Everyone should be paying attention to the example of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He’s been the definition of action on the subject of illegal immigration.
He hasn’t given up on protecting the citizens of Maricopa County despite ongoing harassment by the media and the federal government itself.
Now, in response to President Obama’s illegal granting of executive amnesty to some 5 million immigrants who have defied this country’s laws, Arpaio has filed suit against the president.
He’s not talking about it. It’s done. His lawyer dropped the papers as soon as the courthouse opened following Obama’s speech.
Can you imagine what could happen if only your elected representative had that kind of foresight, integrity, courage and dedication to upholding the law?
But the wheels grind slowly in Washington, if they turn at all. The GOP leadership is still digesting exactly what Obama has done and considering what they can do about it.
A lot of people already lined up in the starting blocks, though.
Rep. Darrell Issa said, “The President is not respecting our system of checks and balances — we cannot let this stand.”
Rep. Jeff Duncan commented, “This is a sad day for the nation, and I intend to use all of my constitutional authority to put a stop to the President’s illegal behavior.”
In fact, there’s a lot of talk about stopping Obama today. As of this writing, however, none of it has come from the key Republican leaders like John Boehner who would have to get behind any Republican effort for it to work.
The GOP leadership needs to get itself in line with the rank-and-file, not vice versa.
“Our rogue president has crossed an historic line, and so has the republic,” writes Patrick Buchanan. “Future presidents will cite the ‘Obama precedent’ when they declare they will henceforth not enforce this or that law, because of a prior commitment to some noisy constituency. We have just taken a monumental step away from republicanism toward Caesarism. For this is rule by diktat, the rejection of which sparked the American Revolution.”
Buchanan’s right. The Revolution wasn’t about a 3-penny tax on tea, and the immigration fight isn’t about whether Central Americans can come to our country.
This fight is about the rule of law, the role of government and ultimately the nature of our rights.
This country was founded on the belief that all men are equal before the law. Even a president is not immune from responsibility to the law. The United States was also predicated on the self-evident truth that men are endowed by God with unalienable rights, and that government is created for the express purpose of protecting those rights by enforcing the law.
Obama’s counteroffer is a nation in which one person, he himself, is above all laws, which qualifies him to enforce, ignore or create laws as he pleases, without interference from others. He is the source and the arbiter of your rights.
America in many ways is an experiment in representative government. It was given birth in the struggle to escape a system where one monarch ruled by divine right, and all rights filtered down from the king. The great challenge to the world presented by the United States was the proposition that men get their rights direct from God, and that therefore they can rule themselves without a monarch.
The “Progressives” have just taken us back in time to the ancient world. They are creating a nation with a medieval worldview but 21st century technology in service of the king.
Our “leaders” dither about how the media will treat them if they respond to protect the country and its laws.
How did it come to this?