Thread: Rule by Fiat

Father of Son Killed By Illegal Immigrant to Obama: Use Executive Action to Bring My Son Back
November 13, 2014 By Holly Fisher



In November 2010, Drew Rosenberg, a law student on his way home from class, became one of thousands of Americans to be killed by an illegal alien that year. His body was run over three times, due to his helmet being trapped under the car. The man who killed him, Roberto Galo, tried to flee, but was stopped by a brave citizen. Drew’s heartbroken father, Don, wrote a still-unanswered letter to Barack Obama in August of this year.

In the letter, Rosenberg lays out some shocking facts about the process, or lack thereof, that these criminals go through: “Incredibly, many of those who are responsible for killing these 3,000 plus individuals each year are never deported. Many never even serve any jail time. Roberto Galo spent 43 days in jail and then USCIS refused to deport him. DHS considers driving without a license a minor offense. They said he had “only committed one crime of moral turpitude.” Yes, I guess that does sound better than, “He only killed one person.””



The entire letter can be found on unlicensedtokill.org and it lists a number of tragic crimes committed by these illegal aliens, as well as some hard questions for the president. http://unlicensedtokill.org/2014/09/...the-president/


Donald Rosenberg has invited President Obama to visit his son’s grave, and in a follow up letter to the original, is now asking Obama if he can use executive action to bring him back to life, writing,

“While your Executive Order pad is out, can you write one to bring my son and the tens of thousands (actually over 100,000) killed by illegal aliens back to life and to bring our destroyed families back together?”

Over 100,000 people are dead due to illegal aliens, yet we keep hearing how illegal immigration is a victimless crime. The left will go to great lengths to secure future votes, even if that means standing on the graves of Americans while handing out voter registration forms to those who have no right to even stand on our soil.

It’s time for our lawmakers to step up and pay attention to the facts surrounding illegal immigration, start caring about the Drew Rosenbergs, and start listening to the people who put them in office, rather than worrying about which compromises they can make in order to secure another term for themselves.


http://www.tpnn.com/2014/11/13/fathe...g-my-son-back/

That was then ...
Now BO has a pen and phone ...

Every President’s Executive Orders In One Chart
1:41 PMNov 20 By Dhrumil Mehta

President Obama is due to announce an executive action Thursday, one that will change the legal status of millions of immigrants and is likely to be remembered as a major effort to change the country’s immigration system. The action would reportedly allow up to 4 million undocumented immigrants legal work status, and an additional 1 million protection from deportation. It would be one of the most wide-reaching executive actions in history.

That has made Republicans furious. The New York Times has a good roundup of the reaction, including quotes from Sens. John Cornyn (“I believe his unilateral action, which is unconstitutional and illegal, will deeply harm our prospects for immigration reform”) and Tom Coburn (“The country’s going to go nuts, because they’re going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it’s going to be a very serious situation”). The spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner has called the president “Emperor Obama,” implying that the executive action is an unlawful decree, and Sen. Ted Cruz said on Fox News that “the president is behaving in an unprecedented way.”

If it’s unprecedented, it’s because of the scope of the executive action, not the executive action itself. For decades, executive orders have been a fairly common tool for U.S. presidents. We looked at data from the American Presidency Project and found that the use of executive orders peaked in the era of the New Deal (FDR set the record) and has been on the decline since. In the past 100 years, Democrats have used them more than Republicans.

Here’s every president’s tally per year that he served in office.



Of the executive orders since 1956 that addressed immigration, the most wide-reaching was President George H.W. Bush’s Family Fairness plan. As Danny Vinik said at the New Republic, conservatives are noting that Bush’s action expanded upon congressional intent, but Obama’s would be in defiance of it.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/e...-in-one-chart/

When the issue is constitutionality, taking a look at the number of previous orders makes you look like you're writing for the high school newsletter. I can't think of why this graph would have any relevance to the current situation.

..

Yes. Simply counting the number of executive orders is deceptive as it is the impact of the orders that is important. To count as equal this action and George Washington's first executive order to paint the executive offices is quite counter to the quality of analysis that normally comes out of 538..

