A Modest Proposal: Deport Obama to Libya and Clinton to Kosovo

Perhaps you’re weary of reading about Syria. So instead let’s speak of Libya. That’s the most recent country we attacked without provocation and “liberated.” Minus the evil dictator which NATO bravely bombed from orbit, Libya has returned to some native traditions: It is chaining up black Africans and selling them as slaves. Great job, President Obama! You really were a post-racial president after all! But in a totally different sense than most people thought.

Millions of “right-thinking” Americans have this weird idea: that our foreign policy is a form of virtue-signaling with deadly weapons. That’s why they are demanding the overthrow of yet another foreign government that hasn’t attacked us: that of Syria. (News flash: Trump’s targeted military strike, while probably unconstitutional, was limited. And now he is promising we won’t send troops to Syria.)

Are Americans who favor full-on “regime change” in Syria thinking through what would happen next to Syrians? What would happen to one million Christians if al Qaeda takes over?

No. They are watching news of an atrocity and demanding that “something be done.” What we do doesn’t really matter.

What happens to Syrians after we’re done with them? Not interested.

How will things be in Syria ten years from now? Boring. By then we’ll be busy in Myanmar.

Who will take over the country when we’re finished? Doesn’t matter. Talking about that is just a way of making excuses not to do… something … about an atrocity we saw on the news and thought about for ten whole minutes.

Occupy Wall Street. Or the Entire Middle East.

Ugly, sad images (like Syria’s chemical attack on al Qaeda that also killed civilians) make us really upset! So do something already, Mr. President, and make us feel better. Overthrow Syria’s government and replace it with … something. Make us feel strong, decisive, and freedom-loving. And make it quick: We have short attention spans. Oh look, a squirrel!

It’s probably too much to expect an administration to resist such a national tantrum. (Heck, we’re lucky that the Commander in Chief isn’t under pressure to blow United Airlines jets out of the sky.)

But as patriotic Christians, we’re supposed to at least make an effort to avoid fighting unjust or foolish wars that kill thousands of people and make things worse, not better. Right? Or am I being too moralistic here?

We Must Learn from King Kong’s Sad Fate

America is more powerful, relative to our rivals, than any empire on earth has been since the Roman Empire. The Mongols, Napoleon’s France, even Hitler’s Germany: compared to America 2017, they’re Liechtenstein waving a popgun.

We’re the 16-ton gorilla. All the more reason we must resist the impulse to act out like King Kong. We need to stop seeing countries that look interesting or sad, then picking them up to play with them — till we break them and leave them behind.

There’s just one way to make the average voter think twice about sending our troops to foreign shores: Bring back the draft. Today a tiny percentage of Americans defend all the rest of us. They bear the brunt of our bravado. Alas, most Americans don’t even know personally any serving soldiers or airmen. So it’s easy for us to treat them like foreign mercenaries and ship them off to distant shores, on a moralistic whim.

If voters themselves, or their own sons and daughters, might have to march off into the desert, you can bet they would think twice about joining the rush to war. Also, a draft today would get many thousands of sullen Millennials out of their parents’ basements. So chalk that up in the “plus” column.

Don’t Draft the People. Incentivize the President.

But the draft has many down sides. For one, it violates liberty. Only in the gravest national emergency should we force our citizens, on pain of imprisonment, to dress up in uniforms and follow orders. In peacetime, that’s literally un-American. (Germans, by contrast, will spontaneously dress up in uniforms and follow orders at the slightest encouragement.)

More importantly, a peacetime draft would never pass muster in Congress. We can’t even figure out how to make people repay their student loans, much less get them into fighting trim with decent haircuts.

So I have a better plan. It harms very few Americans, so it should be easy to pass in Congress. But it maximizes impact. I promise you: Pass such a plan, and the U.S. will never get involved in another poorly considered foreign war.

The Ultimate Presidential Retirement Plan

Congress must pass a law with these provisions: Any future president who invades and occupies another sovereign state that has not attacked America, with the aim of overthrowing its government will be subject to the following penalties upon leaving office.

