Obama's Executive orders are actually "Stealth changes in the LAW" that tilts the country slowly towards a Federal Socialist Oligarchy

Barack Hussein Obama and his progressive lefty supporters tout the fact that he’s issued fewer executive orders than other recent presidents, suggesting Republicans are pushing a non-issue about his executive orders.
What is so frustrating to me is that Conservatives and Republicans are so incompetent in explaining why the number of executive orders is irrelevant;

Obama’s orders making new laws and breaking established law. Obama swore when he took the oath ...“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Yes every president issues executive orders, and commentators only open themselves to ridicule if they suggest there’s anything wrong with those orders as such. Presidents issue them to agencies or employees of the executive branch of the federal government–not the American people–regarding how to carry out specific duties or programs.  Obama's Executive orders are actually "Stealth changes in the LAW" that tilts the country slowly towards a Federal Socialist Oligarchy

WE ARE LIKE THIS FROG IN A POT OF BOILING WATER
 

The Take Care Clause of the Constitution in Article II commands each president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” So long as he issues orders specifically directing his subordinates on how to administer or enforce some aspect of federal law, he’s fulfilling his constitutional duty.
But two things executive orders cannot do: They cannot make law, and they cannot stop laws from being carried out. This is where Obama is taking what may be unprecedented steps in violation of the Constitution.


For example, refusing to prosecute a class of drug crimes is failing to enforce the law as Congress wrote it. If laws such as the different punishments for powder cocaine versus crack cocaine are unjustified, then it is up to the Congress–the lawmaking branch of government–to decide whether to change that law.

Or voter intimidation. The Black Panthers intimidated white voters in Philadelphia in 2008. The federal government under the Bush administration won a court judgment against some of those responsible. When Obama took over, he ordered the Justice Department to drop the matter by not filing the final papers, even though the case was already won. 

Or Obamacare’s employer mandate, which Congress specified in the Affordable Care Act went into effect on Jan. 1, 2014. The impact was going to be politically disastrous for Democrats in the midterm elections, so Obama announced in a speech that the IRS would not enforce that provision of the ACA until 2015. 

Those are three of many instances of not enforcing the law; sometimes Obama puts it in a formal executive order, other times not. (For example, he had the employer mandate suspension announced by an assistant treasury secretary in a blog post.)

Even worse, some of Obama’s executive orders actually make substantive public policy. In other words, they actually make new law without Congress. 

Obama’s DACA program (not deporting “Dreamers”) is an example. He’s not just failing to enforce immigration law. Instead he’s created a new federal program, designating illegal aliens into four different categories and establishing new criteria for who can indefinitely stay in the United States and who cannot. 

Another is Obama’s executive order that organizations who do not support the LGBT agenda under the rubric of “nondiscrimination” cannot receive a business contract with the federal government. As a consequence, if Hobby Lobby or any other business wholly owned and operated by observant Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, or even Muslims, denies spousal benefits to same-sex partners, or doesn’t want to bake wedding cakes for gay-marriage receptions, the federal government can refuse to do business with them. 

Frankly, even if Congress passed such a law it should be held unconstitutional under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The unconstitutional-conditions doctrine provides that no American can be required to forfeit their rights in order to do business with the federal government.
So even Congress cannot do this, but Obama did it anyway. 

Or again with Obamacare. Evidently to push back its job-killing effects, Obama has announced that he’s delaying the employer mandate yet again, but only for some businesses. 

Congress specified that companies with 50 or more full-time employees are subject to the mandate to offer health insurance. But Obama announced that for 2015 he’ll not enforce it against companies with 50 to 99 employees, but he will enforce it for 100 or more. 

That’s essentially making new law. Congress specified that the mandate starts at 50. Obama is essentially rewriting the law by saying it starts at 100. Congress can change that number at any time, but the president can never change it. 

