In what can only be called an ultimate case of chutzpa, President Barack “Executive Order” Obama urged Burma to adopt a political system in which law is more powerful than any leader.
Speaking Monday at the University of Yangon at the start of his tour of southeast Asia, the president called upon Burma to end its era of abuse and violence and adopt a system whereby “those in power must accept constraints,” according to Fox News Insider.
“When I took office as president,” he said, “I sent a message to those governments who ruled by fear. I said, in my inauguration address, ‘We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.’ And over the last year and a half, a dramatic transition has begun, as a dictatorship of five decades has loosened its grip.”
Obama then urged Burma to continue its political transformation and welcomed “the government’s commitment to address the issues of injustice, and accountability, and humanitarian access and citizenship.”
He emphasized that “those in power must accept constraints,” and by way of example, he said that “as president, I cannot just impose my will on Congress — the Congress of the United States — even though sometimes I wish I could.”
Is this the same Barack Obama who serves as chief executive officer of the United States?
The president was a huge proponent of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, commonly known as cap-and-trade. At that time, he promised that the legislation would bankrupt coal companies and coal-fired power plants.
When it failed to make it through Congress, Obama expanded the Environmental Protection Agency’s powers. As a result, coal companies are declaring bankruptcy and coal-fired plants are closing up shop.
Those in power must accept constraints? When a DREAM act, which would have given young illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, failed to pass Congress for the umpteenth time, the president signed an executive order accomplishing essentially the same thing.
Commitment to accountability? Although the president was elected on a promise of transparency, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was hammered out — some say extorted — behind closed doors. He promised the negotiations would be televised on C-SPAN.
Most recently, the massacre at the United States’ mission in Benghazi, Libya, clamors for more answers each day. Why were security personnel and measures removed from Benghazi amid protests? Why were pleas for reinforcements going back months ignored? Why did we continue operations there after Great Britain and the International Red Cross had abandoned the area as unsafe?
After more than two months, whenever these and many other questions arise, the president hides behind his authority, saying, “It’s under investigation.”
Adopt a system of laws over personality? When states such as Arizona pass statutes to enforce the immigration laws the federal government refuses to enforce, the U.S. Justice Department takes them to court. When the states win, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials are ordered not to cooperate.
Similarly, when states enact voter identification laws, the federal government files suit, claiming the laws are too restrictive. Interestingly, United Nations poll watchers thought American poll workers were too trusting when they didn’t require ID from voters at the Nov. 6 election.
The Gateway Pundit reported that the president’s Burma address was met with “tepid applause.” If this is true, maybe it’s because they know him as well as we do.