He must surrender his U.S. citizenship, in return for citizenship of that country. He must relocate to live in it. If he leaves his new homeland for more than 30 consecutive days, his pension is permanently cancelled.

He will be granted no Secret Service detail or U.S. Marines to guard him. He must rely on the local police, like everybody else.

He will have to build his presidential library in that country’s largest city. Again, it will be guarded by the same cops who guard — or looted by the same mobs that loot — every other local business, school, or church.

His pension will be paid in the local currency, which may well have collapsed, or been replaced by some pre-civilized form of primitive barter. So we might have to pay it out in tethered goats or cartons of cigarettes.

If he has invaded and toppled more than one such country, he will not be granted a choice among them. (Talk about perverse incentives!) No, he will be granted citizenship in the one with the lowest Gross Domestic Product.

If such a law were passed then President Trump and every one of his successors would need to think very carefully about their decisions on countries like Syria. He would need to flout public opinion, if it was out of step with reality.

He’d have very strong personal reasons to tell senators like Lindsey Graham and John McCain and pundits like William Kristol what he thinks of their latest war of choice. He would face the same conditions that his policies left behind in a helpless foreign country whose citizens never voted for him. What could be fairer than that?

Where Would Dante Send Ex-Presidents to Live?

The Constitution forbids retroactive laws. Otherwise, such an act would demand that our recent ex-presidents reap the harvests that they sowed:

Bill Clinton forced to live in Kosovo, under the rule of increasingly radical Islamists who blew up its historic churches. They are also training al Qaeda and ISIS operatives for attacks all over Europe. He might not feel comfortable there, but Huma Abedin would, so at least poor Hillary would be happy (should she choose to join him there).

George W. Bush living in Baghdad, enjoying every day the exciting sights and sounds that his invasion and occupation of Iraq left behind. He might have trouble finding a church to attend, since most of the country’s 1 million Christians were driven out on his watch — precisely as antiwar conservatives had warned him would happen.

Barack Obama living in Benghazi. As a beloved elder statesman who holds a Nobel Peace Prize, he could certainly work out a diplomatic solution among the many violent factions — al Qaeda, ISIS, and a dozen tribal militias — which his bold, decisive action put in control of that country. But that might put a crimp in his golf game.

I hope that some statesmanlike senator, such as Rand Paul, will get behind this plan. We can call it the “Skin in the Game Act of 2017,” after The Black Swan author Nassim Taleb’s core principle of policy: Don’t let someone make major decisions for which he bears no personal risk.

Fear not! Presidents who fought countries that had actually attacked the U.S., or who didn’t spend trillions trying to bomb chaotic, hostile hellholes until they turned into Colonial Williamsburg, would go unpunished. (For more from the author of “A Modest Proposal: Deport Obama to Libya and Clinton to Kosovo” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama hands over presidency to Trump at 58th Presidential Inauguration

Trump Wants to Unleash America’s Energy Potential. So Why Is He Keeping Aspects of Obama’s Destructive Agenda?

President Trump is taking steps to keep his campaign promise to create jobs and economic growth by reducing energy regulations, but his effort falls short of fully reversing former President Obama’s climate change agenda.

Trump recognizes that by removing the regulatory shackles on domestic energy development, processing and transport, the U.S. can unleash its vast natural energy resources and become an energy superpower yielding numerous economic benefits including job creation, boosted tax revenue, increased exports, and improved national security.

To reach that goal requires a stubborn determination to rip Obama’s climate change agenda out by its roots and build a pro-fossil fuel energy policy on a strong foundation.

Trimming the climate change edges will not give the business community the regulatory certainty it needs to bring about a U.S. energy renaissance.

Despite progress, lingering questions remain about Trump’s commitment to completely overturning Obama’s anti-fossil fuel policies.

For example, Trump has not canceled U.S. participation in the United Nations Paris Climate Change Agreement, a carbon tax trial balloon was floated at the White House, and the EPA is not reopening its 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding which drives climate change regulations.

