- A cruel and oppressive ruler.
- A person exercising power or control in a cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary way.
despot – oppressor
You can beat around the bush, guffaw if you would like, but that is an accurate description of the 44th President of the United States, and how he has chosen to define his presidency by his deeds.
Adam Freedman’s President Obama’s deep contempt for the rule of law details just some of the President’s unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of power:
The president’s attempted end-run around the Constitution should come as no surprise to those of us who have watched the decline of the rule of law these last four years. The president’s first term began, let us recall, with an auto “bailout” that robbed Chrysler bondholders to pay off the United Auto Workers.
When the Supreme Court recognized the free speech rights of corporations in Citizens United v. FEC, Obama first resorted to public humiliation of the justices on national TV. He later prepared an executive order that sought to coerce corporations from making political contributions under pain of forfeiting government contracts. It was only when news of the pending order leaked out that the administration quietly dropped the whole thing.
Under the Constitution, the president’s primary duty in domestic affairs is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” There’s no mystery about this imperative: it does no good for the People’s representatives to enact laws if the executive branch fails to implement the laws. And yet, the president has taken a pick-and-choose approach to this vital duty.
Obama did not like Bill Clinton’s Defense of Marriage Act, for example, so he declared that he wasn’t going to defend it. And he has routinely failed to enforce federal immigration laws; most egregiously in his executive order unilaterally exempting 800,000 illegal immigrants from the scope of federal law. Congress was not consulted. Why bother?
I’ve probably quoted more of the article than I should, but there is more there, and Freedman doesn’t even begin to touch on Obama’s extrajudicial killings of American by assassin and drone, or the terrifyingly loose rules of triggering such a killing, based solely on an unelected officials whim, without safeguards and without respect for borders or due process, that make his bloodthirsty government judge, jury and executioner.
This is the same Obama government that ran 2,500 firearms to Mexican cocaine cartels in Operation Fast and Furious, perhaps in order to carry out his promise to Sarah Brady to push for gun control, “under the radar” and above the law. Obama’s Attorney General is in criminal contempt of Congress. The U.S Attorney for Washington DC, an Obama loyalist, refuses to duty his duty and file charges.
This is the same Obama government that supplied Islamist groups aligned with al Qaeda with weapons, that is still dodging the fact it left an American Ambassador unprotected in a warzone, and then abandoned the dozens of survivors of the Benghazi attack, stopping a 100-man Marine rescue force on the way from Sicily in their tracks when Obama refused to grant cross border authority for the rescue.
This is the same Obama government arguably outfitting the Department of Homeland Security as the President’s private army, purchasing 7,000 personal defense weapons.
PDWs of the kind desired by DHS are very fascinating short-range firearms, with a very specific mission profile. The question is , what sort of mission profile would benefit from extremely short rifles for DHS? There are only two that I can easily think of. One is for the security details of high-value individuals, which isn’t a publicly-known mission of DHS, and would appear to beyond the scope of their mandate.
The other use for such weapon in the DHS’s hands is “door-kicking;” close quarters combat inside structures. Why does the Department of Homeland Security need to outfit so many agents for close quarters combat within the United States?
That’s a question that the tyrant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would rather you didn’t ask.