same-sex marriages. The Supreme Court went on to strike down part of the law last June, but that does not lessen the highly unusual nature of an administration declaring on its own that a law was unconstitutional, before the court had ruled.
Recess appointments. In yet another aggressive use of executive action – bypassing the Senate in making recess appointments to key executive branch positions when the Senate is technically still in session – Obama may be on the verge of getting slapped down by the Supreme Court. On Jan. 13, the high court heard arguments over Obama’s three controversial recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012.
Looking over Obama’s broad use of executive action, Turley of George Washington University doesn’t mince words.
“President Obama meets every definition of an imperial presidency,” says Turley, who notes that he voted for Obama. “He is the president that Richard Nixon always wanted to be.”
CSM mentions the polling as something that might dampen Obama’s enthusiasm for executive action:
In a Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll taken Jan. 4-7, Americans said they did not favor a president taking executive action when Congress is gridlocked. In general, 41 percent of Americans approved of executive action in such cases, with 55 percent disapproving.
On expanding gay rights, 43 percent approved of the president acting on his own, while 53 percent disapproved. On the question of shielding new categories of undocumented immigrants from deportation, 33 percent approved of presidential action, and 63 percent disapproved. On raising the minimum wage for federal contractors, 38 percent wanted Obama to act, and 58 percent didn’t.
The CSM appears to minimize the president’s overreaches and leaves out many examples of his abuse of power through the IRS, EPA and other government agencies, however, they did notice he might be engaged in an over-expansion of executive powers, but there will be no condemnation coming from them. They’re Obama apologists and sympathizers.
We have a media that is complacent at best and complicit at worst. When Andrew Cuomo recently went on a rant against conservatives, calling them all “extremists” and suggesting they leave the state, there was hardly a whimper from most of the mainstream media. In fact, CNN, where Andrew Cuomo’s brother Chris works as an anchor, there was not a mention of it.
The media doesn’t have our backs because they are fighting for the Obama ideology. They might as well be state-sponsored.
This CSM article is probably as good as we’ll get. Obama could disband Congress and they’d say it might have been an overreach.