Admittedly, unwinding former President Obama’s climate change regulatory agenda is no small task, and Trump has made meaningful strides through executive branch actions and the Congressional Review Act.

Giving the green light to the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Keystone XL Pipeline was important. The pipeline approvals allow a safer method of moving crude oil while providing construction and refinery jobs as well setting the stage for boosting energy exports.

Trump’s new Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth includes many beneficial policies that peel back key elements of the Obama climate change regime including changing EPA’s Clean Power Plan.

Despite these advances, Trump needs to take stronger steps for a pro-fossil economy including his promise to coal miners.

Trump’s recent executive order to rewrite the Clean Power Plan is not compelling enough for utilities — the companies that will determine the future of the coal industry.

As a Reuters story shows, the president’s Clean Power Plan effort does not give utilities the business certainty they need to invest in coal generated electricity.

According to its survey, Reuters found about sixty percent of utilities said coal power is not part of their long-term investment.

A spokesperson for North Dakota’s Basin Electric Power Cooperative said, “… the executive order takes a lot of pressure off the decisions we had to make in the near term, such as whether to retrofit and retire older coal plants.” He then added, “But Trump can be a one-termer, so the reprieve out there is short.”

Smart business leaders are not going to gamble on changing political winds or the legal outcome of expected lawsuits. With abundant natural gas supplies, utilities have the luxury of picking less politically risky power sources.

Adding to the business uncertainty is Trump’s hesitation to pull out of the Paris Climate Change Agreement. During the campaign, Trump promised he would “cancel” U.S. participation in the UN effort.

Trump’s indecision on the Paris Agreement is confusing and troubling. Without the Clean Power Plan, the U.S. can’t meet its emissions targets, making our continued participation deceiving and meaningless.

Taxing energy via a carbon tax sends the wrong signal to energy companies, and it preferentially harms coal since it emits twice the amount of carbon dioxide than natural gas.

Conservative critics are also questioning Trump’s commitment to reverse Obama’s climate change agenda because the EPA is not looking to change the agency’s 2009 endangerment finding.

The EPA’s endangerment finding is the rule that established greenhouse gasses including carbon dioxide pose a danger to human health and it serves as the foundation for climate change regulations.

Tackling the endangerment finding will unleash the climate change mob including companies that bet big bucks on energy regulations, but it would allow a full vetting of the new climate change science.

Reversing the EPA endangerment finding would provide the long-term certainty businesses need.

As a builder, Trump knows the importance of a solid foundation. In the political context, that means his energy policy must withstand the winds of progressive attacks now and in the future.

For Trump to achieve his energy vision for the U.S., he must show the business community and the world he is serious about reversing Obama’s entire climate change agenda. (For more from the author of “Trump Wants to Unleash America’s Energy Potential. So Why Is He Keeping Aspects of Obama’s Destructive Agenda?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

President_Barack_Obama_(10733980853) (1)

Obama Gave $68 Million to Pro-Abortion UN Population Control Agency, Here’s How Much Trump Is Giving

The Trump Administration reinstated a policy Monday evening directing United States foreign assistance dollars away from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) on the basis that its activities in China are complicit with that nation’s coercive population control program, the implementation of which includes forced abortion and involuntary sterilization. United States funding will be directed instead to other family planning and health programs not involved in China’s population control program.

“We congratulate President Trump and his administration for making it abundantly clear the United States will not support a United Nations agency that cooperates in China’s brutally repressive population control policies,” said National Right to Life President Carol Tobias. “I heartily applaud what we at National Right to Life are seeing from this pro-life administration.”

The State Department memorandum issued Monday determined that the UNFPA was in violation of the Kemp-Kasten anti-coercion law. The amendment prohibits giving U.S. “population assistance” funds to “any organization or program which, as determined by the President of the United States, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.”

