Posts

Violent Pipeline Protesters Are Obama-Approved. Peaceful Ranchers? Not So Much

/0 Comments/in , /by

According to the U.S. Constitution, Americans are guaranteed equal treatment under the law. According to the Obama administration, the word “equal” has no bearing on its treatment of protesters — just their politics.

Last week, the administration said it would allow protesters of the Dakota Access oil pipeline to stay on federal lands. This decision was made despite clashes between armed activists and police authorities, and a request for assistance by a sheriff. Notably, the clashes and protests are taking place two years after the Army Corps of Engineers held nearly 400 meetings about the pipeline, and made nine requests for meetings with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe that were not attended by the Tribe.

This is the Tribe that is now protesting the pipeline, along with various environmental activists.

Compare this to another recent protest on federal land — the 2015 rancher protest in Oregon. Armed like many of the pipeline protesters, ranchers took over federal land in order to make a statement against increasing federal land grabs, in support of Cliven Bundy, who regularly trespassed on federal land laws in protest. In contrast to today’s protests, the ranchers engaged in no violence. Yet law enforcement agents began arresting them after just 24 days. The crackdown resulted in the death of one rancher, Lavoy Finicum, when he left the wildlife refuge to drive to a nearby town. Although the ranchers were armed, they were peaceful, and Finicum was killed after police fired on him despite no dangerous actions by the rancher.

Enabling Pipeline Protesters

In stark contrast to the small, low-key rancher protest, hundreds of members of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and armed environmental activists have been camping out for two months on federal lands in North Dakota and Iowa, protesting the construction of the four-state Dakota Access oil pipeline. The protests have resulted in violence, with both sides blaming the other.

Members of the tribe say the pipeline endangers sacred sites near its reservation and endangers the tribe’s water supply, and that the construction company has already destroyed sacred sites. (The tribe’s “media backgrounder” can be found here.) However, according to The Daily Caller News Foundation, “Archaeologists inspected the 1.3-mile section along the route of the Dakota Access pipeline in southern North Dakota, and found no signs Native American tribal artifacts are present, despite what protesters argue.”

Mercer County Sheriff Dean Danzeisen of North Dakota sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch expressing his concerns about their guns. “They are armed, hostile, and engaged in training exercises which can only be intended to promote violence, whether on Corps property or elsewhere.” Dealing with the protesters also costs law enforcement extra money for overtime.

Yet federal agents say they have no intention of removing the trespassers, declaring they have a free speech right to be on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ land. The Corps has encouraged the protesters to move to adjacent land where they have a permit to stay, but they refuse.

North Dakota’s sole US representative, Republican Kevin Cramer, says the encampment is illegal and accuses the feds of looking the other way. “If that camp was full of people advocating for fossil fuels, they would have been removed by now,” he said. “There is some discretionary enforcement going on.”

Violent and Non-Violent Actions by Pipeline Protesters is the Norm

The protests have blocked work from progressing on parts of the pipeline. The construction in Iowa was forced to shut down briefly when protesters dismantled part of the fence around the construction site. In Missouri, twelve protesters chained themselves to construction equipment there, resulting in multiple arrests for criminal trespass.

Each weekend, more protesters arrive at the encampments. In Iowa, they are organized by the group Mississippi Stand. So far, more than 130 protesters have been arrested in Iowa and North Dakota, mostly for trespassing. Many volunteer to be arrested, knowing there will be few ramifications; law enforcement merely places the activists in plastic handcuffs, books them, then releases them immediately to go back and protest some more.

The Obama administration has stopped any building of the pipeline on federal lands, so developers are continuing the construction on private, state or local government land. The pipeline will carry oil 1,200 miles from North Dakota to Illinois, crossing South Dakota and Iowa. Pipeline officials say it will reduce energy dependence on foreign oil, and will generate $55 million annually in property taxes. There are up to 7.4 billion barrels of oil in North Dakota’s Bakken region.

The pipeline was supposed to be completed by the end of the year, but a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit put a halt on part of the construction while considering a lawsuit filed by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.

The lengths to which the government has gone to appease the environmental protesters is astounding. If Native Americans can care about the land, why not ranchers? (For more from the author of “Violent Pipeline Protesters Are Obama-Approved. Peaceful Ranchers? Not So Much” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Administration Is Willing to Break the Law to Save Obamacare

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Barack Obama’s signature health care law is failing and his administration will go to seemingly any length to prop it up.

You know the famous quote from “Animal Farm” that “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others?” This was George Orwell’s attempt to point out the hypocrisy that many politicians preach equality, but then give favors to only a few.

Well, for the Obama administration, it turns out that the health insurance companies participating in Obamacare happen to be “more equal” than taxpayers—even to the point where the administration is willing to break the law to help them stay in Obamacare.

To see what I mean, consider the Transitional Reinsurance Program. Section 1341 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, authorizes the secretary of Health and Human Services to collect payments from health insurance companies and group health plans to stabilize health insurance markets during the transition to Obamacare’s exchange-based coverage.

The transitional period is set, by law, to cover the plan years 2014 through 2016. However, section 1341 also requires HHS to collect payments from those companies to cover specified amounts and to deposit that money in the general fund of the United States Department of the Treasury.

The requirement to deposit a portion of the collections essentially earmarks that money for deficit reduction. The statute explicitly says that the collections for Treasury cannot be expended on the program. In other words, it cannot go back to the insurers unless Congress provides another appropriation redirecting those funds.

However, HHS has decided to ignore this requirement altogether by allocating all of the collections toward covering the losses of insurance companies. The administration’s decision to redirect all of the collections to the insurers and none to Treasury came only after Obamacare was up and running and the administration found out that it wasn’t collecting as much as expected from the unprofitable insurers.

