Make my day: Let Obama close down DHS

These days it's hard to know if a newspaper headline is real news or a parody from Mad Magazine. I'm not kidding.

"Obama threatens veto" is a recurring headline lately, and frankly, I like it. But not all veto threats are created equal, and the latest one rings hollow.

Now he is promising to veto the Republican budget bill for the Department of Homeland Security, which cuts off funds for his executive amnesty. A presidential veto would leave that department without funding and thus shut down all of its programs if alternative legislation is not passed by Congress by Feb. 28.

Republicans are terrified of being blamed for shutting down the government and so are worried about the "fallout" and the "optics" of an Obama veto. There are two good reasons why this worry is misplaced. First, it would be Obama shutting down the government agency if he vetoes funding, not the Republicans. And secondly, a veto would trigger a shutdown of one single agency, not "the government."

What if a federal agency shuts down and the world does not end at midnight? Is that what Obama is really worried about?

Who outside of Washington, D.C., would notice if Homeland Security shuts down? Not veterans, not school teachers, not local policemen, not pharmacists or garbage truck drivers, and not farmers, home builders or taxi drivers. Frankly, no one I know would notice the shutdown.

The U.S. Army, Navy and Marines are in the Department of Defense, so the country will still be defended. The FBI is in the Justice Department, so federal crimes will still be investigated and prosecuted. The IRS is in the Treasury Department, so taxes will be collected. The FDA is in the Agriculture Department, National Parks are in Interior, and our interstate highways are patrolled by … well, by state police. The Weather Service will still make forecasts, the poor will still get their food stamps, and crony capitalists will still get their renewable energy subsidies.

Concerned about the impact of illegal aliens on the United States? Don't miss Tom Tancredo's book, "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security" -- and with your purchase get a free copy of "Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders"!

And what about the Border Patrol, which is indeed part of Homeland Security? That would be a little different, but not much. If Homeland Security shuts down, the Border Patrol will have to stop not patrolling the border and will have to stop releasing intruders after giving them their "walking papers." And, horror of horrors, if Homeland Security closes down, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will have to stop not issuing fines to employers of illegal workers, stop not deporting foreign students who have overstayed their visas, and will have to stop not deporting criminal aliens as they are released from our jails and prisons.

In other words, the world will go one pretty much as if nothing happened. So, go ahead, President Barack Hussein Obama: Make my day; close down DHS.

Of course, there will be no veto and no Homeland Security shut down. The little drama being played out in Washington this month over Homeland Security funding is a cynical game of "CYA" with all the politicians emerging as winners and only the American people on the losing end of the stick.

Republican leaders in Congress are pretending to want to halt funding of Obama's unconstitutional amnesty program, while Obama pretends to be worried about a shutdown of a government agency. But at the end of the day, Senate Republicans will cave and pass a DHS budget that omits or renders unenforceable the House's language that bars funding for Obama's illegal administrative amnesty. The House will accept the "bipartisan compromise," and the Obama amnesty will proceed without any real speed bumps.

And pollsters and pundits will continue to ask why Americans are contemptuous of politicians and distrustful of government.

Senate Republicans had enough votes to pass the House version of the Homeland Security funding bill to block an unconstitutional action of our imperial president. But they did not have the 60 votes needed to block a Democrat filibuster against voting on that bill. Senate Majority Leader McConnell could have decided to do what Harry Reid would have done – suspend the filibuster rule, bring the bill to a vote, pass it and send it to the White House.

But McConnell chose not to do that, and House Speaker John Boehner and the Washington political establishment, including the conservative establishment for the most part, thanked him for that.

Thus, Republican leaders chose to protect the filibuster rule instead of protecting the Constitution. The only surprise here is that no one is surprised. We have come to expect such games from our "leaders." That's how cynical our national politics have become.

My friends, our "living Constitution" is on life support.

Media wishing to interview Tom Tancredo, please contact [email protected].