As the memo states:

The Chinese Government’s Population and Family Planning Law, even as amended in 2015, and related regulations and practices at the central and Provincial levels, clearly constitute a “program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization,” and are an integral part of the comprehensive population-control program the Chinese Government advances. While there is no evidence that UNFPA directly engages in coercive abortions or involuntary sterilizations in China, the agency continues to partner with the [National Health and Family Planning Commission] on family planning, and thus can be found to support, or participate in the management of China’s coercive policies for purposes of the Kemp-Kasten Amendment. (Read more from “Obama Gave $68 Million to Pro-Abortion UN Population Control Agency, Here’s How Much Trump Is Giving” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


House Intel Committee Seeks Names of Obama Officials Who Requested ‘Unmasking’ of Americans Picked up on Surveillance

The leaders of the House Intelligence Committee asked the three leaders of the intelligence community Wednesday about any time during the last seven months of the Obama administration whenever any of its agents and officials improperly named, or “unmasked,” and disseminated the identities of American citizens picked up in intelligence collection.

Chairman Devin Nunes, R-California, and Ranking Member Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, wrote that they were concerned that members of the intelligence community have not been sufficiently honoring previously established “robust ‘minimization procedures'” to protect the identities of US citizens, including “masking” their names. The letter they sent refers to the disclosure to the public that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had several conversations with the Russian Ambassador.

The matter is relevant not only because of the House Intelligence Committee’s responsibility to conduct oversight of the intelligence community, but also as it may relate to surveillance of Russians known to US intelligence or any others who may have spoken with any advisers or individuals around then-candidate Donald Trump. (Read more from “House Intel Committee Seeks Names of Obama Officials Who Requested ‘Unmasking’ of Americans Picked up on Surveillance” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Judge: Obama ‘Went Outside Chain of Command,’ Used British Spy Agency to Surveil Trump

The Justice Department on Monday asked lawmakers for more time to gather evidence related to President Trump’s claim that former President Obama ordered wiretaps on Trump Tower’s phones during last year’s presidential campaign . . .

On “Fox & Friends” this morning, Judge Andrew Napolitano said that even if the Obama administration did spy on Trump, there may never be a way to prove it . . .

“Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command,” Napolitano said. “He didn’t use the NSA, he didn’t use the CIA, he didn’t use the FBI, and he didn’t use the Department of Justice.”

Instead, Napolitano said, Obama used GCHQ, a British intelligence and security organization that has 24-7 access to the NSA database.

“There’s no American fingerprints on this,” Napolitano said. “What happened to the guy who ordered this? Resigned three days after Donald Trump was inaugurated.” (Read more from “Judge: Obama ‘Went Outside Chain of Command,’ Used British Spy Agency to Surveil Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Barack_Obama_by_Gage_Skidmore_2 (1)

Obama Audited Billy Graham, so Wiretapping Trump Tower Is Not a Stretch

The Obama Administration engaged in eight years of political payback and heavy-handed bullying that specifically targeted their “political enemies.” They used the Internal Revenue Service to wage an ugly campaign of bullying and intimidation to silence Tea Party groups and Christian ministries.

In 2013 President Obama’s minions sent IRS agents to bully the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. “I believe that someone in the administration was targeting and attempting to intimidate us,” Franklin Graham wrote in a letter to the White House. “This is morally wrong and unethical — indeed some would call it ‘un-American.’”

The BGEA’s only crime against Obama was to urge voters to back candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles. They also supported an effort to support traditional marriage in the state of North Carolina.

I believe the government used the power of the IRS to silence dissent and punish those who refused to comply. They targeted Billy Graham, America’s pastor. Just let that sink in, folks.

So if the Obama Administration went after Billy Graham, it’s not out of the realm of possibility they wiretapped Donald Trump. The Mainstream Media believes such a charge is absurd, but is it really? (Read more from “Obama Audited Billy Graham, so Wiretapping Trump Tower Is Not a Stretch” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


How Gangland Tactics Obama Learned From Saul Alinksy Corrupted Our Government

An old saying goes that a typical idealistic movement “starts out as a crusade, turn into a business, then degenerates into a racket.” In the case of the modern Left, that’s far too generous. It’s clear that the most successful technique in the Left’s playbook, “community organizing,” started out as a racket. In fact, its inventor, Saul Alinsky, developed it based on the “protection rackets” practiced by the organized crime syndicates whose leaders he befriended in the 1940s. Check out the chilling documentary A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing to learn more about Alinsky.

