Obama’s Blatant Disregard For Law Planned Before He Ever Took Office

Saturday, January 3, 2015 7:59

#1 HIJACKER OF ALL TIME: HIJACKS THE OVAL OFFICE!

AMERICANS NEED TO STAND TOGETHER AND FIGHT!

TO GET THE BEST UNDERSTANDING OF HOW OBAMA ASCENDED TO THE HIGHEST OFFICE ON THE PLANET WITHOUT EVEN POSSESSING THE MOST BASIC REQUIREMENT TO DO SO, IT WOULD HELP TO READ THE FOLLOWING:

President Obama likes to pretend his blatant acts of lawlessness were forced from the “do nothing Congress.” Fact is stranger than fiction. It seems like every lawless action was COLDLY AND METICULOUSLY CALCULATED, even from as far back as when he was a “COMMUNITY ORGANIZER” in Chicago.
Thanks to the New York Post and research, we can see that this was not a spontaneous act, but a calculated decent into lawlessness that was planned all a long.

Consider what he wrote on page 276 of his 1995 memoir, “Dreams from My Father,” reflecting on his decision to study law: “I had things to learn in law school, things that would help me bring about real change. I would learn power’s currency in all its intricacy and detail, knowledge that I could now bring back to where it was needed… bring it back like Promethean fire.” (New York Post)

They are correct. It does seem, in reading through the documents (like Dreams from My Father) that we do know and can see that he thinks he is a modern-day Prometheus. He seems to be driven on an agenda to “steal” laws from what he considers the “oppressive” Founding Fathers to benefit the “poor and downtrodden oppressed people” of the world. (Quotations come from President Obama’s past writings, before becoming Senator.) It is almost like he wants to be remembered as a Robin Hood of law.
Reminding the Hispanic population of his decision to “spare” 5 million illegal immigrants in his announcement on Mexico’s Revolution Day, which was broadcast in full only on Hispanic channels like Univision, he stated, “I just took an action to change the law!”
His favorite professor, which he partnered up with in Harvard Law School, Professor Derrick Bell, is renowned for trashing the Constitution, the very document that grants us our freedom as a form of “original sin” of the Founding Fathers.

There was no reverence in studying the founding documents and the system they created, no desire to work within America’s legal framework and enforce existing law.

No, Obama didn’t study federal statutes to defend them. He studied them to game them, sabotage them. To abdicate them. (New York Post )

It seems our “constitutional lawyer” sought to destroy the founding system from the very beginning, even before becoming a US Senator.

amnestyillegalaliensmexicansmexiconaturalizedcitizensmotivationalpostersonlineblogshotfunny-660x528

EXHIBIT A: AMNESTY

According to every document, including the Constitution and a research study by the Congressional Research Service, the Presidential powers to grant any kind of amnesty, when it comes to illegal aliens or “political refugees,” can only be granted in EMERGENCY situations. Some examples would be the nation is at war and directly committing genocide (such as WWII or the Christians in the Middle East), earthquakes that destroy part of the country, famines and pestilence to extreme levels, or something major that would prevent a safe deportation.
Yet, Obama just gave a free pass, against the law, to 5 million individuals that have no such situation preventing them from returning to their country of origin.

By giving them work permits, Obama’s also violating the Immigration and Nationality Act’s intent of protecting domestic labor.

“Congress is unlikely to have defined ‘unauthorized alien’ and prohibited the knowing hiring or employment of such aliens if it contemplated the executive branch granting work authorization” to millions of illegals, wrote CRS legislative attorneys Kate M. Manuel and Michael John Garcia.

What’s more, the Supreme Court in its 1985 “Heckler v. Cheney” decision struck down presidential policies that abdicate statutory duties.

“The Heckler Court expressly recognized the possibility of an executive agency ‘consciously and expressly adopt(ing) a general policy (of not enforcing the law) that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities,’” they added. (New York Post)

There is LITTLE DOUBT that the decision to allow the Department of Justice to NOT UPHOLD the law is ILLEGAL. The President can not pick and choose which laws to enforce as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the country. Yet, over half of these illegal immigrants were past the immigration statute, had exhausted all appeals, or were felons.
No one can argue that this matter was not “extreme,” nor can they argue that the President of the United States has “consciously” decided to abdicate the statutory duties Congress assigned him in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which expressly mandates illegal aliens “shall be detained for removal proceedings.” By federal law, it is a felony to do such.
The Congressional Research Service prides themselves on being non-partisan. They employ people (Republican, Independent, and Democrat) that can be objective and non-partisan. It is not a Republican think tank. Yet, they have discovered the same thing that we have been saying all along. By making that choice, “THE PRESIDENT VIOLATED HIS OATH OF OFFICE.”

President-Obama-Visits-Maryland-Grade-School-WxdeRHHensl

EXHIBIT B: SCHOOLS AND DISCIPLINE

It is no secret that President Obama has also taken it upon himself to re-interpret civil rights laws and wants government in control of our school system.

For starters, Obama has directed his education secretary and attorney general to pressure public school districts to limit the number of minority students they suspend.

To comply with the policy, Minneapolis Public Schools and other districts have adopted de facto racial quotas in discipline.

“MPS must aggressively reduce the disproportionality between black and brown students and their white peers every year for the next four years,” the Minneapolis school superintendent explains. “This will begin with a 25 percent reduction in disproportionality by the end of this school year; 50 percent by 2016; 75 percent by 2017; and 100 percent by 2018.”

