Ted Cruz, and the few others like him, are all who are left on the front lines; they are the warriors.
“You just need to be a flea against injustice. Enough committed fleas biting strategically can make even the biggest dog uncomfortable and transform even the biggest nation.” – Marian Wright Edelman
What in your life is worth fighting for? For all of us, there are certain principles for which and people for whom we would fight to the death. Our children, siblings, parents, and friends, freedom, liberty, and peace; these are all things that are so indelibly linked to our hearts that we could not, and would not let them go without a fight. Our founders risked their lives in order to create a nation in which we could live freely, without oppression from a tyrannical leader, and the governmental powers they have at their disposal. But what happens when just such a tyrannical leader emerges, and no one has the courage to challenge them?
Barack Obama is not a tyrant in the classical sense of the word, but his actions are indeed tyrannical. Google defines “tyrannical” as the exercising of authority in a cruel or arbitrary way. Obama’s recent executive action falls squarely into that category. His defenders call his action within precedent, citing previous actions by Bush 41, but even the left-leaning Washington Post argues against that notion:
“The White House has defended President Obama’s unilateral decision to legalize the presence of nearly 4 million undocumented immigrants as consistent, even in scope, with the executive actions of previous presidents. In fact, it is increasingly clear that the sweeping magnitude of Mr. Obama’s order is unprecedented.”
The administration is citing unconfirmed and likely false numbers to justify Obama’s executive amnesty. According to the administration, the amnesty issued by Bush 41 covered approximately 1.5 million illegal immigrants. But this number is false. Once again, from the Washington Post:
“However, as The Post’s Glenn Kessler has scrupulously reported , there is every reason to believe that the estimate is wildly exaggerated and based mainly on what appears to have been a misunderstanding at the time…Even the apparent original source of the 1.5 million figure — Gene McNary, who led the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the time — told Mr. Kessler he believes the number is false and was based on a misunderstanding from testimony he gave to Congress. And no underlying data or methodology to justify the 1.5 million figure has been uncovered.“
The Post even goes so far as to flatly say that Obama’s action is not justified:
“Unlike Mr. Bush in 1990, whose much more modest order was in step with legislation recently and subsequently enacted by Congress, Mr. Obama’s move flies in the face of congressional intent.”
Given this information, and given that Obama’s actions obviously violate his reach as the chief executive, one would like to believe that Republicans would do everything they can to stop the president form enacting his proposed executive action. But few Republicans seem to be willing to do what they know is right by defunding Obama’s executive amnesty–except for one. According to Lauren Fox of National Journal:
“At Wednesday’s press conference, it appeared that some of the House’s hardliners are rallying around Cruz’s strategy–gut Obama’s effort on immigration by defunding it in the must-pass spending bill, now. Cruz is calling for a rider stripping funding for the executive action.”
On Wednesday, Texas Senator Ted Cruz called out his fellow Republicans who are unwilling to take a stand, admonishing them to do what they promised they would do during their campaigns:
“The same folks who are saying, ‘Gosh, we cannot do anything now,’ are the same folks who in January are going to say, ‘Gosh, we don’t have 60 votes in the Senate,’ It’s like Charlie Brown and Lucy where consistently the same voices pull the football aside and say, ‘You know what, you can never ever ever do anything to stop a lawless president.’ “
But Republicans are afraid that if they pass a bill which would defund Obama’s executive amnesty, Obama will veto it, thus shutting down the government. The media will then pin the shutdown on the Republicans, calling them unreasonable, and obstructionist. This obstructionist label will then cause them to lose the 2016 election. But is obstructionism inherently a negative thing?
The spin machine has already started. Obama’s Press Secretary Josh Earnest Has already begun to place blame squarely on Republicans in the event that there is a government shutdown:
“I actually don’t believe that members of Congress are going to be willing to go along with an effort to shut down the government over the president’s executive action on immigration.”
Obama’s executive action is unprecedented, that is a fact; it flies in the face of the balance of powers–of checks, and balances–which were set up to prevent such actions. With that, it is the responsibility of congress to take matters into their own hands, and use the powers they have been granted in the constitution to obstruct the president. Yes, I said obstruct. It’s not a bad thing when what is being obstructed is an unconstitutional power play that threatens our economy, our safety, and our sovereignty as a nation. Obstruction–in this case–is noble, and reasonable. But the vast majority of congressional Republicans are either too comfortable to risk their jobs, or they are too fearful of the press. Regardless of the reasoning behind the go-along-to-get-along strategy, it is a flagrant violation of the trust the American people have placed in them. As Cruz later remarked: “If the president doesn’t have to follow the law, what is the point of electing Congress?”
Congress has a duty to protect the people from a tyrannical chief executive, should the situation arise. What Obama has done with his executive action is dangerous, and sets a frightening new precedent. If congressional Republicans decide to simply play along, they have contravened their duty to protect the people, and are undeserving of their position.
Deepak Chopra said “Passivity is the same as defending injustice.” I would argue that complicity is even worse. Should congressional Republicans abandon their responsibility to protect the American people by allowing Obama to enact executive amnesty, they will have given free rein, not only to Obama, but to all future presidents, to do whatever they want, regardless of its lawfulness. If congress doesn’t step up, who will stop this runaway train?
Ted Cruz, and the few others like him, are all who are left on the front lines; they are the warriors. Go ahead, shut down the government, do whatever it takes to rein in this lawless president, because if we don’t succeed, our republic will have taken the first step into its grave.