He is the modern Machiavelli who figured out how to exploit the ethnic and social divides inside a community, manufacture outrage, and bully large institutions into funding the very groups that attacked them.

Of course, it was in an Alinsky training school that Barack Obama got his start in politics. And now we learn from news reports that the shakedown methods of community organizing were applied by Obama’s White House, on a massive scale that corrupted our judicial system. As we reported here at The Stream a few days ago:

Department of Justice officials diverted millions of dollars slated for victims of the 2008 housing meltdown to politically favored third parties, including “left-wing radical groups,” according to the chairman of a House of Representatives oversight subcommittee….

Rep. Sean Duffy, a Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the House Financial Services oversight and investigations subcommittee, said Friday the officials “skimmed” off three percent from mortgage-related bank settlements. This created what he called a $500 million “slush fund” that could be steered toward favored groups….

Among the political activist groups favored favored by the settlements is La Raza, the nation’s largest Hispanic activist organization that routinely supports Democratic candidates and causes. Cecilia Munoz, a La Raza senior vice president, was appointed by Obama in 2012 to head the White House Domestic Policy Council….

The Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA) is also slated to receive $50,000 from the Bank of America settlement, according to Cause of Action…. A February 2016 independent monitor report about a Bank of America settlement, obtained by TheDCNF, showed that $125 million had been “donated” by the bank in 2014 to 147 “community” groups and “housing counseling agencies.”

Leftist Groups That Helped Cause Housing Crisis Profit from Payouts

La Raza (“The Race”) and MEChA are radical Mexican nationalist organizations, which have long been accused of being the Latino equivalent of white supremacists. As Mark Kirkorian of National Review has pointed out, La Raza took its very name from the writings of a Mexican radical who claimed that the blend of Spanish and Indian blood that took place in Mexico had produced a superior race.

The Obama administration arranged that instead of paying out money to homeowners whom they had harmed, or to taxpayers who bailed out investors, banks accused of wrongdoing would sluice money into the coffers of leftist activists like La Raza, which oppose the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.

The irony becomes even richer when you remember that part of the reason for the 2008 crisis was that banks had lowered their standards for giving out mortgages, under pressure from leftist groups like La Raza to offer more home loans to members of minority groups regardless of their credit scores. So leftists help to gin up a national economic crisis, then profit from the collapse. Nice work if you can get it.

Sending Taxpayer Money to George Soros

Obama’s Alinskyite methods have gone global. As The Stream reported, in the small post-Communist Republic of Macedonia, Obama’s diplomatic appointees have been funneling U.S. tax-funded foreign aid through the aggressively leftist, pro-abortion Open Society Foundation created by international banker George Soros:

The Obama-appointed U.S. ambassador in Skopje, Jess Baily, has come under congressional scrutiny over accusations that he has shown a political bias against the Macedonian conservative party, VMRO, and that he facilitated coalition negotiations between the main leftist party and ethnic Albanian parties.

In a letter sent to Baily on Jan. 17, Republican members of the House and the Senate also asked him to explain reports that his embassy had selected Soros’ Open Society Foundations as the main implementer of U.S. Agency for International Development projects in Macedonia….

Feb. 27 USAID announcement of a $2.54 million contract with the foundation revealed that the project included paying for training in “civic activism,” “mobilization,” and “civic engagement.”

Far from strengthening the rule of law or regional security, these are activities associated with the redefinition of civics as 1960s-style progressive political activism. They are all strategies straight out of Saul Alinsky’s subversion manual, Rules for Radicals, whose translation into Macedonian, incidentally, was funded by Soros’ foundation in 2014.

