A Lawless President That Ignores “The Rule of Law”

Many Americans are shocked to see a president that thumbs his nose at the Judicial branch of our government and just began making laws and executive decisions on his own when court findings disagree with what he thought should happen in a case. The outcry by Americans has only just begun.

Remember the Presidential oath of office: “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.”

That oath is succinct regarding the requirement for every president to defend the Constitution “to the best of his or her ability.” What’s the purpose of the Constitution? To forever be the legal template for all of the nation to use in crafting and implementing all federal legislation passed and signed into law. No person, either American or foreign, has a right to under any conditions refuse to abide by duly enacted laws. And each must be held accountable for breaking any of these laws. Remember: “No man is above the law.” That includes U.S. Presidents.

So why does Executive Branch lawbreaking happen?

You may have reached the conclusion that this story is NOT about Donald Trump — it’s about former President Barack Obama. It’s amazing how many instances of wrongdoing on the part of the President were given a benign approval by millions in America — including those in Congress and even from the Department of Justice.

I know: there are those that will make tag these comments and this story as one of racist rhetoric by a racist Southerner. Nothing could be further from the truth. As is normal at TruthNewsNetwork, we bring you conclusions based on facts. And you are always provided the facts on which conclusions are made.

How did I feel personally about Mr. Obama? I did not vote for him in 2008 or 2012. My vote never had any tie to his skin color: I didn’t agree with his policies and thought in both elections those supported by his opponents were better for the American people than were his. So I voted based solely on my thoughts driven by his political standings on issues. And I supported him while in office and hoped desperately he would succeed in making things better in our nation.

I heard that philosophy best explained this way:

When I board a commercial jet, I may not like the pilot or co-pilot. I may not like the way the pilot talks just before takeoff on the PA to the passengers. But all that matters is that he IS the pilot for my flight. I would never wish failure for him. I want him to succeed. He succeeds when he successfully lands that plane at my destination. After all, if he doesn’t succeed, it’s not going to be too good for me!

That illustrates my feelings for every president that has served during my lifetime and every member of Congress, my state government, parish (county) and city as well.

All that being said, it troubled me constantly during the Obama eight years to face his obvious disdain for U.S. law. And in many cases, he specifically usurped laws passed by Congress and signed into law by previous presidents in favor of his OWN thoughts and ideas about legal matters.

We today have been bombarded by a Press and by members of Congress who are screaming at the sky about Attorney General William Barr’s position to “readdress” the sentencing of Roger Stone for his illegalities which apparently will imprison him for nine years. Democrats are crying for the head of Attorney General Barr AND, once again, that of President Trump.

Let’s today put that in context. Let’s compare these actions by this Attorney General and President to those of President Obama and his Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch. While doing so, think back to the ways the Media and Democrats acted in the aftermath of each of these things.

“In Your Face”

Black Panthers A federal court in Washington, D.C., held that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party. The New Black Panthers case stems from a Election Day 2008 incident where two members of the New Black Panther Party were filmed outside a polling place intimidating voters and poll watchers by brandishing a billy club. Justice Department lawyers investigated the case, filed charges, and when the Panthers failed to respond, a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the Panthers defendants. But after Obama was sworn in, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissed charges against three of the defendants, and let the fourth off with a narrowly tailored restraining order.

Fast and Furious  Operation Fast and Furious was an Obama program in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) helped put heavy weapons into the hands of murderous drug cartels in Mexico. The whole scandal exploded when a federal agent was murdered with a Fast and Furious gun. As the story threatened to bring down key Obama officials, the spin was put out that it was all part of a supposed “investigation” into “drug cartels.” However, massive amounts of evidence emerged in the subsequent months and years, suggesting that it was actually a criminal operation to blame the Second Amendment for violence, with the supposed targets of the alleged “investigation” already on the FBI payroll. Indeed, top lawmakers and gun-rights activists have said the operation was intended to be exploited by Obama to push gun-control.  It blew up in the administration’s face when federal agents blew the whistle.

Congress, in its investigation, subpoenaed the DOJ for records that detailed that operation. AG Eric Holder himself was involved in withholding thousands of key documents. Holder requested President Obama to exert executive privilege to allow the DOJ to withhold those documents. Obama did so. However, Congress found Holder in Contempt of Congress and referred his doing so to the Washington D.C. federal attorney’s office for prosecution. That federal attorney — an Obama appointee — refused to take up the matter for investigation and prosecution of the Contempt charge. It, therefore, was never brought to the Court for adjudication.

