Obama To Unveil "Multiple Gun Control" Executive Actions Next Week

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/01/2016 16:07 -0500

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-01/obama-unveil-multiple-gun-control-executive-actions-next-week-after-meeting-attorney

A month ago, after the mass San Bernardino shooting, we predicted that "the US will see increasingly more escalating "attacks" until ultimately Obama's crackdown on gun sales and possession hits its breaking point and the president's gun confiscation mandate is finally executed."

Without a Democratic majority in Congress, and faced with a GOP that is firmly against any form of gun control measures, Obama has repeatedly warned that he would act on his own. Next week he will do just that, and his "gun confiscation" mandate will get a substantial boost on Monday, when according to the WSJ Obama will meet with US Attorney General Loretta Lynch "to consider measures aimed at reducing gun violence, a conversation that comes as he prepares to announce new executive actions in the coming days."

The president has directed administration officials to explore any steps he could take on guns without lawmakers’ help, and he said in his weekly address that he would sit down with Ms. Lynch on Monday “to discuss our options.”

Once he has Lynch's "blessing", the WSJ adds that Obama "could lay out multiple executive actions as soon as next week, and administration officials have confirmed that recommendations for the president are nearing completion."

White House spokesman Eric Schultz said Mr. Obama asked his team to “scrub existing legal authorities” and assess actions that could be taken administratively.

Why act now?

"I get too many letters from parents, and teachers, and kids to sit around and do nothing,” Obama said in the address, which was released Friday morning.

Something tells Obama gets even more letters from supporters of the Second amendment, although their contents may be just slighly more "colorful."

“We know that we can’t stop every act of violence. But what if we tried to stop even one?” Obama added. “What if Congress did something—anything—to protect our kids from gun violence?”

"The president has made clear he’s not satisfied with where we are and expects that work to be completed soon," the White House spokesman added. In other words, it's time for the president to micromanage yet another aspect of daily US lives, because Obamacare turned out so well.

One executive action that will almost certainly be unveiled is the "tightening" of rules for firearms sellers by requiring more of them to be licensed and, as a result, to conduct background checks on buyers.

Anything Obama does unveil will be met with stiff resistance.

Many gun-rights groups already have signaled opposition to new rules for private sellers and an expansion of background checks. And they have questioned whether Mr. Obama has the legal authority to act unilaterally.

Research by the National Rifle Association showed that dating back to the 2007 mass murder at Virginia Tech, none of the high-profile mass shootings has been conducted600 with a firearm bought from a private seller. Adam Lanza is believed to have stolen his mother’s gun after killing her then using it in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

“I don’t think the president has the authority to redefine what a dealer is because that is defined in existing federal statute,” said Dave Workman, senior editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s The Gun Mag. “He can’t snap his fingers and suddenly say to someone who sells a gun at a gun show is now a dealer. That would take congressional action.”

Meanwhile, while the US wait to see what executive orders Obama will implement, at the state level numerous gun-related laws just kicked in starting in the new year.

In Texas, beginning today, adults with the proper permits no longer need to hide the handguns they carry in their shoulder or belt holsters. Proponents of the new open carry law say making guns more visible will deter mass shootings.The bill became law after a spirited debate. A majority of the state's police chiefs opposed it.

"The question is: Does it make sense and is it good judgment to have a bunch of people running around with guns visible? And I think the answer is: Absolutely not," said Chief Art Acevedo of Austin.

While Texas is easing gun regulations, starting Friday in California it will be illegal for holders of concealed carry permits to bring handguns to school campuses.  Meanwhile, the city of Albany, New York, will now require owners of firearms to store their guns in a secure container or install trigger locks. Repeat violators could face up to a one-year jail term.

Ironically, instead of implementing executive orders, what Obama should do instead if he wants to make an immediate change, is focus on his home state. According to the Chicago Tribune, Chicago's first homicide of 2016 occurred barely 2 hours into the new year.

