# Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws



## cc3915 (Mar 26, 2004)

President Obama returned Friday to a trusted tactic - satisfying his political allies by not doing something.
Conservatives were angry when Janet Napolitano announced the administration would stop deporting certain undocumented immigrants but they should have seen it coming. On issue after issue - gay rights, drug enforcement, Internet gambling, school achievement standards - the administration has chosen to achieve its goals by a method best described as passive-aggressive.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77486.html#ixzz1xz6cHiZ3​


----------



## cc3915 (Mar 26, 2004)

*Are We in Revolutionary Times?*

Legally, President Obama has reiterated the principle that he can pick and choose which U.S. laws he wishes to enforce (see his decision to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, his decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and his administration's contempt for national-security confidentiality and Senate and House subpoenas to the attorney general). If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law - when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action - then what can he not do? Obama is turning out to be the most subversive chief executive in terms of eroding U.S. law since Richard Nixon.
Politically, Obama calculates that some polls showing the current likely Hispanic support for him in the high 50s or low 60s would not provide enough of a margin in critical states such as Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado, or perhaps also in Florida and Virginia, to counteract the growing slippage of the independent vote and the energy of the clinger/tea-party activists. Thus, what was not legal or advisable in 2009, 2010, or 2011, suddenly has become critical in mid-2012. No doubt free green cards will quickly lead to citizenship and a million new voters. Will it work politically? Obama must assume lots of things: that all Hispanics vote as a block in favoring exempting more illegal aliens from the law, and are without worry that the high unemployment rate hits their community among the hardest; that black voters, stung by his gay-marriage stance, will not resent what may be seen as de facto amnesty, possibly endangering his tiny (and slipping) lead in places like Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. And because polls show overwhelming resistance to non-enforcement of immigration law, Obama also figures that the minority who supports his recent action does so far more vehemently than the majority who opposes it. Time will tell; but my gut feeling is that his brazen act will enrage far more than it will delight - and for a variety of different reasons. As with all his special-interest efforts - the Keystone cancellation, war-on-women ploy, gay-marriage turnabout, and now de facto amnesty - Obama believes dividing Americans along class, ethnic, gender, and cultural lines will result in a cobbled together majority, far more preferable than a 1996 Clinton-like effort to win over the independents by forging a bipartisan consensus.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303037/are-we-revolutionary-times-victor-davis-hanson#


----------



## LGriffin (Apr 2, 2009)

He should've been impeached two years ago but his predecessors are just as bad. They weaved as big a mess into that chain of command as they did with the repercussions of undoing obamacare.


----------