...

"Congressional intent" is very clear. Congress's will is expressed in laws. If they haven't passed any laws lately, that does not mean the president is suddenly a dictator that can do whatever he or she likes. Obama knows this and said so before he became a lame duck, impervious to the electorate.

..

It's not the amount but the effect his actions have taken. Obama uses his to bypass Congress (and the will of the people), whereas other presidents used them for more minor purposes. Obama has blatant disregard for the very laws he was elected to protect.

..

I think one thing to consider; and this was mentioned in the article you've posted as well, is the type and quality of the executive actions that were passed as well. Whereas, there were more executive actions throughout the decades beginning in 1901 leading up to the 1950's; a great number of these were passed and not revoked or superseded due to their being of the stature that they increased the quality of life for those living in the United States. Immigration reform, while needed, in the form in which has been discussed by the President is a somewhat off-kilter and irresponsible reform in that it is rewarding those that had no qualms with breaking a national law and continuing to break it by either hiding from it or lying to continue living here. It's sort of like if you just decided, "Hey, I'm getting robbed a lot, I think I'll just confront the burglar and give him the keys to my house." The quality of people who have knowingly disobeyed the laws of the country they were fleeing to needs to be taken into consideration. Granted the greater percentage of these people are hard working individuals that were only seeking a better opportunity in the United States; however, there are and were methods of obtaining citizenship that were utilized by millions of immigrants that didn't include stowing away on the Good Ship Lollipop, to use a euphemism. It's also important to mention that with a little digging; and I mean a little, you can find that the numbers presented in this article, though close, differ from those reported by other sites; both governmental and journalistic. Furthermore, I would personally like to affirm that I am a huge proponent of Immigration but I am against rewarding those who have achieved citizenship contrary to our own national laws.

..

You didn't post how many of those executive orders were declared unconstitutional by the courts....FDR's was especially invalid. A governor can grant a pardon to a few criminals but if he pardons half of the state's inmates....that would be beyond his power. It would make a joke of the criminal justice system. Which Obama has just done.

Also all the reasons the illegals are giving that we should wink and let them remain---as a card carrying member of a Native American tribe, I can tell you the Europeans and settlers that invaded our tribal lands gave the same reasons: It's a wealthy land, they aren't good Christians, I want the best for my children, my family needs to join me, they're racists.

It was wrong then and it's wrong now. Course the Democrats think Andrew Jackson is a great president even though he forced the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears so he could give their land to his low class white voters. Obama is doing the same so he can give the country to new group of voters. Thanks to the Democrat party, history is repeating itself. By the way, the SC told Jackson he couldn't force the Native Americans to leave their land, but he did anyhow.

...

If the Republicans gave Obama everything he wants on immigration with one condition ... these illegal aliens would not be allowed to vote for 20 years... would Obama and the Democrats approve this proposal? Hell no... They don't want to give the illegals amnesty for the sake of their families ... they want 50 million more registered Democrats.

...

it's a big deal because of the scope of the action, not the number of executive orders. no matter which party you follow, our current president has set a dangerous precedent. Now if a president disagrees with congress, he can circumvent them in much larger ways than has been done in the past. This is a serious threat to checks and balances, and could cause big problems no matter who is in office.

All those who think Obama's actions are so laudable ... what would you be saying if GWB were taking these actions ?

..

This graphic makes a ton of sense as long as you consider suspension of Habeus Corpus (Lincoln) equivalent to setting aside land in national parks for experimental tree farming (T. Roosevelt.)

Alas, some things aren't really suited to quantitative analysis.

..

Instead of just raw numbers, it would have been interesting to see this data as # of executive orders per time in office. Yes, FDR had the most, but he was also in office for 12+ years. I'm guessing Harding might be on top if we consider the rate, not just the total.

How Will Obama Fans Feel About The Secret Order He Just Signed?
November 22, 2014 By Kristina Hall

Apparently King Obama has signed a secret order authorizing a heavier military mission in Afghanistan for next year than originally planned, as reported by the New York today.

