Saul Alinsky is smiling from his grave

Barack Obama has been slowly withdrawing from the rest of the world so that he can focus on running the United States the way he pleases. It reminds me of the Chinese Emperor who in the 15th century withdrew completely from any foreign involvements.

The point keeps being made that Obama acted on immigration because the Congress won't. Let's be clear that the Congress is the people's house and that if it doesn't want to approve it is because the people don't want it, or if it doesn't act it is because the people are also divided. That should be enough. When they can agree on something then they will act on that.

At this point the people want the laws enforced and the border shut tight. Where is the President on that?

When Obama acts on something the people have expressed through Congress that they don't want, he is squarely violating the liberties of the people.

The primary danger here is not immigration, but the abuse of power. President Obama's immigration action goes beyond this and puts us on the slippery slope to tyranny.

When Congress fails to act it is because it can't reach a sufficient consensus to protect the liberties of the majorities and the minorities. When that is the case the Executive can't and shouldn't act because doing so would violate the liberties of those whose representatives in Congress couldn't satisfy.

That's the essence of the reasons for the three branches and separation of powers. They protect our liberties. By acting alone the president violated the liberties of the many people who didn't want this action until the border is shut tight and current law enforced to its fullest.

That's how Obama violated the law.

Here is the legal impediment, and it is quite simple: Congress makes the law and because the people are divided and don't want the actions the president took, or any other actions until the border is completely secure and the laws as written are enforced, Obama defied the will of the people.

Let's be clear about something liberals confuse a lot. We are not a "Democracy," we are a "Representative Democracy" or "Representative Republic." The difference is subtle but important. The Greeks of Athens learned that lesson the hard way and the framers of the Constitution went to school on it.

Congress is meant to work that way too. If there are deep divisions and little gets done it is only because the people are also divided. As long as the people are divided Congress should only act only on those things where they can reconcile their differences and compromise. The process should then continue until another area of compromise is reached. Otherwise thin majorities would be imposing their will on large minorities.

So we do need to have compromise in order for there to be change. Ultimately the best if not only protection of our liberties are the checks-and-balances and separation of powers built into the Constitution. If these don't work our liberties are threatened, and there is no better example than the laws and regulations this Administration has been passing that favor some groups at the expense of others.

When the President takes on too much power the result is despotism and a loss of liberties.

Previous Presidents were keenly aware of protecting the office and their solemn duty to protect the constitution. President Obama does not seem to care.

Maybe it was more than a joke when Josh Earnest, Obama's spokesman, said that when Republicans called him an Emperor "Obama felt honored."

Sadly the slippery slope does exist and we've been on it for the last 100 years since the Progressive Era. What's worse, the advent of mass communications has allowed the Executive to use its ability to concentrate larger volumes of money and power to essentially castrate the Legislative and have it its way. Obama has shown us that, if nothing else.

It has gotten so bad that when the President at his last State of the Union said that he was going to rule by decree with his pen, half the Congress jumped to its feet and applauded, thus abdicating to their new Caesar.

This nation was founded on the premise "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

That nation as so conceived was to have a government of limited powers with three equal branches. Those two premises are no longer functioning properly. The government has certainly taken on powers that were never envisioned under the Constitution; and for the last 100 years since the Progressive Era, the center of power has been slowly shifting from being balanced between the three branches, to, decidedly, the Executive branch. With today's move on immigration Obama acted as an absolute despot.

Discretion suggests a balancing not a wholesale capitulation and evisceration of the law. What we are now witnessing is just a natural and logical consequence of excess and not insight. "Prosecutorial discretion" ought to be the exception and not the rule.

One need only look at the game being played. By not enforcing immigration laws the problem of illegal immigration was exacerbated and amplified - this in contrast to the oath of office "to well and faithfully execute the duties of office."

Having neglected those duties, the President now adopts the pretense that he is coming to rescue all by executive order.

It should be noted that not all Hispanics are madly in favor of Obama's latest abuse of power.  Immigration is a complex issue that should be dealt with after lots of debate and then consent of the two parties and the American public.  When acts such as this and Obamacare are rammed through without debate, this results in great polarization and triggers nothing but retaliatory measures.

Ironic that those who wish to become citizens take a test on the US Constitution which provides for a system of checks and balances and which provides that the legislative branch has the power: To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization (Article I, section 8) and To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof (also Article I, section 8).

Perhaps everyone should send a copy of the Constitution to Obama as a Christmas present.

The oath of the President of the United States includes the affirmation to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".

The Constitution makes no provision for the President to, in practical terms, unilaterally legislate the laws of the nation.

High crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order.

Perjury of oath of office is to make a "violation of one's oath".  That can be claimed when one knowingly and willingly acts contrary to their oath of office.

The balance is entirely a matter of the political will of Congress, to permit Obama's slide down the slippery slope of an imperial presidency, or to uphold the requirements of their own oaths of office and provide the checks and balances against tyranny the founders intended.

What of the next illegal crossing of the American border? Assuredly this action by Obama, as his early feint with Central American children, will motivate more poor souls to place life in peril for illegal crossings.

What of the next "do the right thing" (in the President's judgment) moment? Will it be an EPA regulation? An economic "fairness" tax move? Or perhaps an international treaty?

This President's failure as a leader are so spectacular as to give rise to the theory it has been intentional.

Sal Alinsky is smiling from his grave, as the transformation of the U.S. to a "state regime" has hand another brick laid on the backs of its poor, while telling those same workers the fairytale "we are building a staircase."