Yet Conservatives and Republicans fail to make this simple point:

“It makes no difference whether he issues fewer orders than past presidents. They issued orders about how to follow the law, but he’s issuing orders not to follow the law.”

HERE ARE SOME Violations of Law By HUSSEIN Obama and His Administration

1. Obama Administration uses IRS to target conservative, Christian and pro-Israel organizations, donors, and citizens.
   
2. In an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment, the Obama Justice Department ordered criminal investigations of FOX News reporters for doing their jobs during the 2012 election year.
   
3. President Obama, throughout his Presidency, has refused to enforce long-established U.S. immigration laws. For example . . .
   
   • More than 300,000 captured illegal aliens had been processed and were awaiting deportation. But, incredibly, Obama stopped these deportations and ordered the U.S. border patrol to release many of these illegal aliens in violation of law and without explanation.
   • Congress rejected Obama's so called DREAM ACT – which would have granted permanent residency to many illegal aliens. So Obama enacted his own version of the DREAM ACT by Executive Order, thus directly defying Congress. According to Obama's Executive Order, illegal aliens can stay in America if they are under the age of 30, have been in America for at least five years, are enrolled in school or have graduated from high school, and have committed no felonies.
4. Obama has refused to build a double-barrier security fence along the U.S.-Mexican border in direct violation of the 2006 Secure Fence Act. This law requires that "at least two layers of reinforced fencing" be built along America's 650-mile border with Mexico. So far, just 40 miles of this fence have been built – most of it during the Bush Administration.
   
5. Obama's unconstitutional assault on your Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
   President Obama issued, in one day, 21 separate Executive Orders that attack and undermine your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
   Especially egregious is President Obama's Executive Orders amending the ObamaCare law to allow doctors and hospitals to investigate which patients own a gun. This outrageous Executive Order could allow the federal government to track and monitor law-abiding gun owners simply because they sought medical care.
   
6. Obama's assault on Christians and religious freedom.
   Obama's Health and Human Services Department has, on its own (without Congressional approval), issued a mandate that all health insurance plans must include coverage for abortion-inducing drugs. As a result, pro-life employers and taxpayers are now effectively required by law to pay for abortions.
   This mandate is an unconstitutional attack on the protections for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience in the First Amendment and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This mandate also directly violates the ObamaCare law enacted by Congress, which prohibits any and all taxpayer funds from being used to pay for abortions.
   
7. Obama forced ObamaCare on an unwilling public through bribery and lying about its cost.
   Obama managed to secure passage of ObamaCare by one vote in the Senate by bribing senators. He bribed Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska with the notorious "Cornhusker Kickback." He bribed Senator Mary Landrieu with the infamous $300 million "Louisiana Purchase."
   In addition, Obama knowingly and blatantly lied to America and to Congress about how much ObamaCare would really cost. The cost of ObamaCare to the American people over the next 10 years will not be less than $1 TRILLION, as Obama promised in his nationally televised speech to the nation. Instead, the real cost of ObamaCare to the Federal Treasury is $2.4 TRILLION, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
   But the true cost of ObamaCare is more like $10 TRILLION when you factor in the cost to the states, the cost to individual Americans who are now required to purchase Obama-approved health plans (the "Individual Mandate"), the cost of exploding health insurance premiums, the $716 billion ObamaCare steals from Medicare, and the increased cost to businesses of complying with ObamaCare mandates.
   
8. Operation Fast & Furious.
   "Operation Fast & Furious" was the Obama Administration's gun-running scheme that put thousands of American-made semi-automatic weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels and resulted in the death of at least one U.S. Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry. Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress and the public, claiming he didn't know about his Justice Department's Fast & Furious operation.
   Congress has now held Holder in contempt for defying congressional subpoenas and refusing to turn over thousands of Justice Department documents on Fast & Furious. President Obama asserted Executive Privilege to try to protect Holder. But for Executive Privilege to apply, Obama would have had to have known about Fast & Furious, making the President as culpable as Holder.
   Investigators suspect that Fast & Furious was an effort by the Obama Administration to discredit lawful gun ownership in America by purposefully creating gun crimes, thus inducing public outcry for gun control. When it put thousands of semi-automatic weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels, the Obama Justice Department knew these guns would be used to commit crimes, perhaps even kill some Americans. Then Obama could say: "See how dangerous these guns are. We must ban them."
   
