Posts

Even Voters Think Obama’s FBI Had a Plot to Spy on Trump Campaign

There is another inspector general report coming out, folks. And it should make Team Obama very nervous because there could be some bad, bad things in it concerning their spying activities during the 2016 election. That’s is related to the alleged FISA abuses that occurred during the election. But then, there’s Spygate—remember that? It’s the case where the FBI allegedly had tried to use an informant to spy on four reported Trump officials, Michael Flynn, Carter Page, Sam Clovis, and George Papadopoulos. Of course, the liberal media wouldn’t call this spying, though some reporters had to admit, on face value, the whole probe looked politically motivated. It was all based on this Russian collusion myth, though you don’t dare call it spying. It was the typical ‘they weren’t spying, but also…they were spying’ linguistic gymnastics that were deployed. So, was spying going on and did the Obama White House know about it? If this was going on, of course, Barry knew. And it seems voters agree with this position as well (via Rasmussen):

Most voters now suspect President Obama or his top people knew that intelligence agencies were spying on the Trump campaign, but they don’t expect anyone to be punished for breaking the law.

Thirty-six percent (36%) say it’s unlikely Obama or his top aides were aware of the spying, with 18% who say it’s Not At All Likely.

[…]

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on April 14-15, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

(Read more from “Even Voters Think Obama’s FBI Had a Plot to Spy on Trump Campaign” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Senator Admits Obama Admin Could Have Legitimately Spied on Trump Campaign

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Thursday that there was still a possibility that the Trump campaign was surveilled by the government in a legitimate fashion.

“Clearly the foreign intelligence surveillance act was used against the Trump campaign,” said Graham to CNN’s Manu Raju.

“That’s a form of surveillance,” he explained. “It is, surveillance is fine, but it’s legal, it’s authorized. Counter-intelligence investigation was opened up against the Trump campaign. That by its nature, surveillance is fine.”

“I think what Mr. Barr is saying is that this didn’t happen in the Clinton campaign, there was no counterintelligence investigation I know of against the Clinton campaign there was no FISA warrants opened up against her people,” Graham said. “The question is why did the government open up a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign, and was the FISA warrant legit?” . . .

The comment seemed to go against an earlier statement from the president, who seemed absolutely certain that the Obama administration had illegally spied on his presidential campaign. (Read more from “Senator Admits Obama Admin Could Have Legitimately Spied on Trump Campaign” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Ex-Obama Lawyer Expects to Be Indicted in Mueller-Related Case

The legal team for former Obama White House lawyer Greg Craig say that they expect Craig to be indicted in the near future on charges related to work that he performed in 2012 for the Russia-aligned government of Ukraine.

“Mr. Craig has refused to accept a plea deal, and the matter could be presented to a grand jury for indictment as soon as Thursday, people familiar with the matter say,” The Wall Street Journal reported. “The people familiar with the situation say they believe Mr. Craig will be charged with making false statements to the Justice Department unit that oversees the activities of foreign agents, though other charges are possible.”

The case against the 74-year-old Democrat — who has served in senior legal positions under two Democrat presidents — originated from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

“This case was thoroughly investigated by the SDNY and that office decided not to pursue charges against Mr. Craig,” Craig’s legal team said in a statement. “We expect an indictment by the DC US Attorney’s Office at the request of the National Security Division. Mr. Craig is not guilty of any charge and the government’s stubborn insistence on prosecuting Mr. Craig is a misguided abuse of prosecutorial discretion.” . . .

“Craig resigned from Skadden in April 2018 amid a building investigation into whether the firm’s lawyers failed to register as foreign lobbyists for their Ukraine engagement,” The Washington Post reported. “Prosecutors have been investigating whether Craig issued false statements to the Justice Department in 2013 as officials made inquiries to the firm about whether its work required public registration, people familiar with the case said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe the ongoing probe.” (Read more from “Ex-Obama Lawyer Expects to Be Indicted in Mueller-Related Case” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trouble Ahead? Obama Seems to Be Firing Warning Flares to His Fellow Party Members About 2020

From Berlin, Obama sees the first vestiges of the circular firing squad forming with his party and that could dash their hopes of beating Trump in 2020. We now have prominent Democrats in this clown car calling for the end of private health insurance. It’s madness. Oh, and if you’re not for that, then you could be a shill for the insurance industry and not really be all for healthcare for all or something. Everyone’s dirty laundry is about to be aired in the name of progressive purity (via The Hill):

Former President Obama expressed concern about the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, saying he feared it could end up undercutting allies.

