A Year Late, WEEKLY STANDARD Admits DREAM Amnesty Lawless — But Flinches On Needed Impeachment

By Patrick Cleburne

08/25/2013

H/T One Old Vet

As was quite clear at the time, the biggest mistake that Mitt Romney’s campaign made in 2012 was not aggressively attacking Obamacare. What may well have been its second-biggest mistake, however, was less noticed: the striking silence in the face of President Obama’s announcement that he would no longer deport illegal immigrants under 30 years of age.

This was pure lawlessness, even by the president’s own earlier admission…The main sound emanating from the Romney campaign: crickets.

(VDARE.com emphasis)

So now they tell us! Where was the Weekly Standard at the time? As far as I can tell their only coverage of this atrocity back then was a foolish "us-too" blog by John McCormack Deportations Doubled Under Obama, which whines that Obama stole Marco Rubio’s hispandering attempt on this issue.

VDARE.com was avidly seeking for signs of reaction to this coup d’état, which even Charles Krauthammer and Alberto Gonzales denounced. We can attest that the Weekly Standard was MIA.

Why? Because Editor Bill Kristol has been an evil influence on the GOP’s immigration stance right back to the days of Proposition 187. Yes, this year he has smelled the coffee (or hopefully the blood) and has played a valuable role in stiffening up Rich Lowry. But he has a lot to answer for.

The Weekly Standard essay asserts

The Romney camp’s decision to ignore this brazen move was a conscious calculation that, at its core, reflected a lack of faith in the American people. Team Romney thought voters would focus on the perceived merits of Obama’s new decree (which the Romney campaign believed would be popular) and wouldn’t much care that Obama was ignoring the Constitution and violating his oath of office. This miscalculation helped cost Romney the election and emboldened Obama in his lawlessness. But Republicans make similar mistakes on a regular basis, failing to trust in Americans’ devotion to the Constitution and the rule of law.

But my own view is that he is, ultimately, wrong about why there was no response: the brighter bulbs running the Romney campaign were not really fooled by the preposterous notion that any Amnesty would be popular amongst potential Republican voters — especially the Blue Collar workers most impacted by immigration, whom Romney was already busy repelling.

What motivated these consultant parasites: the possibility of getting personally rich from excessively influential big donors who favored Amnesty.

Jeffrey Anderson does an excellent job of documenting numerous examples of Obamacrats’ contempt for Constitutional process (although he neglects other immigration cases). But then he wimps out.

He makes no mention of the appropriate response — impeachment — and shelters behind a ludicrous appeal to the wholly inappropriate example of Lincoln (as I think even John Derbyshire would agree).

Two years after the death of James Madison (the last surviving Constitutional Convention delegate), a young Abraham Lincoln preached steadfast regard for the law and warned his fellow countrymen to beware of leaders who might use lawless means to achieve their ends … When encountering such threats, Lincoln said, the solution is to rely on the people — specifically on their “general intelligence,” “sound morality,” and “reverence for the constitution and laws.”

What this means: having failed its readers and the American nation last year by avoiding opposing Obama’s Amnesty coup d’état, the Weekly Standard is failing them once again: by marshalling outrage at this extremely serious pattern of repeated Obamacrat despotism — but flinching from putting forward the solution. Business as usual at Conservatism Inc.

As we said when Obama announced his 2011 Administrative Amnesty: impeachment is the only answer.

Email Patrick Cleburne.

< Previous

Next >

This is a content archive of VDARE.com, which Letitia James forced off of the Internet using lawfare.