Good Riddance to Obama

Barbwire

 

I voted for America’s first legitimate black Presidential candidate Alan Keyes for President…twice. So keep your race card in your pocket.

I find a great deal of amusement in watching the Never Trumpers whine about the direction that President Trump is taking us.

I find it especially humorous when I think about the radical Marxist that squatted in the White House the previous eight years. Every time I get discouraged I simply reminisce and thank God that Obama is gone.

I hear the pundits on the TV pontificate about how Donald trump is so “un presidential” in his actions, but there are millions of folks like me who are ready for some straight shooting from our politicians.

I like the crudeness with which President Trump tells me the truth as opposed to the classiness with which President Obama told me lies. I am a big boy. I can handle a bit of harsh truth. I grew up in a locker room. I know what real men sound like.

It is good to have a straight-shooter sitting in the oval office.

Continue reading

MN Governor Candidate Phil Parrish: ‘Islam is incompatible with the US Constitution’

New Zeal

by

 

Muslim Brotherhood front group CAIR and the chronically dishonest Southern Poverty Law Center are very upset with Phil Parrish, a Republican candidate for Governor of Minnesota.

According to the SPLC:

Regina Mustafa, founder of the Minnesota-based Community Interfaith Dialogue on Islam, reached out to Parrish after learning he attended a talk by Usama Dakdok called “Revealing the Truth about ISIS.” Dakdok is one of a number of anti-Muslim speakers who have created a cottage industry touring the country to malign Islam as an inherently violent religion. In his Minnesota presentation, Dakdok said ISIS was the “true representation of Islam.”

Mustafa sent Parrish an email, offering to meet with him face-to-face. “Since you have attended this talk about my faith,” she wrote, “I figured you would also like to hear from a person who actually practices Islam.”

In Parrish’s reply, he condemned Islam as fundamentally incompatible with U.S. law.

First, he claimed to have, “a very unusual in-depth level of training, experience, and understanding regarding multiple faiths and the practice of Islam,” which he has suggested in public interviews is related to his time in the U.S. Naval Reserve working in intelligence.

He continued, “I separate Islam from the word faith because faith takes belief and Islam requires only submission. I will not participate in any faith dialog because Islam is ultimately not a faith.”

Parrish demanded Mustafa “publicly denounce Sharia and swear to adhere to, protect, comply with, accept, and defend the United States Constitution.” He suggested that as a practicing Muslim — or as he put it, “practicing Islamist” — she would be unable to do so. He also wrote, “Islam, Sharia, and the Quran are the antithesis of the U.S. Constitution.”

From the Center for Security Policy: Shariah Law vs. the Constitution

I’ve seen Phil Parrish speak at a GOP event in Minnesota. He’s a serious candidate. Check out his website.  Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. Send a message to all the gutless politicians out there. Send him some money today.

This man is smart and courageous. He deserves your support wherever you live in the United States.

 

New Clinton Classified Emails Discovered

Advisor Sid Blumenthal Writes: ‘Serious Trouble for Libyan Rebels’

 

Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch today released 109 pages of new Hillary Clinton emails from her tenure as secretary of state. The documents include two email exchanges classified confidential and a 2011 exchange with Sid Blumenthal about “serious trouble for the Libyan rebels.”

The newly-produced emails were part of 72,000 pages of documents the FBI recovered last year in its investigation into Clinton’s use of an unsecure, non-government email system. The records include emails Hillary Clinton attempted to delete or did not otherwise disclose.

Two heavily redacted emails marked Classified Confidential included a November 2011 exchange under the Subject: “Egyptian MFA on Hamas-PLO talks,” and a June 28, 2011 email from Clinton to Abedin in which Clinton writes “I have now promised the Kuwaiti PM 3 times that I will deliver an address at the Oxford Islamic Center. Pls be sure that’s on the list for next Fall/next year.”

On March 9, 2011, Sid Blumenthal emailed Clinton about the situation in Libya, with the subject line “H: serious trouble for Libyan rebels. Sid” The email discusses urging leaders of the National Libyan Council (NLC) “to consider hiring private troops (mercenaries) to support, organize, and train the rebel forces in Libya.” Blumenthal adds that “a small number of private troops could turn the battle against Qaddafi’s forces, particularly if they are equipped with sophisticated anti-aircraft weapons.” Clinton asks former aide Huma Abedin to “print for me w/o any identifiers”.