Let’s just make a quick list of some of the other top examples:

  • Attempted to shut down gun stores outside of the law
  • Spent tax dollars to illegally re-settle illegals inside the U.S.
  • Illegally targeted conservative groups via IRS
  • Secretly obtained phone records from Associated Press journalists
  • Carried out military interventionism in Libya without Congressional approval
  • Conducted the unconstitutional, indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without filing any charges
  • Undertook illegal, warrantless wiretapping
  • Ordered Boeing — a private company — to fire 1,000 employees
  • Stole money from retired teachers and police officers during Chrysler bankruptcy
  • Auctioned off ambassadorship to the Netherlands
  • Took money from retired Delphi employees by canceling their pensions unilaterally
  • Illegally gave Obamacare exemptions to unions that supported the passage of Obamacare
  • Authorized installation of hidden cameras on private property without a search warrant
  • Accepted illegal campaign contributions from foreign citizens

“Not only did I not get indicted, nobody in my administration got indicted.” That’s how Mr. Obama justified his continual law-breaking and the authorization of members of the Eric Holder and then Loretta Lynch Department of Justice to skirt the law. The Obama Administration, under his leadership, will likely be labeled by historians as “one of, if not THE, most corrupt administrations in U.S. history.” Americans don’t hear much about that. Instead, here’s what we hear today:

Trump friend Roger Stone caught-up in the Mueller Investigation was convicted of seven felonies in his federal trial. Oddly enough, not a single charge nor conviction had anything to do with President Trump, his campaign, or even the Mueller investigation “original” purpose: “to prove Trump et al. colluded with Russians to impact the 2016 election for the benefit of Candidate Trump.” NO American was ever charged with anything to do with Donald Trump or Russian collusion. Stone, Paul Manaforte, and Michael Cohen and General Michael Flynn were charged with “process crimes;” that is, crimes regarding their testimony in which they allegedly (and were subsequently convicted of or plead to) told lies or interfered with the Mueller investigation. Mueller prosecutors wanted Stone to be sentenced to nine years + for his crimes.

The uproar from Democrats is deafening in the wake of Attorney General William Barr’s move to “reassess” the Stone sentence. Barr, as AG, can do that. And Democrats want his head.

Naturally, the Democrats and their media minions have gone nuts about Barr’s pending actions regarding the Stone sentencing. There are cries from the Left for Barr’s resignation for his testimony before House and Senate committees to be questioned for his reasonings for intervention in Stone’s sentence.

But what is the uproar all about: Donald Trump!

Facts are facts: Federal minimums for non-violent offenders are typically not anywhere near the nine years with which Stone is facing. Manslaughter with a weapon — one year; Burglary with a firearm — one year; Sexual assault with a gun — two years; Assault with a firearm — one year; Carjacking — three years.

Stone’s seven crimes? All had to do with “misrepresenting facts, lying to Congress, lying to Prosecutors, etc. None were serious crimes and none were violent nor involved another person. Remember this: General Michael Flynn was goaded into pleading guilty for lying to FBI investigators during an “unofficial” visit by FBI agents. It was an illegal interrogation of Flynn. He was NOT notified what was their purpose. He was therefore not informed he might need an attorney present. Then when it became apparent what they had was flimsy at best, they blackmailed a confession from Flynn, telling him if he did NOT agree, they would charge his son for not registering as a lobbyist for a foreign country.

Summary

Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch during the Obama Administration flaunted their disrespect for and constant ignoring of federal law, including those broken by their boss in the White House! Where were the Democrats in Congress when that occurred? We heard nothing. There was NO outcry about Obama’s wrongdoing and his often illegal actions. These examples showed there was a two-tiered justice system in America: one for Democrats and their cronies and one for everyone else.

I won’t even bring race into this conversation. But it appears that President Obama seemed to be acting on some racial “get-even” cause by arbitrarily determining which laws could be broken and by whom. And much of those instances listed above and dozens of others “seem” to have racial overtones.

No one can reasonably state there was no racial injustice in America. No one can reasonably assert that African-Americans were and are today not held to a different standard of liability by law enforcement officials. To what measure was the racial injustice then and today is sadly totally subjective. And that allows the cries for retribution for past sins to be forced on Americans today over and over.

If that played any role in any of the actions described here today by President Obama and members of his Department of Justice, it’s a sad revelation of the spite and disrespect Mr. Obama and his administration members had for the Constitution and the rule of law. Any attempt to determine the “why” for those actions would result in only subjective answers: there is no way to reach an inevitable conclusion.

What is the truth in all this? The Stone sentencing, when viewed in the light of the federal criminal sentencing guidelines, is a sign of unfairness and partisan attacks. Can you imagine how Democrats would feel if this happened under President Obama regarding a friend of his today? Democrats in Congress and elsewhere would be screaming through their media outlets for that Attorney General’s head!

Instead, Democrats, today are in a fashion saying to us all: “Ignore the federal minimum sentencing guidelines. Ignore sentencing precedents. Ignore the nature of the proven charges for which Mr. Stone was convicted. Thow the book at him!”

But they’re going even more in-depth with their cries for the heads of Barr and Trump: they are once again showing the nation they will do anything — anything at all — to remove Donald Trump and every official elected or appointed during the Trump presidency.

“Forget about Americans; forget about the election process including the one just months ahead. We’ll inject our opinions into the process while removing those of American voters.”

To me, that sounds like Anarchy!

Play

One thought on “A Lawless President That Ignores “The Rule of Law”

  1. Mary Wieg Reply

    God bless you for printing this. thank you!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.