Two people were shot in the 4600 block of South St. Lawrence Avenue at about 2 a.m., police said. One of them, a 24-year-old man, reportedly had been arguing with someone who pulled out a gun and shot him in the chest. He was declared dead on the scene. 

In the latest homicide, a 36-year-old man was shot in the chest and died at a hospital, said Nicole Trainor, a spokeswoman for the Chicago Police Department. The shooting happened at 6:40 a.m. in the 1900 block of West Garfield Boulevard in the city’s Back of the Yards neighborhood, said Trainor. The victim was driving a sport-utility vehicle westbound on Garfield when he heard shots and realized he’d been wounded, said Officer Janel Sedevic, a spokeswoman for the Chicago Police. The 36-year-old was driven to the Artesian Avenue and 55th Street where an ambulance was called and he was taken to Stroger Hospital where he died, Trainor said.

In short, eradicating gun violence in Chicago (and D.C.) would likely do miracles for the average gun homicide rate across all of the US. Which is why it will never happen.

Meanwhile, if Obama wants to truly curb gun ownership at the national level, the solution there is also simple, as the following chart from the NYT reveals:

He should resign.

United States Of Newspeak – Obama Spins Executive Orders As "Presidential Memoranda" To Avoid Scrutiny

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/18/2014

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-18/united-states-newspeak-%E2%80%93-obama-spins-executive-orders-presidential-memoranda-avoid-s

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
If there’s one thing we have learned about Barack Obama, it’s that he is a master of deception and absolutely loves to lie to the public. He seems to enjoy conning the plebs to such a degree, I think he actually receives blasts of dopamine every time he does it. The bigger the lie, the better the rush.
The latest example relates to his issuance of executive orders, or lack thereof, something that Obama Inc. has actively attempted to portray as evidence of his restraint when it comes to executive power. Here are a few examples from a USA Today article published earlier today.
First, from the man himself:

“The truth is, even with all the actions I’ve taken this year, I’m issuing executive orders at the lowest rate in more than 100 years,” Obama said in a speech in Austin last July. “So it’s not clear how it is that Republicans didn’t seem to mind when President Bush took more executive actions than I did.”

Harry Reid also proudly chimed in:

In a Senate floor speech in July, Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “While Republicans accuse President Obama of executive overreach, they neglect the fact that he has issued far fewer executive orders than any two-term president in the last 50 years.”

Finally, the message wouldn’t be complete without some words from Bootlicker in Chief Jay Carney:

“There is no question that this president has been judicious in his use of executive action, executive orders, and I think those numbers thus far have come in below what President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton did,” said Jay Carney, then the White House press secretary, in February.

Nice spin, but what’s the truth? Also from USA Today:

WASHINGTON — President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.

Like executive orders, presidential memoranda don’t require action by Congress. They have the same force of law as executive orders and often have consequences just as far-reaching. And some of the most significant actions of the Obama presidency have come not by executive order but by presidential memoranda.

The Office of Legal Counsel — which is responsible for advising the president on executive orders and memoranda — says there’s no difference between the two.

With that in mind, how does Obama’s record stand up when you combine his issuance of executive orders and executive memoranda? Well, here you go:

Oh, and let’s not forget this guy still has two years left to further separate himself from the pack.
More from USA Today:

WASHINGTON — President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.

Obama has issued executive orders to give federal employees the day after Christmas off, to impose economic sanctions and to determine how national secrets are classified. He’s used presidential memoranda to make policy on gun control, immigration and labor regulations. Tuesday, he used a memorandum to declare Bristol Bay, Alaska, off-limits to oil and gas exploration.

Like executive orders, presidential memoranda don’t require action by Congress. They have the same force of law as executive orders and often have consequences just as far-reaching. And some of the most significant actions of the Obama presidency have come not by executive order but by presidential memoranda.