Speaking at a town hall event on Saturday for the Obama Foundation in Berlin, the former president spoke about the need for compromise in politics, citing the Affordable Care Act as something that he said signified progress even though it did not achieve all of his aspirations for U.S. health care.

“One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States —maybe it’s true here as well — is a certain kind of rigidity where we say, ‘Uh, I’m sorry, this is how it’s going to be,’ and then we start sometimes creating what’s called a ‘circular firing squad,’ where you start shooting at your allies because one of them has strayed from purity on the issues. And when that happens, typically the overall effort and movement weakens,” he said.

“So I think whether you are speaking as a citizen or as a political leader or as an organizer … you have to recognize that the way we structure democracy requires you to take into account people who don’t agree with you, and that by definition means you’re not going to get 100 percent of what you want,” he added.

(Read more from “Trouble Ahead? Obama Seems to Be Firing Warning Flares to His Fellow Party Members About 2020” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Obama’s Confession About Assimilation May Land Him in Hot Water With Fellow Dems

During a town hall in Berlin for the Obama Foundation, former President Barack Obama defended the idea of immigrants assimilating to the American way of life. He believes that “some form of assimilation” is necessary and even refuted the idea that “assimilation of newcomers to the existing culture is somehow betrayal or a denial of people’s heritage.”

“And so some of the assimilation that inevitably takes place is gonna take a little bit longer, but some of those principles still apply, and I worry sometimes as we think about how to deal with the immigration issue we think that any moves towards assimilation of newcomers to the existing culture is somehow betrayal or a denial of people’s heritage or what have you,” Obama told the audience. “The truth of the matter is that if you’re going to have a coherent, cohesive society then everybody has to have some agreed upon rules, and there’s gonna have to be some accommodations that everybody makes, and that includes the people who are newcomers.”

What’s interesting is Obama said something many people have said for years: assimilation doesn’t mean losing who you are, where you came from or the culture you grew up with. It means having respect for the nation you’re coming to and the people who are born, raised and currently reside there.

“The question is, are those fair? Should we want to encourage newcomers to learn the language of the country they’re moving to? Of course. Does that mean they can never use their own language. No,” Obama said. “Of course it doesn’t mean that, but it’s not racist to say if you’re gonna be here then you should learn the language of the country you just arrived at, because we need to have some sort of common language in which all of us can work and learn and understand each other.”

(Read more from “Obama’s Confession About Assimilation May Land Him in Hot Water With Fellow Dems” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Lefties Didn’t Mind When Obama ‘Reprogrammed’ Billions in Taxpayer Funds for Illegal Alien Welfare

When anti-federalists were scared that the proposed Constitution would grant the president king-like powers, Alexander Hamilton penned an essay in Federalist 69 to allay their fears. Among the paradigm differences distinguishing the power of a president from that of a king, Hamilton wrote, whereas “the one [a president] can confer no privileges whatever, the other [a king] can make denizens of aliens.”

In 2012, President Obama, after declaring, “I am president; I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself,” proceeded to not only grant illegal aliens amnesty but to confer on them positive privileges of denizens, namely work permits and Social Security cards. Because of those cards issued to over 770,000 aliens, billions of dollars in refundable tax credits, aka welfare, were handed out to them in violation of immigration law and the welfare reform bill of 1996. Not a single Democrat protested. To be fair, not too many Republicans did either.

Now, evidently, Democrats believe it is OK for a president to unilaterally make residents of aliens and divert taxpayer funding for their welfare, but a president can’t use defense funds for our own border against the cartels who are bringing in the very aliens incentivized to come as a result of Obama’s executive action.

Obama handed out resident status to roughly 770,000 illegal aliens, of which about 683,000 are still active. Providing this primarily low-income group of individuals with Social Security cards made them all eligible to collect the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which is essentially a wealth transfer program through the tax code. While there is no definitive data on how much we spent on refundable credits for this particular amnesty, a 2015 estimate from the Joint Committee on Taxation predicted that Obama’s second executive amnesty – DAPA – would cost $2 billion in earned income tax credits (EITC) over five years just for the retroactive portion of back taxes they were eligible for until the program was halted by the courts. The CBO gave a similar estimate for a parallel amnesty proposal in 2017, concluding that the cost of the EITC accessed by this population would be $5.5 billion over 10 years. Either way, the point is that to this very day, these illegal aliens unlawfully granted Social Security cards are drawing funds from the Treasury pursuant to an illegal executive order.

