President Obama wants to enact gun control in America. The problem is that the GOP still controls the U.S. House and is unlikely go go along with such a proposal. How is the President planning to get around a Congress that is not inclined to go along with his agenda? According to Vice President Biden, the answer is simply to issue “executive orders”. This story was covered in a recent Pajamas Media article:
“The president is going to act” on gun control, Vice President Joe Biden said this morning. “There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”
Under his watch, Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice oversaw Operation Fast and Furious, which allowed thousands of guns to enter into the bloodstream of the drug war in Mexico. Hundreds of Mexican citizens’ and at least two Americans’ deaths have been linked to those weapons.
Biden continued: “As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking.”
So, unilaterally bypassing the will of the democratically Congress is an action that is “worth taking” because your action supposedly results in saving lives. Putting aside for the moment that there is no evidence to support the notion that enacting gun control will save lives, what we have here is a clear example of the notion advocated by Vladimir Lenin that “The ends justifies the means” This is a common notion promoted by most despots on their way to establishing a dictatorship. Some of Obama’s supporters are more blunt in advocating an “ends justify the means” approach to getting things done. Back on December 14th the American Thinker ran an article on an interview of actor Harry Belafonte by Al Sharpton where Belefonte argued that Obama use the example of Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez in dealing with political opponents. He characterized these opponents as a “lingering infestation of really corrupt people who sit trying to dismantle the wishes of the people, the mandate that has been given to Barack Obama.” Obama, of course, is the embodiment of the “wishes of the people” and those who oppose him represent an “infestation”. How is this infestation to be dealt with? Why, in the same manner employed by Chávez:
In the past, Belafonte has accused the Obama-loving American media of falsely portraying Chávez as a “dictator.” At the time, the singer/activist also shared the opinion that in Venezuela there is “democracy and [the] citizens are ‘optimistic about their future.'” What Belafonte failed to mention was that Hugo Chávez regularly imprisons political dissidents, calling them “common criminals.”
Hence, to deal with the threat of political dissension here in America, it’s not surprising that Harry Belafonte would suggest that the “only thing left for Barab…Barack Obama to do is to work like a third world dictator and just throw all these guys in jail [Sharpton/Kennedy nervously giggle] for violating the American desire.”
The notion that Obama should not be constrained by something as quaint and outdated as our constitution has also been expressed by university professors, as was pointed out in a January 4th American Thinker article:
True to form, the New York Times saw out 2012 by publishing another apology for dictatorship. In his op-ed, Louis Michael Seidman — Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University – argues that the Constitution should be abandoned. The suggestion is so preposterous that it is tempting to dismiss the article altogether, but to do so would be to miss some very revealing implications. The article is not so much a suggestion of constitutional reform as an open call for dictatorship.
Seidman begins by blaming the current governmental crisis, incredibly, on “obedience to the Constitution,” which he describes as containing “archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.” He does, however, lament that when some wise government official reaches a decision on what will benefit the country, he is likely to be stymied by this document. Seidman expresses doubt about the rationality of letting our wise official be dissuaded by the views of “a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves.”
Again, when you have an enlightened leader, who embodies the “will of the people”, archaic constitutional constraints on his political power are a grave obstacle to realizing the public good. This is the mindset of the enlightened social engineers who populate the leadership of the progressive movement. If you keep this in mind, it is not surprising that President Obama would seek to do an end run around the constraints placed on his authority by the constitution and attempt to enact his agenda without the support of the people’s body.