Instead of keeping to his plan and ensuring the remaining 9,800 troops would be limited to training only, this guarantees American troops will be in direct combat fighting in Afghanistan for at least another year. NYT added that Obama’s decision was made during a White House meeting with national security advisers in recent weeks.

Obama’s new order lets American forces execute missions against the Taliban and other militant groups threatening U.S. troops or the Afghan government. These missions will also include U.S. air strikes to help support Afghan forces on combat missions.

Now we will be left wondering if Obama will decide to send additional troops?

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/11/22/how-w...e-just-signed/

Didn't he run on the whole "Bring All the Troops HOME" ticket ??

White House aide says Obama will crush Dems who dare oppose him on Cuba, Iran, Keystone, etc...
Published by: Robert Laurie on Thursday January 22nd, 2015

Scorched Earth.

If you're an unpopular lame duck President whose terrible policies have granted your opponents two wave elections, you're bound to start noticing dissent among your supporters. For some Presidents that might mean that your pet projects will languish as your political friends become scarce. Not so for a petulant, frustrated man like Barack Obama.

For Obama, it simply means that he's going to have to start destroying members of his own party.

As the Daily Mail reports, the President is ready to lash out at any Democrat who would dare attempt to rein him in: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ate-Union.html

A White House aide said plainly on Wednesday that 'party loyalty' won't protect Barack Obama's fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill if they get in his way.

'The president is in the last two years,' the aide told Daily Mail Online, 'and party loyalty isn't worth what it used to be. He's going to steamroll them.'

...Obama's legislative vision hit an unexpected snag this week as prominent members of his own party – including three U.S. senators and a handful of indignant House members – voiced targeted objections to items on his State of the Union laundry list.

Specifically, that means that New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez - a Democrat who absolutely despises the administration's handling of Iran - has probably been placed on notice. Obama must not have appreciated Menendez's (correct) opinion that his plans for Iran "sound like talking points straight out of Tehran." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...of_tehran.html

Menendez also fired off an angry letter to John Kerry blasting the President's decision to get cozy with the Castro brothers, saying:
http://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/...te-john-kerry-

“After five decades of authoritarian, one-party rule, we must recognize that the Castros will never relax their iron-fisted control over Cuba unless compelled to do so."

So, for the sake of our glorious President's plans, Menendez must be flattened under Obama's mighty boot.

Also feeling the heat will be West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, who's been a vocal critic of Obama's litany of veto threats and his refusal to build the Keystone pipeline, as well as New York Representative Louise Slaughter who actually has the audacity to demand that the President follow existing congressional rules about international trade.

'I'm asking both parties to give me trade promotion authority to protect American workers,' the president said Tuesday night, 'with strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t just free, but fair.'

Slaughter, the top Democrat on the powerful House Rules Committee, leads a coalition of lawmakers who object to giving the White House a free hand – especially with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade pact encompassing a dozen nations on the Pacific Rim that they want the ability to alter later on.

So remember, everyone. If you're a Democrat with a conscience, and you're actually considering standing up to Obama, you've been warned. Like Dr. Evil, The President demands your silence, will not tolerate your insolence, and he's about to flatten you like a penny on the train tracks.

You must be so proud of your magnanimous leader.



http://www.caintv.com/white-house-aide-says-obama-wi

March 2nd, 2015

VIA INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...ys-he-isnt.htm

Rule Of Law: First, the president issues unlawful executive orders giving illegal immigrants amnesty. Then, he dares an equal branch of government to vote on his orders’ legality so he can veto it. Is he establishing a monarchy?

While speaking at a town hall meeting Wednesday night at Florida International University, President Obama clearly indicated that he believes he is the final authority on law in this country. He will not tolerate dissent.

“If Mr. McConnell, the leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, want to have a vote on whether what I’m doing is legal or not, they can have that vote. I will veto that vote, because I’m absolutely confident that what we’re doing is the right thing to do,” he told a group organized by Democratic Rep. Jose Diaz-Balart.

In November, Obama announced a set of unilateral actions to change the immigration system. Government agencies were ordered not to enforce the law against up to 5 million illegal immigrants in the country. He also declared that they would not be subject to deportation and were to be handed green cards.

