In  his Executive Order, Obama states that "[o]ver a third of African American  students do not graduate from high school on time with a regular high school diploma... An even greater number of  African American males do not graduate with a regular high school diploma, and  African American males also experience disparate rates of  incarceration.

One  of his solutions to the disturbing trends cited above is to "decreas[e] the disproportionate number of referrals of African American children from  general education to special education" He also urges "reducing racial isolation  and resegregation of elementary and  secondary schools to promote understanding and tolerance among all  Americans [.]" Finally, the Executive Order emphasizes the need to encourage  "agencies to incorporate best practices into appropriate discretionary  programs where permitted by law;"

How  does one define "discretionary programs?" Dozens of alphabet soup programs have already been authorized by the  government to assist minority students, i.e., EEOC, PASS, Passport, STEM, PRIME,  SUPERB, MESA, HPPI.

In  essence, Obama now backs race-based school discipline policies. Heather MacDonald in her  Summer 2012 piece entitled "Undisciplined" wonders whether "black students are suspended more often because they misbehave more?" Furthermore, if white students are suspended more often than Asian students, does this indicate racism against white students?

The  second relevant race conscious action concerns Racial Impact Statements that are  being implemented in a number of states. Concerned with the  racial breakdown of prison populations, the impetus for these Racial  Impact Statements is to reduce unwarranted sentencing disparities among races.  Thus, in April 2013, Oregon moved closer to "creating Racial Impact Statements  for criminal justice and child welfare  related bills" in order to better analyze and address racial disparity in their  state.

Marc  Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project in Washington, D.C. has written that " [o]ne of every nine black males between the  ages of 20 and 34 is incarcerated in prison or jail, and one of every three  black males born today can expect to do time in state or federal prison if  current trends continue." He maintains that "we need policies and practices that  can work effectively to promote public safety. At the same time, it also  behooves us to find ways to reduce the disproportionate rate of incarceration  for people of color. These are not competing goals."

In his study entitled "Racial Impact Statements as a Means of  Reducing Unwarranted Sentencing Disparities" Mauer cites the 1986 Anti-Drug  Abuse Act which indicated that "more than 80 percent of the prosecutions for  crack (as opposed to powder cocaine) offenses have been of African Americans  [.]" Consequently, "established mandatory prison terms of five years for  possession or sale of ...five grams of crack cocaine... resulted in a  disproportionate number of African Americans being convicted." By the way, it  was the Congressional Black Caucus who supported the more aggressive anti-crack law at  the time.

Racial  Impact advocates maintain that "[s]ince urban areas are more densely populated  than suburban or rural areas, city residents are much more likely to be within a  short distance of a school or public housing site during much of the day. And  since African Americans are more likely to live in urban neighborhoods than are  whites, African Americans convicted of a drug offense are subject to harsher  punishments than whites committing the same offense in a less populated  area."

With  dizzying seesaw logic, Mauer asserts that while "no one wants drug dealers  peddling narcotics to school children," it may be necessary to provide for  "additional penalties for drug transactions between consenting adults that take  place in the middle of the night." But, [this] may "disproportionately affect  African Americans" and may require fine tuning the law to "avoid exacerbating  racial disparity."

So  let me get this straight: the Black child will be relatively safe going to  school but the Black teenager won't be as safe if she is on the school grounds  at night because it might disproportionately affect a Black drug dealer who is  arrested at that time.

Furthermore,  in August 2010, President Obama signed a bill "reducing the disparity in penalties for the use of crack and  powder cocaine." This was seen as a "hard-fought victory for civil rights  activists who have argued for years that the differing punishments unfairly  target African-Americans." Thus, thousands of crack prisoners, some with long  rap sheets, were released into the community. But now given the new law does the  basis for this racial disproportionality problem even still  exist?

At  the time, however, Lamar Smith, R-Texas, argued that "[r]educing the penalties  for crack cocaine could expose ... neighborhoods to the same violence and  addiction that caused Congress to act in the first place. Crack cocaine is  associated with a greater degree of violence than most other drugs. And more  than any other drug, the majority of crack defendants have prior criminal  convictions."