And $5.5 billion is roughly the same amount Trump would transfer from other defense accounts to the border wall under the Emergencies Act, except he would be doing so pursuant to statute and in defense of our sovereignty. Obama did this in violation of statute and in violation of the sacred trust of the American people by handing out welfare to invaders. Even if one is uncomfortable with Trump’s particular decision, there is simply no comparison to Obama’s DACA amnesty. For Democrats to support DACA to this day is scandalous hypocrisy.

Just how insane was Obama’s amnesty, which is still astoundingly being implemented by Trump? Recipients were eligible to file back taxes, according to Obama’s royal edict, and could retroactively collect the refundable tax credits for previous years. In a written response to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, then IRS-Commissioner John Koskinen confirmed that “not only can an individual amend a prior year return to claim EITC, but an individual who did not file a prior year return may file a return and claim EITC” and that “a taxpayer claiming the EITC is not required to have an SSN before the close of the year for which the EITC is claimed.”

Obviously, this was designed for legal immigrants and American citizens, but by Obama unilaterally declaring 770,000 illegal aliens to be legal and issuing Social Security cards, he opened the door for them to steal from America’s treasury.

A CRS memo in 2015, in response to a query from Sens. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., confirmed that illegal alien families would be eligible for tens of thousands of dollars in tax credits from this retroactive scheme. Remember, most illegal aliens are low-income and get back much more than they pay in taxes. A whopping 87 percent of illegal immigrant households benefit from at least one federal welfare program (not including refundable tax credits), primarily because of children born in America.

Talk about illegally reprogramming funds! And there was no emergency declaration or statute backing him up at the time. The only emergency was the need for more Democrat votes.

Section 401(c)(1) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWOA), the famous welfare reform bill, bars unlawfully present aliens from receiving any “retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States.”

Refundable tax credits should definitely count as forms of payments and assistance to individuals because all government budget scoring entities, including the Treasury Department, the IRS’ parent department, count refundable tax credits as “outlays,” not just reductions in revenue. The Congressional Budget Office, the arm of Congress that wrote the welfare reform statute prohibiting programs from being doled out to illegal aliens, counts refundable tax credits among “income security” programs, such as food stamps and housing assistance. Also, the language of the 1996 statute makes clear the intent of the law: “It is a compelling government interest to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits.”

What Obama did is even worse when you view it from the standpoint of legal immigrants. The 1996 welfare reform law, when it is actually enforced, prevents green card holders from accessing public benefits for five years based on the principle that permanent resident immigrants who come to the U.S. should be contributing to society as a condition of entry. Yet illegal immigrants not only got a reprieve from deportation, but were paid with the refundable tax credits that are not even available to hard-working legal immigrants.

Yet to this day, both Congress and the White House continue to champion this program.

Every day, one law after another is being violated in order to accommodate people whose entire presence here is illegal. It sets off a chain reaction of illegal behavior on their part and the part of government, most prominently accommodating identity theft. But when the end goal is to help illegal aliens, it’s not just permissible, but laudatory. Conversely, when an executive action is done to protect America from very harmful effects, then it’s terrible.

But the hypocrisy of Democrats is even worse. Not only was Obama’s amnesty more out of legal bounds than Trump’s executive order by many orders of magnitude, it is also the exact reason why Trump must take action at the border today.

From the time DACA was announced, in 2012, through 2014, the number of unaccompanied minors apprehended from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras increased 490 percent, 444 percent, and 610 percent respectively. The El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) drafted a memo in 2014 asserting that 95 percent of the border-crossers interviewed cited the promise of amnesty as the primary factor behind their migration. During the height of the UAC surge in 2014, the Washington Post admitted that it was “driven in large part by the perception they will be allowed to stay under Obama administration’s immigration policies.”

That perception is now a reality, with a gushing flow thanks to the Trump administration continuing DACA, as well as other catch-and-release policies in deference to illegal universal injunctions from district judges.

Yesterday, Speaker Pelosi declared that Trump is “asking each and every one of us to turn our backs on the oath of office that we took to the Constitution of the United States.” I think she is right. It is absolutely illegal for Trump to continue validating Social Security cards and drawing refundable tax credits for illegal aliens, pursuant to Obama’s executive action. Consequently, if she really cared about her oath to the Constitution and also wanted to serve as a check on executive power grabs, she’d propose a resolution to overturn the DACA amnesty. (For more from the author of “Lefties Didn’t Mind When Obama ‘Reprogrammed’ Billions in Taxpayer Funds for Illegal Alien Welfare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Plan for $500 Million Obama Presidential Library Gets Some Really Bad News

A half a billion dollar presidential library for former President Barack Obama planned in Chicago, Illinois, has hit a stumbling block in the form of a decision by a judge made Tuesday . . .