The Washington Times reported Libyan officials were deeply concerned in 2011 that Clinton was responsible for weapons being funneled to NATO-backed rebels in Libya with ties to al Qaeda.

On October 6, 2009, Clinton’s then-Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills emailsI am purposefully on gmail” to Abedin and Maggie Williams, former campaign manager for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. [Emphasis added] Mills was responding to an October 4, 2009, email from Clinton, most of which was redacted.

On January 6, 2012, Clinton can be seen “expediting” a citizenship request so the requestor can get a government job in policy or law enforcement:

I am told by Citizenship and Immigration (CIS) caseworkers that it may be at least another 8 months before they get to me, making the total time more than a year (they advertise 6 months total turnaround time).

Would you consider helping me by reaching out to DHS Secretary Napolitano or CIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas who reports to her on my behalf? The ask is to simply consider moving up my applications for review ASAP. My application is complete, straight forward and I have nothing to hide.”

Clinton responds: “I’m copying Huma [Abedin] and asking her to see if we can help expedite this for you because we want you to be a citizen as soon as possible! I’ve got my fingers crossed.  Happy New Year–H”

On August 4, 2009, Terrence Duffy, a donor to the Clinton Foundation and executive chairman of the derivatives giant CME Group, asks Clinton for her assistance in setting up meetings with Asian leaders.

I am planning a trip to Asia for October 3-10. While there, I will be traveling to Beijing, Tokyo, Hong Kong and Singapore and I was wondering if there is any way you could help set up a meeting or 2 with some elected officials in any of those regions. Once again, you’re doing an amazing job and all of America is very fortunate to have you as our Secretary of State.”

Clinton responds: “Terry–I’m emailing from Capetown [sic], one of my favorite cities in the world. I’m copying your email to Huma so she can follow up w you regarding your Asia trip. Hope you’re well. All the best, H”

Judicial Watch previously reported that Duffy had also asked Clinton in September to arrange “government appointments” for his October trip. Duffy gave $4,600 to Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign; in November 2013 CME Group paid Hillary Clinton a $225,000 speaking fee and has donated between $5,001 and 10,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

In November 2016, the State Department was ordered to produce no less than 500 pages of records a month to Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in May 2015 after the State Department failed to respond to a March 18, 2015, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00687)). The lawsuit seeks:

  • All emails sent or received by former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in her official capacity as secretary of State, as well as all emails by other State Department employees to Secretary Clinton regarding her non-“state.gov” email address.

Under the current pace of production, the Clinton emails and other records won’t fully be available for possible release until at least 2020.

“These new Clinton emails add to the pile of evidence demonstrating the need for a serious criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton and her associates,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is shameful that this State Department is releasing these Clinton emails so slowly. I trust President Trump agrees the State Department and Justice Department need to follow the rule of law and stop covering for Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.”

These emails are also available on the State Department’s website.

The Final 3 Phases In The Slide From Freedom To Communism

https://i2.wp.com/thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/1200px-October_Revolution_celebration_1983-998x673.png

The Federalist

By

As we mark the 100th anniversary of the communist takeover of Russia on November 7, 1917 (October 25, according to the old Russian calendar at the time), it’s worth pondering how the road to communism is paved. After all, its legacy is the murder of more than 100 million victims in the twentieth century alone. What mileposts or trends might we identify on the twisted road to communism?

Obviously there are different factors at play in different cultures and eras. Russia at the time was on a path to great economic and social reforms. But the instability and suffering caused especially by Russia’s involvement in World War I created a window of opportunity for violent overthrow. Vladimir Lenin seized upon this immediately when he arrived out of exile in April that year to fire up the crowds in Saint Petersburg.

Once communism gained a foothold in Russia, it doomed its citizens to lives of scarcity, misery, social distrust, terror, and mass murder. The same goes for China. Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, the Castros, Che Guevara, Joseph Stalin, the Kims of North Korea—all of them were brutal dictators enabled by a system that always places too much power into the hands of too few people. It’s a corrupt and cruel system that allows an elite oligarchy—which Lenin called a “vanguard”—to enslave the entire population.

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.