One of the world’s richest men, Soros has a long history of intervening politically around the globe in the pursuit of his dream of open borders, global governance, and the erosion of regional particularism — what he calls the “open society.”

Barack Obama may not have personally engaged in the kind of shameless pay-for-play that seem to have characterized the Clinton Foundation, as it monetized access to the U.S. State Department. But he did aggressively corrupt the use of public money taken from taxpayers or owed to them, in service of overtly partisan goals.

Donald Trump has promised to “drain the swamp.” Let’s hope he starts by investigating the Chicago gangland methods Obama learned from Alinsky and brought to the highest reaches of government. Given his years in the building trade, Trump has doubtless seen more than his share of this kind of corruption. Who better to root it out? (For more from the author of “How Gangland Tactics Obama Learned From Saul Alinksy Corrupted Our Government” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

7998339582_5870b70d50_b (1)

Lawmakers Are Using Congressional Review Act to Dismantle Obama Regulations

In the four weeks since President Donald Trump was inaugurated, congressional lawmakers have moved to address some of the 22,700 regulations adopted under President Barack Obama.

“There has not been nearly as much attention paid to this issue as there should have been,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “I think President [Ronald] Reagan focused on this and I think President Trump is focusing more on this issue than any other president since Reagan.”

The tool Congress is using to undo these regulations is known as the Congressional Review Act, which allows it to repeal executive branch regulations.

Three resolutions disapproving of Obama-era regulations have been adopted by both the House and Senate since Trump’s inauguration and 24 more have been introduced in the House, according to James Gattuso, a senior research fellow who studies regulatory policy at The Heritage Foundation.

On Wednesday, the Senate adopted a resolution by a margin of 57-43 disapproving a regulation finalized during Obama’s last weeks in office that would “prevent some Americans with disabilities from purchasing or possessing firearms based on their decision to seek Social Security benefits.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a prepared floor statement on Wednesday that this resolution of disapproval included 32 bipartisan co-sponsors in the Senate and was supported by a myriad of civil rights groups and disability organizations.

“Repealing this regulation will ensure that disabled citizens’ Second Amendment rights are protected,” Grassley’s statement said. “Those rights will no longer be able to be revoked without a hearing and without due process. It will take more than the personal opinion of a bureaucrat.”

Paul Larkin, a senior legal research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an email that “Congress is moving expeditiously to invalidate rules that never should have been adopted.”

“This will lift the burdens felt by the average person from needless rules,” Larkin added.

The Congressional Review Act also prevents agencies from creating similar rules with similar language.

“ … Once Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval and the president signs it into law, the rule is nullified and the agency cannot adopt a ‘substantially similar’ rule absent an intervening act of Congress,” Larkin wrote in a commentary article.

Passed in 1996 in concert with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act and then-Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America reform agenda, the Congressional Review Act, according to the Congressional Research Service, “is an oversight tool that Congress may use to overturn a rule issued by a federal agency.”

Until this year, the Congressional Review Act had been used successfully only once in 2001 to repeal a regulation created during the Clinton administration pertaining to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

However, with a Republican House, Senate, and White House, conservative lawmakers have the votes needed to adopt the joint resolutions of disapproval for each regulation and a president who will sign them.

On Tuesday, Trump signed a resolution reversing “[a] costly regulation that threatened to put domestic extraction companies and their employees at an unfair disadvantage,” according to the Office of the Press Secretary.

Repealing the domestic extraction regulation that Trump signed Tuesday “could save American businesses as much as $600 million annually,” according to the office.

Lee, the Utah senator, said the Congressional Review Act will help reverse the financial burden of regulations.

“During the final months of President Obama’s presidency, during what some refer to as the ‘midnight period,’ unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch were very busy and they issued a flurry of regulations,” Lee said. “ And, it is significant that those regulations will impose … billion[s] [of dollars] … in compliance costs on the American people.”

Rachel Bovard, director of policy services at The Heritage Foundation, said the Congressional Review Act undoes regulations that harm American free enterprise.

