Neat trick the Obamatons have of burying any unfortunate, embarrassing or politically damaging news stories by putting on an even bigger circus to attract media attention. And of course the media falls for it.
But as the din of the latest outrages subside, I thought we might want to review this editorial from the Washington Post on December 3rd. It's titled "President Obama’s unilateral action on immigration has no precedent." Here's an excerpt:
[I]t is increasingly clear that the sweeping magnitude of Mr. Obama’s order is unprecedented.
This is not a game of gotcha; facts matter — even in Washington — and so do the numbers. Under close scrutiny it is plain that the White House’s numbers are indefensible. It is similarly plain that the scale of Mr. Obama’s move goes far beyond anything his predecessors attempted.
Republicans’ failure to address immigration also does not justify Mr. Obama’s massive unilateral act. 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 — no matter how indefensible that intent looks.
Keep in mind this is the Washington Post, heart and soul of the Washington establishment. It's not Fox New or Rush Limbaugh.
Meanwhile, a federal judge in Pennsylvania has written a decision which finds Obama's action unconstitutional. Legal scholars say the judge overstepped his bounds but why should that matter? After all, isn't that exactly what Obama is doing? Or will the rules of law only apply to Congress and the Judiciary and not the Executive Branch?