There was no vote in Congress.

No consultation with the House and Senate.

No law cited that gave him the authority.

Just his word.

A month ago, we wondered if Obama was “so hellbent on amnesty for illegals he’ll resort to nullifying and even breaking the law.” Today, we know that he is.

Not even a federal judge’s ruling has stopped him from making and unmaking law as he sees fit. On Feb. 16, Southern Texas District Judge Andrew Hanen issued a temporary injunction against the administration’s executive lawmaking. “No, Mr. President,” said the George W. Bush appointee, “you and your party’s long-term political agenda are not above the law.”

The administration wants Hanen’s order lifted, but one should assume that even if the courts don’t rule Obama’s way, the White House will eventually do as it wishes and challenge the courts to stop it, just as it has taunted Congress.

Several times during Obama’s six years in office he has insisted he’s not a king able to act alone. He said it right up until he began to overtly behave as one.

House Speaker John Boehner’s office counted 22 times that Obama said “he couldn’t ignore or create his own immigration law.”

Yet at a time of his choosing, the president decided he could indeed create his own immigration law, just as he made changes to the Affordable Care Act as if it were his own set of commandments handed down from on high.

Never forget!!


Obama is the president who said all he needed was a pen and a phone, that he wasn’t going to wait around for Congress to act.

He’s the Oval Office occupant who, while visiting Monticello, Thomas Jefferson’s home in Charlottesville, Va., a year ago with French President Francois Hollande, declared that it’s a “good thing as a president, I can do whatever I want.”
KingObama
We said then and still believe today that if he meant that quip to be a joke, “it’s a bad one, for it accurately describes the psyche of a president who governs by executive order and regulation.”

A little more than a year after Obama’s re-election, the Washington Times reported that “from immigration to the minimum wage, congressional Democrats and liberal activists … urged Mr. Obama to declare an end run around Capitol Hill, assert executive authority and make as much progress as he can on the expansive agenda he laid out for his second term.”

They knew with whom they were dealing.

Obama well represents the political left, which has no time or respect for constitutional limits, the rule of law or power shared among the three branches.

Today’s leftists, loosely defined as “progressives,” want raw political power to enact their agenda. And from Obama they’re getting it.

Obama "Very Interested" In Raising Taxes Through Executive Action
Mar. 02, 2015

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed Monday that President Obama is "very interested" in the idea of raising taxes through unitlateral executive action.

"The president certainly has not indicated any reticence in using his executive authority to try and advance an agenda that benefits middle class Americans," Earnest said in response to a question about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) calling on Obama to raise more than $100 billion in taxes through IRS executive action. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/23...-on-tax-breaks

"Now I don't want to leave you with the impression that there is some imminent announcement, there is not, at least that I know of," Earnest continued. "But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals. So I am not in a position to talk in any detail at this point, but the president is very interested in this avenue generally," Earnest finished.

Sanders sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew Friday identifying a number of executive actions he believes the IRS could take, without any input from Congress, that would close loopholes currently used by corporations. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/0...-tax-overhauls In the past, IRS lawyers have been hesitant to use executive actions to raise significant amounts of revenue, but that same calculation has change in other federal agencies since Obama became president.

Obama's preferred option would be for Congress to pass a corporate tax hike that would fund liberal infrastructure projects like mass transit. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncar...udget-n1951721 But if Congress fails to do as Obama wishes, just as Congress has failed to pass the immigration reforms that Obama prefers, Obama could take actions unilaterally instead. This past November, for example, Obama gave work permits, Social Security Numbers, and drivers licenses to approximately 4 million illegal immigrants.

Those immigration actions, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will raise federal deficits by $8.8 billion over the next ten years. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncar...ls-to-n1962263

http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/connc...tion-n1964629#

Those immigration actions, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will raise federal deficits by $8.8 billion over the next ten years...

IRS defends paying refunds to illegals who never filed taxes
February 25, 2015

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...r-filed-taxes/

More of the same....lies upon lies.
The hypocrisy of the left: