Democrats Selectively Invoke the “Rule of Law”
April 28, 2014
Last week, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy drew a line in the sand against the federal thugs from the Bureau of Land Management, who rustled his cattle and brought in professional snipers in an effort to bully him into subjugation to their regulations and grazing fees. But the moment word of his plight spread throughout the nation, supporters began streaming into Nevada, grimly resolved to stand against such an iron-fisted effort to coerce Bundy (and by default, the rest of America) into total submission.
In the end, it was the BLM that backed down, withdrawing its forces and returning Bundy’s cattle. Clearly, Barack Obama has every intention of expanding the scope and power of government and running roughshod over any citizen who might hold to those quaint notions of individual liberty and justice. However, the current unpopularity of his Administration would make it extremely costly from a political perspective to attempt to make a Tiananmen Square styled example out of those bothersome little people out in flyover country who believe they have unalienable rights.
Not surprisingly, the BLM and federal law enforcement officials have not abandoned the Bundy situation, but are taking time to regroup and determine their next move. With sentiments of rebellion among Americans on Main Street simmering and intensifying, the possibility of future standoffs continues to grow. Currently, a similar impasse is brewing along the Texas/Oklahoma border. But for the radical makeover of America envisioned by Obama and his fellow leftist utopians to ensue, universal compliance is absolutely necessary. Therefore, at some point every citizen of the no-longer free United States will either yield willingly to the new order, or be forced to do so by something resembling those BLM storm troopers on Bundy’s ranch.
Meanwhile, the leftists who originally fomented the seditious transformation of the nation recognize the necessity to continue dressing their effort in sheep’s clothing in order to lull the masses into passivity and indifference until it is too late. That, coupled with their consuming arrogance, has resulted in some outlandish efforts to presume the moral “high ground.” So as is always the case, liberal sanctimony no matter how specious or flimsy, must be confronted with the truth in order to maintain a proper perspective. Otherwise, the left will continue to pummel the nation with their piety, eventually convincing sufficient numbers among the perennially gullible of the validity of their righteous indignation.
Central to this effort has been a sudden, but wholly predictable liberal/Democrat reverence for the “rule of law.” Admittedly, in light of so many outrages committed against the law and the Constitution by prominent Democrats and Barack Obama, this effort rings completely hollow. Yet they intend to remain locked on their “rule of law” mantra as the defining tenet of the Bundy situation, hoping in vain they can repeat their empty rhetoric loudly and frequently enough to overpower any opposition. This is indeed the standard underhanded method by which they have achieved philosophical dominance and legislative victories on so many occasions in the past. So it is hardly surprising that they would resort to it once again. However, given their track record, the ruse might not work so well for them this time.
For starters, any ostensible advocacy of the “rule of law” by an administration whose chief “law enforcement officer” is Attorney General Eric Holder will more likely elicit raucous laughter and derision than any nod of agreement. On numerous occasions, Holder has shown complete contempt for the law, the Constitution, and thus for the American people. Rather than upholding justice as the best means to protect the liberties and well-being of every citizen, Holder abuses his position of power at every opportunity, in service to the leftist/countercultural agenda.
At Barack Obama’s bidding, Holder suddenly announced in 2011 that the United States government would no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, though the statute had been duly enacted two decades prior during the administration of Bill Clinton, and had neither been repealed nor overturned in court. In short, it was unilaterally decided by the executive branch that the law needed changed, so those responsible for upholding the law simply disregarded it. And this is only one among many such dealings from the Obama White House and its “Justice” Department.
Most Americans well remember the outrage at the ballot box in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008, when members of the “New Black Panthers,” armed with clubs, engaged in blatant intimidation of white voters at a polling place. Yet Eric Holder flatly refused to take any action against them and instead denigrated the entire purpose of the office of Attorney General by weighing any accusations of lawlessness strictly on a racial basis.
During that same time period, Holder oversaw the infamous “Fast and Furious” gun running operation in which weapons were deliberately put into the hands of Mexican drug lords by the U.S. Government. Caught in an operation that clearly violated the law and endangered both Mexican and American citizens, Holder has relentlessly evaded and obfuscated any time he is called before congressional committees investigating the matter.
No less outrageous has been the entire Obama Administration indifference to the daily violations of the law by countless illegal aliens streaming across the nation’s southern border. Yet both Obama and Holder have indicated that they have no intention of protecting the integrity of this country by upholding the law. In fact, the most decisive action taken by the Obama White House in regards to the massive influx of foreigners has been to sue the State of Arizona in 2010 for attempting to implement legislation to stem the invasion. In short, Obama and Holder were far more concerned with halting Arizona’s effort to uphold an already established federal law which might secure the border than they have ever been with the detrimental effects of illegal immigration on Arizona or the rest of the nation.
Sadly, many more examples can be given, including Obama’s countless alterations to Obamacare, for which he has no constitutional authority whatsoever. And the despicable pattern of governing excesses revealed by such behavior is ominously consistent. In a free and just society, the law establishes a framework by which all the people can live out their lives and thrive. In a tyranny, the law degenerates into a weapon used by the powerful to bludgeon the weak into submission. This Administration has clearly determined to operate in such a mode. It is therefore no surprise that the good people across the land increasingly recognize “the law” as part of the oppression under which they suffer, and are becoming ever more firm in their resolve to restore it to its proper scope and purpose.
Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, and has written for regional and national magazines. He is currently the Chief Editorial Writer for The Proud Americans, an advocacy group for America’s seniors, and for all Americans. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.