via NY POST
It’s usually the first warning to someone who’s about to enter into a complicated legal agreement: Be sure to read the fine print.
Looks like President Obama and the team that negotiated the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran didn’t do that. Or, worse still, they did — but hoped no one else would. Too late for that.
Fox News’ James Rosen reports some senior US officials involved in the negotiations have concluded that a key element of the deal conflicts with federal law and can’t be implemented.
Unless Congress changes the law, that is. But since majorities in both houses opposed the deal, why would they help it now?
Especially since it involves sanctions relief — freeing up tens of billions to Tehran for use in supporting its terrorist allies.
At issue is a provision allowing foreign subsidiaries of US firms to do business with Iran.
Oops: The Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act, signed into law by Obama in 2012, specifies that this can only happen if Iran is removed from the State Department’s list of terror sponsors and the president certifies that Iran has permanently ceased the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.
Iran has said loudly it won’t stop boosting terror, and the deal doesn’t even pretend to permanently stop it from building nukes.
If the deal were a treaty ratified by Congress, it would be near-impossible to challenge in court. But it’s not a treaty — and this fine-print problem is an open invitation to legal challenge.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com …
Earlier today, former AIG head Hank Greenberg’s long-running legal battle of the US government came to a dramatic end when in a 75-page ruling, U.S. Court of Claims Judge Thomas Wheeler found that Greenberg was indeed correct in claiming the government overstepped its legal boundaries in its “unduly harsh treatment of AIG in comparison to other institutions” which was “misguided and had no legitimate purpose.”
But because “the question is not whether this treatment was inequitable or unfair, but whether the government’s actions created a legal right of recovery for AIG’s shareholders” Wheeler found that Greenberg was not owed any money as AIG would have gone bankrupt without the government’s forced intervention. Greenberg was seeking at least $25 billion in damages for shareholders.
The reason for the case is that years after the initial $85 billion bailout which eventually ballooned to $182 billion, AIG – with the government’s explicit backstop and thus zero credit risk – managed to repay the government bailout funds and the government with a $22.7 billion profit. Greenberg argued that the pre-bailout equity holders deserved a piece of the pie, very much the same way that Fannie and Freddie stakeholders are also arguing they too deserve a piece of the post-government bailout pie.
However, “in the end, the Achilles’ heel of Starr’s case is that, if not for the Government’s intervention, AIG would have filed for bankruptcy. In a bankruptcy proceeding, AIG’s shareholders would most likely have lost 100 percent of their stock value” the judge found, and admitted that the pre-government bailout equity value of financial companies – since all of them were facing bankruptcy without a bailout – was zero. Whether this opens up the door to a class action lawsuit by all those who were short financials into the bailout and were then
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com …
by Helen Tansey
Lt. Col. Lakin is one such man, that is a man with courage. This gentle man did what no other currently serving officer or enlisted man or woman has done to date, that is, he stood alone before God and Country honorably fulfilling his sworn Oath –
“I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) thatI will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
The Lt. Colonel stood his ground by defying an order handed down by the US Commander In Chief, Barack H. Obama. He defied this order on the grounds that the CIC is serving in direct violation of Article II of the United States Constitution. Rather than the CIC providing records to substantiate his non violation, he chose to make an example of Lt. Colonel Lakin by employing a full military court martial.
You tell me, what honorable man would deny a career military officer discovery, and instead use the full weight of his office to court martial him? None! That’s who.
Soon after the Deepwater Horizon tragedy began in the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama imposed a moratorium on all off-shore drilling for oil and natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico.
The moratorium was lifted, finally, after a federal judge twice ruled the administration’s approach was illegal, but not soon enough to prevent thousands of jobs from being lost around the Gulf coast, and not just in the energy industry.
Despite the lost jobs and economic growth from the moratorium, the Obama administration policy transformed into a permitorium following the litigation in federal courts. For months now, federal bureaucrats in the Department of Interior and elsewhere in Washington have slow-walked drilling permit applications in every conceivable manner.
Those continuing delays contribute directly to spiralling gas prices because wells in the Gulf of Mexico account for about a third of the oil produced in this country.
Among the most prominent victims of the Obama energy policy is Seahawk Drilling, which was forced into receivorship following imposition of the moratorium and the loss of shallow-water drilling that was the heart of the firm’s business model.
Seahawk CEO Randall Stilley talks about his company’s agonies in this video jointly produced by the Institute for Energy Research and The Heritage Foundation:
A Republican lawmaker is accusing the White House of “unconscionable” and “illegal” acts for its role in Kenya’s referendum on a new constitution, which would legalize abortion in the country for the first time.
Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey cited a report by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, which estimated that more than $23 million in U.S. taxpayer funds have been spent on the referendum, and Smith and other conservatives have complained that at least some of that money has been spent in sport of the proposed constitution, possibly violating U.S. law.
For more than 200 years US citizen could not pick a president who has roots outside the country. This might have been the result of racism or belief that a person other than ‘original’ US citizen was capable of effectively leading the powerful nation and help it to maintain its values.
But after political changes globally, and strengthening of democracy, things have changed in the US. We witnessed last year a senator with his origins from east Africa, Barack Abdallah Husein Obama, becoming the first black US president. He won the race on Democrat ticket and was sworn on January 20, 2009 as US president.
What has happened in US can also happen in Zanzibar this year through Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM). Eleven CCM members have already picked nomination forms, seeking their party appointment as presidential candidates.