Family Security Matters
by TOM MCCAFFREY
Harvey was the first hurricane of category 3 strength or greater to come ashore in the U.S. since Wilma hit Florida in 2005. Nevertheless, scientists from sea to shining sea are claiming that Harvey, and now Irma, prove beyond a doubt that man-made climate change is real.
Climate scientists tell us we must reduce our production of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. This would mean reducing the burning of coal, oil, and gas. Given the current state of our technology – wind and solar are vastly more expensive than fossil fuels – reducing the burning of coal, oil, and gas would mean reducing economic productivity altogether, especially energy generation and manufacturing. It would diminish Americans’ wealth, comfort, leisure, safety, health, and longevity, and it would weaken our security from foreign enemies.
But there’s more. If a government could arbitrarily reduce a people’s economic productivity, then liberty itself would soon be at an end. Imagine if government could limit the number of books that could be published in a given year, or the number of newspapers or websites that could operate at given time, or the number of churches there could be. To impose such limits would be tyranny. So would choking off the economic productivity of a people.
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.
By Brian McNicoll
President Obama never was shy about using his phone and pen to achieve what he could not get from Congress on regulatory matters.
But documents revealed last week show the Obama administration may have been willing to get around congressional decisions on spending by using a slush fund of sorts funded by the profits of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the two government-sponsored home loan giants.
Fannie and Freddie are federally chartered enterprises which buy mortgage loans from banks and bundle them into securities that are sold to investors, thus freeing up capital so that banks can make more home loans.
They are government-sponsored enterprises, which means the government guarantees their loans. But they are run as private enterprises, with private leadership, a board of directors and, most significantly for this purpose, investors. They’re even listed on the stock market.
Image via americandailypatriot.com
Ah, California. Is there nothing you can’t make more ideological with every passing week? In the Golden State’s latest effort to prove that they’re really not interested in being part of the rest of the nation, California’s state government – which viciously opposes President Trump’s travel ban – has expanded their own travel ban. Of course, it only applies to state funded travel, and rather than restricting traffic with terrorist hot spots, it blocks airline tickets to states which it deems insufficiently “woke.” In this case, that would be Texas, Alabama, Kentucky and South Dakota. (Fox News)
What if Donald Trump had unilaterally shut down every investigation into Russian espionage, released over 20 suspected Russian spies, struck a deal to get rid of sanctions against Russia—in return for honoring deals that had been signed years before—and then lied to the American people about the entire episode?
That’s the Obama Administration’s Iran deal. It might have been the first time the United States has offered extensive concessions to a nation that has continued to destabilize its interests, for nothing in return. But Barack Obama didn’t just support Iran’s position over our allies like Israel (no surprise there, considering his antagonism) or Sunni nations—he supported it ahead of his own Justice Department’s 30-year counterproliferation efforts.
Image via : teaparty.org
Family Security Matters
by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD
Let the diversions and parsing of words begin.
Take note of this British non-denial denial because you will see the same species of obfuscation being regularly produced at the U.S. political-media fake news farm.
On March 16, 2017 Fox News Channel judicial analyst Judge Andrew P. Napolitano wrote:
“Sources have told me that the British foreign surveillance service, the Government Communications Headquarters, known as GCHQ, most likely provided Obama with transcripts of Trump’s calls. The NSA has given GCHQ full 24/7 access to its computers, so GCHQ — a foreign intelligence agency that, like the NSA, operates outside our constitutional norms — has the digital versions of all electronic communications made in America in 2016, including Trump’s. So by bypassing all American intelligence services, Obama would have had access to what he wanted with no Obama administration fingerprints.”
To which GCHQ responded:
Image via conservativebyte.com
Family Security Matters
by JUSTIN O. SMITH
Setting a dangerous precedent for the future of America, the New York Times, the Washington Post and other Leftist propaganda machines and an army of the Obama administration’s holdovers, nothing less than saboteurs, have waged a war of innuendo and speculation and felony leaks for months in an attempt to destroy President Donald Trump’s administration and the government American voters demanded. They have turned their backs on the Constitution and the American people, their oath to protect and defend both, and they have sought to undermine our democratic process and the Republic of the United States of America.
Classified information leaked to the media – a felony – set speculation in motion as the New York Times and the left-leaning Mother Jones alleged collusion between Donald Trump and his advisors and Russia for the past six months, even though their own reports show an initial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) warrant targeting Trump and several associates was denied and nothing criminal was ever proven. And, according to Heat Street, a more narrowly drawn FISA warrant was granted in October to investigate the Trump campaign’s alleged links to Russia’s Alfa Bank and SVB Bank; the FBI found nothing “nefarious” and attributed the raised alarm to “spam”.
Essentially, Donald Trump was not named in the second FISA warrant, but surveillance of him and his inner circle, private citizens such as Michael Flynn, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, continued up to the general election. One can only surmise that Obama and his leftist minions banked on finding information that would defeat Trump; and after Donald Trump won , they continued surveillance in hopes of eventually impeaching and unseating President Trump.
If phone calls to Russia merit an investigation, shouldn’t Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been investigated for accepting a $145 million bribe from Russia and ROSATOM in exchange for helping them acquire twenty-five percent of America’s uranium resources? Oh, wait a minute — Hillary is a Democrat, so just overlook any criminal behavior.