Ever notice the complete evacuation of the mainstream media when President Barack Obama violates the law but does it in a way that fits in with the political agenda of the liberal press? Instead of saddling up and riding to the rescue to expose the violation, the liberal media pulls a disappearing act into the sunset and stays mum.
Current case in point is how the Obama administration arbitrarily changed the rules that apply to the Oath of Allegiance that immigrants must take as part of their naturalization ceremony. But it wasn’t just a rule change, it was a rejection of the requirements of federal law.
Here’s what happened. Federal immigration laws are passed by Congress and administered by Obama’s Citizenship and Immigration Services. CIS is empowered to create rules to implement the laws, but the rules cannot conflict with the laws or create new laws.
The Oath of Allegiance includes a requirement that the immigrant taking the pledge must “bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law.” The oath can be waived only if the immigrant is disabled or refuses to bear arms because of “religious training and belief.” Note the use of the word “and” but not “or.” The law specifically states that an applicant cannot refuse to bear arms based on “political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code.”
But Obama is selective about which laws he will enforce. And since he does not like this portion of the immigration law, he simply chose to bypass Congress and write his own law. This happened in July, when Obama’s CIS issued a new policy that contradicts the stated law. Obama decreed that an applicant for citizenship can refuse to take the part of the Oath of Allegiance that includes a pledge to bear arms, if the person has a “conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code.” This is newly birthed language created out of thin air that both disavows a portion of the law and flouts the law’s intent.
Further, Obama dictates that this exception does not require the applicant to “belong to a specific church or religion” to claim the exemption to the oath, and no evidence is required to prove “religious training.”
So add this to the list of other violations of immigration law Obama has committed. These include the failure to deport illegal aliens arrested for violating other laws, then turning these criminals loose to re-contaminate American society, lawless amnesty for millions of illegal aliens through “executive” or “administrative” actions that circumvent Congress, and the toleration of “sanctuary cities” where elected officials order police to ignore federal immigration laws.
What we have here is the most recent example of a president of the United States who gives additional rights and freedoms to people without requiring them to assume added personal responsibilities and obligations. It’s the classic liberal philosophy: Give away as many freebies and rights as you can without imposing offsetting responsibilities and, like the Pied Piper, leftist politicians will attract devoted apostles, dependents, minions, and political backers to help them win the next election.
But remember the disturbing conclusion to the Pied Piper story: The piper played his pipe and attracted the town’s naïve innocents, who followed him from the town like sheep and were never seen again.
The sobering lesson to be learned from Obama’s giveaways of benefits and rights without responsibilities comes from Alexis de Tocqueville, who famously stated that when people in a democracy discover they can vote themselves benefits from the public treasury, the majority always vote after that for candidates who promise them the most benefits, with the result that the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy, followed by a dictatorship.
We seem to be on the way.