9. "Federal Communications Commission (FCC): Regulated the Internet despite a court order from the Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. stating that the FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet." (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)
   
10. "Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Imposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rules on the state of Texas at the last minute and without an opportunity for Texas to respond to the proposed regulation. EPA overreach was based on a dubious claim that air pollution from Texas affected a single air-quality monitor in Granite City, Illinois more than 500 miles and three states away from Texas." (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)
    
11. "Department of Justice (DOJ): Rejected state voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States. DOJ ignored section 8 of the Voting Rights Act which calls for protections against voter fraud, and used section 5 to administratively block measures to protect the integrity of elections passed by state legislatures." (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)
    
12. "DOJ: In violation of 10th Amendment, sued to prevent Arizona from using reasonable measures to discourage illegal immigration within its borders. Arizona has a large number of illegal immigrants, compared to other states, and needs to be able to act to reduce the number." (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)
    
13. "DOJ: Went to court to stop enforcement of Alabama's immigration reform laws, which require collection of the immigration status of public school students, require businesses to use E-Verify, and prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits." (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)
    
14. "White House: Made "recess appointments" to the National Labor Relations Board and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when Congress was NOT in recess. The Obama Administration has ignored the ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that the appointments are unconstitutional." (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)
    
15. "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): Interfered with a Michigan church's selection of its own ministers by trying to force the church to reinstate a minister who was discharged for her disagreement with the religious doctrine of the church." (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)
    
16. "Department of Energy (DOE): In 2009, the Obama Administration arbitrarily broke federal law, violated various contracts, and derailed the most studied energy project in American history at Yucca Mountain by denying it a license, thus costing the American people more than $31 billion." (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)
    
17. Department of the Interior (DOI): Forced Glendale, a family-oriented town in Arizona, to become another Las Vegas against its will by granting "reservation status" to a 54-acre plot in the town, where the Tohono O'odham Indian Nation plans to build a resort and casino." (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)
    
18. Without Congressional approval, Obama gutted the work requirement for welfare recipients passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
    
19. In the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler, Obama illegally shortchanged bond holders in favor of Labor Unions, despite U.S. bankruptcy laws that specify that bond holders be first in line to be paid back.
    
20. Eager to use the killing of Osama bin Laden for political gain, Obama exposed the identity and method of operation of the Navy SEALs team that conducted the operation in Pakistan, thus exposing its members to a lifetime of risk because they have been targeted for assassination by Islamists. A short time after Obama exposed the Navy SEALs' method of operation, 22 SEALs were shot down and killed in Afghanistan. It is a violation of law for the President or any American to reveal classified military secrets.
    
21. President Obama established an extra-constitutional top secret "kill list" of people (including Americans) who can be summarily killed on sight – presumably by drones -- without due process. Once on Obama's kill list, an American citizen can be targeted and executed on the opinion of a single government bureaucrat. That's not how our legal system is supposed to work.
    
22. Obama Administration officials twisted the arms of defense contractors to not issue layoff notices in October of 2012 so as to avoid causing bad news for Obama right before the election — even though federal law (the "WARN Act") requires such notices. ; Not only is this a violation of the WARN Act, it's also an unlawful use of federal officials for campaign purposes.
    
23. President Obama intervened militarily in Libya in 2011 without the Congressional approval required by the War Powers Act.
    
24. Obama knowingly lied to Congress and the American people about the killing of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya. The President and his representatives repeatedly said an anti-Islamic video sparked a spontaneous uprising in Libya that resulted in the killings even though Obama knew that the attack was a well-planned military-style assault by al Qaeda on the anniversary of September 11.
    