By referring lower and lower shares of black kids for discipline until they equal white levels, MPS is favoring one race over another in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

“The new discipline policy is legally and constitutionally suspect,” US Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow asserted. (New York Post)

The questioning of the constitutionality of the executive order is absolutely correct.
A 1997 case, People Who Care v Rockford Board of Education, made it illegal and unconstitutional to force “a higher percentage of minority students than of white students for discipline.”
In other words, you can not discriminate or force discrimination of disciplinary actions of children. If they do something wrong, they are to be punished as per school policy regardless of skin color. Any attempt to violate that is a direct violation of EEOC rules.

EXHIBIT C: HOUSING

President Obama illegally wrote, or is writing, both the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act in order to put pressure on banks and lenders to set quotas for HUD and minority (mainly Hispanic from the 5 million he pardoned illegally) home buyers.
Last month, a federal judge stepped in on behalf of insurers. US District Judge Richard Leon struck down HUD’s 2013 rule using disparate impact to enforce the FHA against insurers. He said the administration had a lot of “chutzpah” reading disparate impact into the statute.
“This is yet another example of an administrative agency trying desperately to write into law that which Congress never intended to sanction,” he wrote in his opinion.
Leon ruled the FHA unambiguously prohibits only policies and practices that intentionally discriminate, not ones based on risk analysis and other legitimate business needs of the home insurance industry.
For the administration to claim otherwise is “wishful thinking on steroids,” the judge scolded. (New York Post)
Removing the important risk factors from insurance rating plans just because they may have an adverse effect on his illegal immigrants, something that is not only immoral but highly illegal and forces discrimination, “would destroy accurate risk assessment and unfairly raise premiums for other policyholders,” the judge stated.
But that is exactly what these two executive orders seek to do that President Obama is pushing.
In the name of “racial equality,” Obama is trying to eliminate risk-based pricing not only for home insurance policies, but also home loans. This is very close to what would cause another housing bubble and a shift to increased prices for African-Americans, Orientals, Native Americans, and Caucasians

HUD has teamed up with the Justice Department and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to sue mortgage lenders for more than $1 billion in disparate impact claims, arguing they charged minority borrowers a “racial surcharge.”

The Court is poised to stop this illegal witch hunt, after agreeing to hear a case against disparate impact brought by the state of Texas — Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. It’s widely expected to reach the same conclusion as the DC court.

“Fortunately for us all,” Leon concluded, “the Supreme Court is now perfectly positioned to finally address this issue in the not-too-distant future.” (New York Post )

EXHIBIT D: THE HIRING PROCESS

It seems that while the attention is driven elsewhere by other unlawful acts, EEOC Chairwoman Jacqueline Berrien, a former NAACP activist, is unlawfully expanding enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to pressure employers to hire minorities with criminal records.

For example, she recently sued Freeman Companies and Kaplan Higher Education Corp. for allegedly running discriminatory background checks on job applicants.

The charges were so egregiously groundless that both judges hearing the cases scolded her department for ever bringing them, before summarily tossing them out.

One judge slammed her prosecutors for using “cherry-picked” data and hiring expert witnesses who engaged in “scientific dishonesty.” In court documents, he also said they attempted to “pump up” statistics to make it look like employers were biased.

Both cases charged employers were racist simply for conducting criminal background checks and credit checks for all their job applicants, whites and blacks equally.

Even though, as the court pointed out, that’s exactly what Berrien and every other Cabinet official does before they hire their own workers for government jobs.

Nine state attorneys general recently complained the administration was “compel[ling] employers to hire convicted criminals.”

“We are troubled that your agency’s true purpose may not be the correct enforcement of the law, but rather the illegitimate expansion of Title VII protection to former criminals,” they wrote in a recent letter to Berrien. “It is not your agency’s role to expand the protections of Title VII under the pretext of preventing racial discrimination.

“If Congress wishes to protect former criminals from employment discrimination, it can amend the law,” they added. “Title VII’s prohibition on practices that have a disparate impact should not be used as just another regulatory tool to advance your agency’s policy agenda.”

But Berrien is not backing down. She has reissued her directive to employers to reconsider minority job applicants “screened out” due to criminal records. (New York Post)

It is blatantly apparent, over and over again, that this administration has decided to run roughshod over the Constitution, the will of the people, the will of state legislators, Congress, and even the judicial system if it gets in the way of its agenda. We could go on with such things as forcing Christian organizations to fund abortions, inventing discrimination for people who think themselves “transgender” and forcing federal companies to hire them over a qualified candidate by threat of withholding funding, violations of the War Powers (the very thing that Progressives were upset with Bush for), and more. These four alone are enough “proof of breaking the law.”
Reading through his books, his memos, his writings, and his own words, it is stated this was the “change” he wanted you to believe in, a legacy of lawlessness. President Obama swore, not once but twice, to “faithfully execute the nation’s laws” and “uphold the Constitution.” That is part of his oath of office. He clearly intended to do no such thing, yet 31% of the country will swear their loyalty to Obama no matter what law he breaks. That is the sad reality.
Now is the time we hold Congress and our representatives, who are supposed to be working for us, responsible to do something about it before we are “FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED” forever into a totalitarian dictatorship or worse. Even some Progressives are waking up to this reality.

WE NEED TO STAND TOGETHER, BEFORE OUR REPUBLIC FALLS!

10178150_10204678820426452_4949416467170389184_n

You can follow more of the author’s work on Facebook at Journalist Brandon Walker
Read the article at Mad World News here:

THE VOICE OF REASON