Obama has made prolific use of memoranda despite his own claims that he’s used his executive power less than other presidents. “The truth is, even with all the actions I’ve taken this year, I’m issuing executive orders at the lowest rate in more than 100 years,” Obama said in a speech in Austin last July. “So it’s not clear how it is that Republicans didn’t seem to mind when President Bush took more executive actions than I did.”

Obama has issued 195 executive orders as of Tuesday. Published alongside them in the Federal Register are 198 presidential memoranda — all of which carry the same legal force as executive orders.
He’s already signed 33% more presidential memoranda in less than six years than Bush did in eight. He’s also issued 45% more than the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who assertively used memoranda to signal what kinds of regulations he wanted federal agencies to adopt.

Obama is not the first president to use memoranda to accomplish policy aims. But at this point in his presidency, he’s the first to use them more often than executive orders.

So even as he’s quietly used memoranda to signal policy changes to federal agencies, Obama and his allies have claimed he’s been more restrained in his use of that power.

In a Senate floor speech in July, Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “While Republicans accuse President Obama of executive overreach, they neglect the fact that he has issued far fewer executive orders than any two-term president in the last 50 years.”

“There is no question that this president has been judicious in his use of executive action, executive orders, and I think those numbers thus far have come in below what President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton did,” said Jay Carney, then the White House press secretary, in February.

Executive orders are numbered — the most recent, Executive Order 13683, modified three previous executive orders. Memoranda are not numbered, not indexed and, until recently, difficult to quantify.

That’s precisely why Obama is utilizing them at a record clip.

Indeed, many of Obama’s memoranda do the kinds of things previous presidents did by executive order.

• In 1970, President Nixon issued an executive order on unneeded federal properties. Forty years later, Obama issued a similar policy by memorandum.

Presidential scholar Phillip Cooper calls presidential memoranda “executive orders by another name, and yet unique.”

The law does not define the difference between an executive order and a memorandum, but it does say that the president should publish in the Federal Register executive orders and other documents that “have general applicability and legal effect.”

There are subtle differences. Executive orders are numbered; memoranda are not. Memoranda are always published in the Federal Register after proclamations and executive orders. And under Executive Order 11030, signed by President Kennedy in 1962, an executive order must contain a “citation of authority,” saying what law it’s based on. Memoranda have no such requirement.

Whatever they’re called, those executive actions are binding on future administrations unless explicitly revoked by a future president, according to legal opinion from the Justice Department.

The Office of Legal Counsel — which is responsible for advising the president on executive orders and memoranda — says there’s no difference between the two.

Even the White House sometimes gets tripped up on the distinction. Explaining Obama’s memoranda on immigration last month, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the president would happily “tear up his own executive order” if Congress passes an immigration bill.

Obama had issued no such executive order. Earnest later corrected himself. “I must have misspoke. I meant executive actions. So I apologize,” he said.

Not to fear, we just found out that Jeb Bush will be running for President in 2016. There’s always something to look forward to.

Jon Stewart on the SOTU: Executive Order Is the Most Auto-Erotic Form of Government

'Apparently, President Obama's in the f*&k it stage of his presidency.'

 

Jon Stewart mounted a spirited reaction to President Obama's State of the Union Address last night, just moments after Obama finished speaking.
For one thing, the late night comedian made the very constructive suggestion that political speeches—and reactions to them—could very easily and efficiently be handled by vines. That would certainly save us all a lot of time. For instance, here's the Tea Party reaction to the President's speech. "Socialist, communist, tyrannical, they're coming to get you."
It wasn't all vines and hilarity. Stewart also pointed out that out of 41 things Obama asked Congress to do in the 2013 SOTU, Congress acted on 2, very reluctantly. Perhaps, that is why  Stewart also was very intrigued by the notion that Obama may just start bypassing the obstructionist Congress and start getting things done by executive order.
"I'm intrigued," 'The Daily Show host said. Watch:

http://www.alternet.org/video/jon-stewart-sotu-executive-order-most-auto-erotic-form-government