25. Michelle Obama's family trip to Africa in June of 2011, including a private safari at a South African game reserve, cost American taxpayers $424,000 for air travel alone. Mrs. Obama brought along both her makeup artist and hairstylist, as well as her mother, a niece and nephew, and her daughters, who were listed as "senior staff members."
    
    THIS LIST IS ENDLESS... BUT SERVES THE POINT...
    
    ONLY REVOLUTION CAN CHANGE THE COURSE OF OUR HISTORY. WE ARE CAREENING TOWARDS A FEDERAL OLIGARCHY..
    
    Our Government is longer in power because of the "Consent of the Governed"...
    

    Consent of the Governed

     

    

    The Declaration of Independence says, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This means that government gets all its power from the people. The people set up the government.
    The people run the government. The government does not run the people. If people don’t like the government, they have the right to change it.
    
    Consider this...
    One question after another comes to mind. Must every person consent? If not, how many must, and what options do those who do not consent have? What form must the consent take — verbal, written, explicit, implicit? If implicit, how is it to be registered? Given that the composition of society is constantly changing, owing to births, deaths, and international migration, how often must the rulers confirm that they retain the consent of the governed? And so on and on. Political legitimacy, it would appear, presents a multitude of difficulties when we move from the realm of theoretical abstraction to that of practical realization.
    I raise this question because, in regard to the so-called social contract, I have often had occasion to protest that I haven't even seen the contract, much less been asked to consent to it. A valid contract requires voluntary offer, acceptance, and consideration. I've never received an offer from my rulers, so I certainly have not accepted one; and rather than consideration, I have received nothing but contempt from the rulers, who, notwithstanding the absence of any agreement, have indubitably threatened me with grave harm in the event that I fail to comply with their edicts.
    What monumental effrontery these people exhibit! What gives them the right to rob me and push me around? It certainly is not my desire to be a sheep for them to shear or slaughter as they deem expedient for the attainment of their own ends.
    Moreover, when we flesh out the idea of "consent of the governed" in realistic detail, the whole notion quickly becomes utterly preposterous. Just consider how it would work. A would-be ruler approaches you and offers a contract for your approval. Here, says he, is the deal.
    

    I, the party of the first part ("the ruler"), promise:
    (1) To stipulate how much of your money you will hand over to me, as well as how, when, and where the transfer will be made. You will have no effective say in the matter, aside from pleading for my mercy, and if you should fail to comply, my agents will punish you with fines, imprisonment, and (in the event of your persistent resistance) death.
    (2) To make thousands upon thousands of rules for you to obey without question, again on pain of punishment by my agents. You will have no effective say in determining the content of these rules, which will be so numerous, complex, and in many cases beyond comprehension that no human being could conceivably know about more than a handful of them, much less their specific character; yet if you should fail to comply with any of them, I will feel free to punish you to the extent of a law made by me and my confederates.
    (3) To provide for your use, on terms stipulated by me and my agents, so-called public goods and services. Although you may actually place some value on a few of these goods and services, most will have little or no value to you, and some you will find utterly abhorrent, and in no event will you as an individual have any effective say over the goods and services I provide, notwithstanding any economist's cock-and-bull story to the effect that you "demand" all this stuff and value it at whatever amount of money I choose to expend for its provision.
    (4) In the event of a dispute between us, judges beholden to me for their appointment and salaries will decide how to settle the dispute. You can expect to lose in these settlements, if your case is heard at all.
    In exchange for the foregoing government "benefits," you, the party of the second part ("the subject"), promise:
    (5) To shut up, make no waves, obey all orders issued by the ruler and his agents, kowtow to them as if they were important, honorable people, and when they say "jump," ask only "how high?"

    Such a deal! Can we really imagine that any sane person would consent to it?
    
    
    
    
                    This is where we are today people!!
    
    RRR