Hillary and Bill Houdini

Townhall

by Cal Thomas

How do they do it? I am not the first to compare the Clintons to Harry Houdini, the great magician and escape artist, but Bill and Hillary make him look like a rank amateur.

No law seems to touch them. No regulation seems to control them. No prosecutor wants to take the risk of holding either Clinton accountable for anything. OK, Bill was impeached by a Republican House, but not convicted in the Senate.

Continue reading

Who’s Behind the Drug Crisis?

America’s Survival

by

Under the “Choom Gang” President Obama, illegal and legal drug use has accelerated. The role of billionaire hedge fund operator George Soros in the crisis that is taking tens of thousands of lives a year is examined by drug policy expert David Evans. Soros is behind the marijuana movement and even heroin injection centers, such as those proposed in Seattle. Evans looks at how the drug companies pushing opioids benefited from a law passed by Congress and signed by Obama and sparked an opioid epidemic.

The Obama Administration’s Uranium One Scandal

Not only the Clintons are implicated in a uranium deal with the Russians that compromised national-security interests. 

 

Family Security Matters

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

Let’s put the Uranium One scandal in perspective: The cool half-million bucks the Putin regime funneled to Bill Clinton was five times the amount it spent on those Facebook ads – the ones the media-Democrat complex ludicrously suggests swung the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump.

The Facebook-ad buy, which started in June 2015 – before Donald Trump entered the race – was more left-wing agitprop (ads pushing hysteria on racism, immigration, guns, etc.) than electioneering. The Clintons’ own long-time political strategist Mark Penn estimates that just $6,500 went to actual electioneering. (You read that right: 65 hundred dollars.) By contrast, the staggering $500,000 payday from a Kremlin-tied Russian bank for a single speech was part of a multi-million-dollar influence-peddling scheme to enrich the former president and his wife, then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton. At the time, Russia was plotting – successfully – to secure U.S. government approval for its acquisition of Uranium One, and with it, tens of billions of dollars in U.S. uranium reserves.

Here’s the kicker: The Uranium One scandal is not only, or even principally, a Clinton scandal. It is an Obama-administration scandal.

Continue reading

Constitutional Lawyer: Yes, Obama’s Affordable Care Act Subsidy Provision Was Illegal

Townhall.com

by Matt Vespa

There’s are a lot of liberals frothing at the mouth over the Trump administration’s decision to end the unconstitutional subsidies to insurance companies under the Affordable Care Act last week. The subsidies were given to insurance companies to help offset costs from lower-income individuals concerning deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses. It’s meant to prevent premium spikes. And the termination of this subsidy is not just a conservative view or action item, by the way. It’s the opinion of the courts, as the LA Times reported back in May of 2016–it’s unconstitutional:

House Republicans won Round 2 in a potentially historic lawsuit Thursday when a federal judge declared the Obama administration was unconstitutionally spending money to subsidize health insurers without obtaining an appropriation from Congress.

Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer broke new ground by ruling the GOP-controlled House of  Representatives had legal standing to sue the president over how he was enforcing his signature healthcare law.

On Thursday, she ruled the administration is violating a provision of the law by paying promised reimbursements to health insurers who provide coverage at reduced costs to low-income Americans.

The judge’s ruling, while a setback for the administration, was put on hold immediately and stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal.

Well, it prompted 18 states to sue the Trump administration over this decision. As with the issue over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program on immigration, it’s another example of executive overreach under Obama, bypassing Congress on issues that only the legislative branch can legally resolve. Josh Blackman elaborated on this subsidy provision in National Review back in July:

In 2014, a federal judge concluded that with the so-called OPM fix, the “executive branch has rewritten a key provision of the ACA so as to render it essentially meaningless in order to save members of Congress and their staffs.” Allowing the administration to rewrite the law, he wrote, “would be a violation of Article I of the Constitution, which reposes the lawmaking power in the legislative branch.” However, because the plaintiffs in the lawsuit (Senator Ron Johnson and one of his staffers) were not personally injured by OPM’s policy — indeed they benefited — the case was dismissed for lack of standing. While the Obama administration was content to make these illegal payments, the Trump administration should halt them.

Congress is not the only beneficiary of such illegal largess. The ACA employed two strategies to make health insurance more affordable. Section 1401 of the law provides for the payment of subsidies to consumers to reduce premiums. Section 1402 provides payments to insurers to offset certain “cost sharing” fees, such as deductibles and co-pays. But while the ACA funds the subsidies under Section 1401 with a permanent appropriation, to date, Congress has not provided an annual appropriation for the cost-sharing subsidies under Section 1402.

Once again, where Congress would not act, President Obama did so unilaterally. The executive branch pretended that the ACA had actually funded Section 1402 all along, and it paid billions of dollars to insurers. Once again, Mr. Trump is exactly right that this is a “BAILOUT.” And, once again, the payments are a violation of the separation of powers.