“The successful use of the [Congressional Review Act] is not only good for the balance of powers, it’s good for American businesses, our economy, and a positive development for any American seeking to live their life with minimal government intrusion,” Bovard said in an email to The Daily Signal.

Trump is also expected to sign another joint resolution of disapproval, which undoes a rule “that would establish onerous requirements for coal mining operations, and impose significant compliance burdens on America’s coal production.”

Bovard said the Congressional Review Act is the ideal tool to bring accountability back to governing.

“The use of the Congressional Review Act is a welcome act by Congress to assert itself as a co-equal branch of government,” Bovard said. “Unelected bureaucrats should not write laws—and it’s up to Congress, through the use of the CRA, to disprove regulations that were not written as Congress intended.”

Gattuso said the timing for repealing regulations imposed by Obama is ripe for leaders in Congress.

“After 20 years of almost complete disuse, the stars have aligned to make the [Congressional Review Act] the vehicle of choice by members of Congress wanting to roll back recent Obama regulations,” Gattuso said in an email to The Daily Signal. (For more from the author of “Lawmakers Are Using Congressional Review Act to Dismantle Obama Regulations” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Barack_Obama_at_Las_Vegas_Presidential_Forum (2)

How Obama Is Scheming to Sabotage Trump’s Presidency

When former President Barack Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests, he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Yes, Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.

In what’s shaping up to be a highly unusual post-presidency, Obama isn’t just staying behind in Washington. He’s working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular “America First” agenda.

He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.

Since Donald Trump’s election, this little-known but well-funded protesting arm has beefed up staff and ramped up recruitment of young liberal activists, declaring on its website, “We’re not backing down.” Determined to salvage Obama’s legacy,”it’s drawing battle lines on immigration, ObamaCare, race relations and climate change.

Obama is intimately involved in OFA operations and even tweets from the group’s account. In fact, he gave marching orders to OFA foot soldiers following Trump’s upset victory. (Read more from “How Obama Is Scheming to Sabotage Trump’s Presidency” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Obama’s Lasting, Damaging Legacy: Leftist Judges

Barack Obama may lose his Obamacare legacy when Congress repeals and replaces it, but he has left the nation a far bigger and more damaging legacy. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) gloated in 2014, “one of the most profound changes this Congress made was filling the bench” with Obama’s appointments of federal judges. He went on: “This will affect America for a generation, long after the internecine battles on legislative issues are forgotten.”

Obama is proud of his record. “I am — not to brag — but I have transformed the federal courts from a diversity standpoint with a record that’s been unmatched,” he said. That is mostly true. A scholar of judicial appointments, Sheldon Goldman, observed that “The majority of Obama’s appointments are women and nonwhite males.” Though only 43 percent of his appointments were women, the former president appointed 11 openly gay judges, more than 10 times as many than any other president. (President Clinton appointed lesbian Deborah Batts as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1994.)

Why does this matter? Everyone focuses on the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court hears fewer than 100 cases a year. The lower federal courts handle about 135,000 per year. The vast majority of cases decided by the lower courts become law in their respective circuits. A liberal bench there means a huge number of liberal decisions affecting almost every aspect of American life.

Obama’s Liberal Legacy

Obama got 329 federal judges appointed to the circuit and district courts, all lifetime appointments. The Daily Signal characterizes the change in composition of the courts as a revolution that has been “comprehensive, dramatic, and under the radar.” Liberal legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin says Obama’s legal legacy is especially strong in the areas of same-sex marriage and blocking voter identification laws.

When Obama entered office in 2008, only one of the 13 United States Courts of Appeals had more Democratic appointed judges than Republican. 99 circuit court judges had been appointed by Republicans, 65 by Democrats. Now, nine of the appeals courts have more Democratic-appointed judges.

One-third of judges currently serving on the federal bench were appointed by Obama. He got two more judges confirmed than George W. Bush did during his two terms as president. Carrie Severino, chief counsel for Judicial Crisis Network, observed that “Obama was just very aggressive in getting those spots filled.”