Furthermore,  "in 1998, Congress imposed the same mandatory minimum sentences on  methamphetamine users. And they disproportionately affect whites, since most meth addicts and dealers are Caucasian."  If one is concerned about racial disparity, "meth sentences could also be looked  at as racially 'unfair.'"

Mauer  explains that "it is not so much race alone but rather race in combination with  other factors, such as gender and employment, that translate into unwarranted  racial disparities at the sentencing stage." But under Obama there is a 30% unemployment rate for young black males. Wouldn't these young people be  better served with job training and productive jobs than "tailoring the law" to  avoid racially disparate effects?

In  Minnesota, the goals for Racial Impact Statements are as follows:

If  a significant racial disparity can be predicted before a bill is passed, it may  be possible to consider alternatives that enhance public safety without creating  additional disparity in Minnesota's criminal justice system [.]

So  race will be considered preemptively to avoid racial disparity in meting out  justice.

But  according to racial impact statement proponents "[s]entencing policies, such as  habitual offender and "three strikes" laws that penalize repeat offenders more  harshly, also produce racially disparate effects even though not expressly  conceived to do so" and this "racial impact is due to the fact that African  Americans are more likely to have a criminal  record than other groups."

Am  I missing something here? Are they saying that we have to raise convictions for  some racial groups in order to lower convictions for other minority groups as a  balancing maneuver? If someone comes from a mixed racial background, which race  prevails? Or will that be yet another category to be assessed?

How  many contortions must be made -- isn't the public safety always the prime  consideration? After all, "who normally puts black convicted criminals where  they are... black victims, black witnesses, and black communities -- in order to  do justice and protect themselves from murder, mayhem, and  deadly drug dealing?"

And  African Americans are not the only ones who live close to schools. Ask the  Chinese in Chinatown. Yet Chinese are not clamoring for racial disparity  statements. But for our race-obsessed president, this will surely deal with the  "disparate rates" of incarceration of African American males that he cites in  his Executive Order.

In  a 1994 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Randall Kennedy asserted that "as dangerous as the response that  cries racism as part of an all out defense of any black accused of wrongdoing by  white authorities regardless of the facts of the case," [it is an equally]  troubling position that "some blacks will refuse to help send any black person  to prison."

The  third piece that dovetails with the pattern of race-based decisions involves  "Obama's Quiet Anti-Suburban Revolution"  whereby "suburban neighborhoods with no record of housing discrimination [will  be] targeted to build more public housing for ethnic and racial minorities."

The  Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has proposed "new rules requiring counties and other entities  receiving federal grant dollars to 'affirmatively further fair housing' in the  suburbs for minorities. Grantees who fail to comply will be denied federal  funding." Is this part of that "re-segregation" Obama spoke about in his 2012  Executive Order?

Thus  the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will be empowered to map the credit  histories of every American "to ensure credit reports and scores are racially  balanced as well." In fact, "earlier this year, HUD broadened the authority of  two anti-discrimination laws -- the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit  Opportunity Act -- making illegal any housing or credit policy that results in  disproportionately fewer blacks or Latinos receiving housing or home loans than  whites, even if those policies are race-neutral and evenly applied across all  groups."

The Investor's Business Daily editorial board takes Mr. Obama to task and  writes, "[i]f there are racial disparities in housing or credit, there can't be  any business reason for them. Personal habits are never a factor. To this administration, racism is the one and only explanation."

Pamela  Geller maintains that "no matter how horrible the outcomes, the left never  learns from their repeated monumental mistakes. Their idea of utopia fails to factor in the most critical key component:  the human condition, the make-up of free man. No matter what nonsensical  pseudo-scientific application the left employs, free men require  freedom."

Obama  plays a clever game and it is up to the American public to connect the dots and  see the larger picture. Mired in constant governmental race-obsessed rulings, with the ultimate aim of total government control  over our lives, we can never truly address problems in a pragmatic and helpful  manner nor can law-abiding people feel safe.