Now, we have Jonathan Turley, a constitutional scholar at the George Washington University Law School, reiterating the point that the Obamacare subsidy provision was unconstitutional with Fox News’ Bret Baier last Friday. Turley added that the court ruling made it clear that you have to play within the confines of the U.S. Constitution, and that even benevolent reasons are not good enough to usurp the rule of law  (via RCP):

Can the president get away with stopping ObamaCare payments?

BRET BAIER, SPECIAL REPORT: Can the president stop Obamacare subsidies? … You’re also the lead counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives in the challenge to the actions by the Obama administration to set up these subsidies in a court case that ended in victory. So, this is a Constitutional move.JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR: The original order that has just been rescinded was unconstitutional by finding of a federal court. The court found it not only violated Article One of the Constitution, it violated the health care law itself. Because Congress had the ability to grant subsidies under the federal law but it chosen not to. In fact, the administration had come to Congress and asked for this money and Congress said no. And then the president say alright, I’ll just order it directly from the Treasury. Well, you can’t do that. The defining power of Congress is the power of the purse. And the federal judge issued a historic ruling and said this is wrong, you can’t violate the Constitution no matter what your motivations are, no matter what you’re complaining about with Congress, you have to play within the rules of the Constitution.

Trump Sanctions Iran and their IRGC; See their Terror History

Founders Code

For a list of sanctions placed on Iran, Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, go here.

Today, President Trump delivered his talk about formally decertifying the JCPOA and naming all of the IRGC a terror organization, finally. This is a significant decision and it puts countries like Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon on notice to purge all IRGC from their territories.

Earlier this week, the Trump administration was laying the groundwork as it related to Hezbollah by offering a reward for 2 Hezbollah leaders.

None of these actions are without future conflict and militancy by Iran. Just in recent days, the Iranian militia in Iraq it appears has been planting advanced EFP’s, where one did in fact kill an American military soldier that was on a major road in Salahuddin province, north of Baghdad.

Continue reading

JW Forces FBI to Admit to New Clinton-Lynch Tarmac Docs

Judicial Watch

FBI Finds 30 Pages of Clinton-Lynch Tarmac Meeting Documents

Who is running the store at the FBI!?

First the FBI told us it had no documents related to the infamous tarmac meeting between former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton.

But now the FBI just told us that the FBI located 30 pages of documents related to the June 27, 2016, meeting, and it proposes that it produce non-exempt material no later than November 30, 2017.

This is in response to our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:16-cv-02046)) filed after the Justice Department failed to comply with a July 7, 2016, FOIA request seeking the following:

  • All FD-302 forms prepared pursuant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server during her tenure.
  • All records of communications between any agent, employee, or representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding, concerning, or related to the aforementioned investigation. This request includes, but is not limited to, any related communications with any official, employee, or representative of the Department of Justice, the Executive Office of the President, the Democratic National Committee, and/or the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.
  • All records related to the meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on June 27, 2016.

The FBI originally informed us that it didn’t locate any records related to the tarmac meeting. However, in a related case, the Justice Department located emails in which Justice Department officials wrote that they had communicated with the FBI. As a result, by letter dated August 10, 2017, the FBI told us: “Upon further review, we subsequently determined potentially responsive documents may exist. As a result, your [FOIA] request has been reopened …”

Well, well.

Continue reading

DACA Was Only One Part of Obama’s Seizure of Congressional Power

American Thinker

By Michael Bargo, Jr.

 

The DACA program being terminated by AG Sessions was a Federal program started by President Obama. The program was promoted as an administrative strategy to provide eligible youth relief from deportation.  Since the entire issue has been clouded with political rhetoric it’s important to look at its legal and constitutional status.

The DACA program was started when on November 20, 2014 President Obama issued an Executive Order.  It’s important to note that the US Constitution does not allow any president to set immigration policy.  Since the DACA EO was directed to delay deportation of illegal immigrants it clearly falls under the authority of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and those Federal rules can only be passed by Congress.  The Constitution clearly states in Article I Section 8 clause 3 that only the Congress shall have power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”   It further states that all legislative powers shall reside in Congress, which shall be composed of a House of Representatives and a Senate.

The power to establish any rules regarding immigration do not reside in the office of President and never have.  So, at this point the question is moot: President Obama did not have any authority to issue a DACA order through any “executive action.”

President Obama himself stated twenty-two times that he has no authority over issues of immigration.  This then means he can’t unilaterally change any immigration laws.  But President Obama’s entire presidency was an exercise in executive overreach, and several of the changes he made to immigration law were overturned by the Supreme Court.

It’s important to understand that whether or not one agrees with what President Obama does about immigration is irrelevant: he has no authority under the Constitution to write or rewrite, or amend, the rules of immigration passed by Congress such as the 1996 Illegal Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act. What President Obama frequently did during his presidency was go around Congress and write his own laws by changing the application of existing law through new regulations and rules.  He has no more authority to change laws through bureaucratic rule changes than he does to pass a law.

Continue reading