Obama appointed left-leaning judges. He stealthily appointed judges who appeared to be non-ideological but then ended up “on the same side as outspoken liberals,” according to conservative legal experts quoted by Politico. The Ethics and Public Policy Center‘s Ed Whelan, for example, noted that between one of Obama’s leftist appointments and his “moderate” appointments, “on a broad range of matters there’s not a dime’s worth of difference.”

But did the Republicans object? Over 200 of Obama’s nominees were confirmed unanimously. Ken Cuccinelli, president of the Senate Conservatives Fund, said Senate Republicans “handed over the keys to the judiciary without a fight.” Republicans successfully filibustered just two nominees.

Not all senators completely caved. Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) has continued to block one of Obama’s nominees for district court, even though the judgeship has been vacant since 2005. Texas senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, both Republicans, objected so strongly to many Obama nominations that many of the vacancies are now considered “judicial emergencies” due to large caseloads.

Changes in the Courts of Appeals

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (informally considered the 13th circuit) is considered the second most powerful court in the country, after the Supreme Court. It hears cases involving the federal government.

When Obama assumed office, the court consisted of six judges appointed by Republican presidents, three named by Democrats, and two vacancies. When Senate Republicans objected to three of Obama’s nominees for that court, Democrats invoked the “nuclear option.”

On November 21, 2013, the Democratic majority shut down the ability of Senate Republicans to filibuster Obama’s judicial nominees. The rule requiring 60 votes to bring up a nominee for a confirmation vote was interpreted to only require 51.

Democrats successfully pushed through the three judges, as well as a fourth later on, changing the composition to a 7-4 split in favor of Democratic appointees. How did this affect the court’s decisions? The new court rejected a challenge to Obamacare in Halbig v. Burwell. In another decision, an Obama appointee cast the deciding vote upholding the Federal Communication Commission’s Net Neutrality censorship regulations.

When Obama took office, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had more Republican-appointed judges. It was known as one of the most conservative circuit courts in the country, encompassing West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Obama’s appointees changed the balance.

Two Obama appointees out-voted a Reagan appointee on a three-judge panel to rule against North Carolina’s voter identification law. They also held that a transgender student (a male identifying as female or vice versa) must be allowed to use the opposite sex’s restrooms and showers. One of the two justices was confirmed by the Senate in a 96-0 vote. Severino says the Fourth Circuit “is now on the cutting edge of liberal activism.”

But He Couldn’t Change the Supreme Court

Obama couldn’t change the composition of the Supreme Court, however. It remains divided between conservative and liberal judges, with Anthony Kennedy in the middle. Obama merely replaced two left-leaning judges with Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic justice, and Elena Kagan, his former solicitor general.

Republicans in the Senate prevented Obama from replacing the late Antonin Scalia last year. That would have changed the balance. They refused to bring Obama’s nominee Garland Merrick up for a vote. The senators argued that the decision should be left to the next president.

The left had hoped SCOTUS Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer would retire during Obama’s terms so he could replace them with liberal justices. Breyer is 78. Ginsberg is 83 and suffers from health issues. They didn’t, but are thought likely to retire during Trump’s first term, and almost certainly during his second if he has one.

The Pendulum Swings Back

When Republicans took over the Senate in 2015, they stopped the easy approval process, leaving 86 district court and 17 circuit court vacancies for Trump to fill. In contrast, Obama only had 59 total vacancies to fill when he became president. Just 22 appointments were confirmed during the Senate’s 2015-16 session. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell let 25 nominations expire instead of scheduling confirmation votes.

With Republicans in control of the Senate and Donald Trump as president, it should be fairly easy to confirm right-leaning judges. Democrats knew when they implemented the nuclear option that it would eventually be used against them. Trump has said he will encourage McConnell to use it if Democrats filibuster Neil Gorsuch, his pick to replace Justice Scalia. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Lasting, Damaging Legacy: Leftist Judges” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.