The lawsuit was filed by the Protect Our Parks organization, which accuses the Barack Obama Foundation of pulling a “bait and switch” by changing from a publicly run project to a privately run plan.

The goal of the lawsuit is to “bar the Park District and the City from approving the building of the Presidential Center and from conveying any interest in or control of the Jackson Park site to the Foundation.”

U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey ruled against the foundation Tuesday and said the lawsuit could proceed.

Protect Our Parks argues that the plan would violate laws that bars private development on city land. The Barack Obama Foundation disputed the claim and asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed.

(Read more from “Plan for $500 Million Obama Presidential Library Gets Some Really Bad News” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

All the Times Obama Called for a National Emergency

1. Declaration of a National Emergency With Respect to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic: This was the first public health emergency declared by Obama in his premiere term. This empowered the secretary of Health and Human Services to issues waivers that allowed overcrowded hospitals to move swine flu patients to satellite facilities or other hospitals. This is one of two executive emergencies which were completed by the time Obama left office.

2. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia: This was intended to help combat Somali pirates. Because Somalian pirates are totally going to cross the US border.

3. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya: This imposed sanctions of Muammar Gaddafi, his family and Libyan officials after protestors were killed by government forces.

4. Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations: This sanction was levied against four criminal organizations: Los Zetas, the Brothers’ Circle, the Yakuza and the Camorra. This included freezing assets, barring ownership of American real estate and implementing travel bans on members or associated persons.

5. Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security or Stability of Yemen: This sanction was intended to counter unrest in Yemen in the aftermath of the Yemeni Revolution.

(Read more from “All the Times Obama Called for a National Emergency” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Stacey Abrams Forgets the Obama Administration Put Kids in Cages

. . .During her remarks about immigration, [Stacey] Abrams conveniently gave credit to President Barack Obama for “humane” policies.

From 2014:

According to sources on the ground in Nogales, who have asked to remain anonymous for fear of losing their jobs, 1000 OTM (other than Mexican) unaccompanied juveniles from Central America are already being sheltered in a warehouse and Border Patrol agents are expecting 2000 children by the end of next week. Estimates show overall 60,000 unaccompanied juveniles will illegally cross into the United States this year.

“It’s just chain-link cells so we have aliens sleeping all over the floor and they told us to probably expect another thousand over the next week, week and a half,” another Border Patrol agent tells Townhall. “We have these huge chain link cages, 20-feet tall with razor wire around them, this is inside a warehouse. They are probably 50 by 100 [feet] and there’s probably 10 or 11 of these big cages like that and so there’s probably 100-200 aliens in each cell, or cage and there’s just park benches right down the middle, two rows of park benches and then they give them these little rubber mats, a little foam pad to lay on. We don’t have enough blankets so they’re issuing out those foil blankets, it’s like a piece of tin foil and that’s all they get. There are so many people crammed. The smell is just horrendous, horrendous.”

(Read more from “Stacey Abrams Conveniently Forgets the Obama Administration Put Kids in Cages” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Do Democrats Have a White Man Problem?

In an interview with CNN’s Van Jones this weekend, Democratic Sen. Kristen Gillibrand was asked if it was a problem that a recent poll shows three white men are leading for the 2020 presidential nomination. Her answer, which grabbed headlines, was a blunt “Yes,” and drew a laugh from Jones.

Gillibrand explained her answer a bit, but only in very broad terms. She talked about the importance of Barack Obama’s first black presidency, then said, ““I aspire for our country to recognize the beauty of our diversity in some point in the future and I hope some day we have a woman president.” . . .

There’s also the fact that the last time the Democrats nominated a white man was in 2004. Granted, all the ones before that were white men, but over the past two decades it’s been a different set. Democrats elected a record number of women into office in 2018 and are handing the gavel back to the first woman to be speaker of the House. So is it really a problem that the three leaders for the nomination are white men?

There are two basic ways to address this question. The first is electoral, and the second is ideological. From the point of view of pure voting math, there are good arguments for and against a white male candidate. Proponents would say that it could help in Trump’s forgotten America. Detractors would argue that today’s Democratic Party must mirror the Obama coalition and pump up minority turnout. . .

That leaves the ideological problem as the one that is truly at issue here. It isn’t merely symbolic. Sure, somebody not white or male polling over 10 percent would be the kind of PR win Democrats got with the photos of their wave of new female legislators. But for many Democrats, apparently including Gillibrand, equal representation on the basis of race and sex really does go beyond campaign narrative and is a driving principle of the party itself. (Read more from “Do Democrats Have a White Man Problem?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.