Obama's DREAM Is Congress's Nightmare
June 18, 2012 - Monday
"I wish I had a magic wand," President Obama said last year, "[I] could make this [whole immigration agenda] happen on my own... I'd like to work around Congress." Well, the White House must have found its fairy godmother, because the administration isn't just working around Congress -- they're steamrolling over it. On Friday, the President continued his pattern of lawlessness by sidestepping the House and Senate and current law on immigration policy. Without even feigning some sort of congressional collaboration, the administration announced that it would stop deporting young illegal immigrants who come to the U.S. as children. If they don't have a criminal record and have either graduated high school or served in the military, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano insists that these under-30 year-olds will be eligible for work permits.
If the concept sounds familiar, that's because it's part of the DREAM Act, a piece of immigration legislation that's been introduced but not passed. What President Obama did was to essentially take a broad swathe of the bill and enact it unilaterally -- without so much as a House or Senate vote. In my opinion, it's essential that we address the issue of immigration. In fact, I feel so strongly about it that immigration was included as a core value in my book, Personal Faith, Public Policy. But political urgency doesn't excuse political irresponsibility. Instead of flagging this as a priority and taking the initiative to work with leaders on a solution, the White House circumvented the Constitution and claimed a power that only Congress can exercise.
When Americans elected Barack Obama, they believed they were voting for a chief executive. What they got is a chief legislator and chief justice. If the administration doesn't like a law, they call it unconstitutional and ignore it. If they can't pass a policy democratically, they enact it anyway. We've witnessed the President's contempt for the law with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), gambling, obscenity prosecutions, homosexual benefits, and more. Just this past weekend, the President celebrated gay pride month by mocking DOMA as the "so-called Defense of Marriage Act." Well, guess what? This "so-called" federal marriage statute is still the law of the land. Defying it doesn't make the law any less binding.
Now obviously, these are tough issues. But, as Bretibart's Mike Flynn points out, that's why we have a Congress, "where the nation's representatives can deliberate and try to find the right policy path. It isn't pretty, and it often fails. But that's how our laws are made. We do not enact far-reaching rewrites of our laws by executive fiat. Political expediency doesn't negate an entire branch of government." The pattern of abuses is so out of hand that even media outlets like Politico are suggesting that the President's "policy strategy" is "ignore laws."
In the end, today's debate isn't about immigration. It's a debate about the limits of executive authority -- a conversation that goes back some 237 years. Our founding fathers shed a lot of blood to avoid what this White House increasingly resembles -- a monarchy with absolute power. While the President can try to bypass the law, one thing he cannot bypass is voters. And ultimately, his interpretation of the separation of powers will be subject to the ultimate checks and balances: November 6 ballots. For more on this shocking power grab, check out Ken Klukowski's column in Breitbart.
Austin Powers Argument on Parenting
In his new research, s ociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin has turned the conventional wisdom of the politically correct academic world on its head by proving that children raised by homosexual parents do suffer disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father. FRC's Peter Sprigg analyzed the study -- just published in the journal Social Science Research. He reports it is the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue -- which explains why liberals are trying so desperately to discredit it. Regnerus's research found numerous and significant differences between these groups -- with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated "suboptimal" (Regnerus's word) in almost every category.
Along with an article by Loren Marks of Louisiana State University exposing the weaknesses of previous research in this field, the Regnerus study has completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, "gay families," and same-sex "marriage." The myths that kids of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been dispelled. For the sake of the children, we must speak that truth in love.
** Tune in tomorrow for FRC's special newscast, "Two Weeks for Freedom" with Gov. Mike Huckabee, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), CNSNews Editor Terry Jeffrey, Dr. Joe Aguillard, President, Louisiana College, and other experts as we take an in-depth look at President Obama's war on religious liberty. The show kicks off at 8:00 p.m. (EDT). For more information on this important event, click over to our website.
*** There's a good reason why abortion clinics post a photo of Lila Rose on their walls. Find out why in Cathy Ruse's new column, "Obama Loses Baby Girl Vote."
**** If you missed my interview on Fox News yesterday, click below.