Not only is favoring a select few over the taxpayers unethical, but according to a recent legal opinion issued by the Government Accountability Office, it’s also illegal. The GAO’s legal opinion is important given its statutory authority to issue legal decisions on the availability of appropriated funds by federal agencies under the Budget and Appropriations Act of 1921 (P.L. 67-13).

According to the GAO:

The fact that HHS’s collections ultimately fell short of the projected amounts does not alter the meaning of the statue. Addressing similar circumstances, courts have held that an agency has an obligation to ‘effectuate the original statutory scheme as much as possible.’ … In such cases, courts have held that a pro rata distribution of funds would most closely adhere to Congress’s original allocation … We do not see any flexibility under section 1341(b)(4) to all HHS to expend the pro rata share of collections attributable to the Treasury … Instead, these collections must be deposited in the Treasury.

Furthermore, that GAO concluded that HHS’ selective reading of the law is “driven solely by the factual circumstances present here, namely, lower than expected collections.” But this unfortunate outcome is not reason to ignore statutory requirements:

… HHS’s position selectively ignores one of the statute’s purposes—which is collecting funds for the Treasury—giving effect to only one of the statute’s purposes—stabilization of health insurance premiums … We agree that a purpose of section 1314 is to provide premium stabilization in the initial years of PPACA’s health insurance reforms. However, this is not the sole purpose of section 1341. Congress clearly intended that the program established under section 1341 would generate collections for the Treasury.

This goes to show that this administration is willing to do just about anything, even breaking the law, to prop up the failing Obamacare. (For more from the author of “Obama Administration Is Willing to Break the Law to Save Obamacare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mark Levin Blasts ‘Know-It-All’ Obama and His Leftist ‘Racial Obsession’

/0 Comments/in , /by

“This racial obsession … bordering on hatred … runs deep in the veins of Barack Obama,” said Mark Levin during his radio show Tuesday night.

His remarks came in response to a recently surfaced documentary of Barack Obama visiting Kenya in the 1990’s. The video shows know-it-all Obama assessing racial tension in the country and complaining about white privilege.

“This has nothing to do with blacks, and everything to do with left-wing Americans,” Levin said. “And there [Obama] is, ‘I just wish blacks in Kenya had more confidence’ … well how does he know blacks in Kenya don’t have confidence? I mean, seriously, who the hell is he?!”

Listen below to hear the full clip:

“Here’s another place that [Barack Obama] wanted to fundamentally transform,” Levin quipped.

It seems everywhere Leftists go all they see is societal tension and racial disharmony that ONLY they can fix. (For more from the author of “Mark Levin Blasts ‘Know-It-All’ Obama and His Leftist ‘Racial Obsession'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Clinton and Obama’s Brazen Lie About the Iraq Withdrawal

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the first presidential debate of the 2016 general election, Donald Trump blamed Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the rise of ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. According to Trump, Obama and Clinton created a “disaster” by “the way they got out of Iraq.” This refers to the tragedy that occurred after the U.S. pulled out of Iraq, and ISIS swept through the nation while imposing Sharia law and executing, raping and enslaving the Iraqi people.

Clinton responded to Trump that she hopes “the fact-checkers are turning up the volume and really working hard,” because “George W. Bush made the agreement about when American troops would leave Iraq, not Barack Obama.” She then asserted that “the only way that American troops could have stayed in Iraq is to get an agreement from the then-Iraqi government that would have protected our troops, and the Iraqi government would not give that.”

This protection was a legal immunity that would prevent Iraqi courts from prosecuting U.S. soldiers. Obama has made the same claim, and many media outlets have published stories saying he is correct, such as the Washington Post, Salon, FactCheck.org, and PolitiFact, the last two of which are “fact checkers” often invoked by the Clinton campaign.

In reality, news reports that were published when the U.S. troops were withdrawn prove that Clinton and Obama are being deceitful. As documented below, the articles show that:

the “agreement” Clinton spoke of was not intended to determine a hard date but to provide a soft placeholder.

“everyone” expected that this date would be extended.

the date was not extended because the Obama administration poisoned the negotiations and refused to use a simple and sure process to provide immunity to U.S. troops.

the U.S. State Department led by Hillary Clinton was a primary actor that destroyed these negotiations.

after the troops were pulled, Obama took credit for this and insisted that it was the right thing to do.

These articles also show that after this decision looked disastrous in hindsight, Obama and Clinton began falsely accusing Bush of forcing them to withdraw the U.S. troops.

The Status of Forces Agreement

The “agreement” Clinton spoke of was called the Status of Forces Agreement or SOFA. It stated that U.S. forces “shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory” by the end of 2011.

Contrary to what Clinton led the debate audience to believe, the SOFA merely provided a placeholder to satisfy Iraqis who opposed an indefinite U.S. military presence in Iraq. When Obama announced in October 2011 that all U.S. troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year, the New York Times reported:

And for the negotiators who labored all year to avoid that outcome, it represented the triumph of politics over the reality of Iraq’s fragile security’s requiring some troops to stay, a fact everyone had assumed would prevail. …

At the end of the Bush administration, when the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, was negotiated, setting 2011 as the end of the United States’ military role, officials had said the deadline was set for political reasons, to put a symbolic end to the occupation and establish Iraq’s sovereignty. But there was an understanding, a senior official here said, that a sizable American force would stay in Iraq beyond that date.

The same article explained that the troops did not stay because the Obama administration “pressed the Iraqi leadership” to take a “controversial” public stand on immunity for troops “that ended any possibility of keeping American troops here past December.”

On the same day of the Times article, The Cable, a publication of the influential magazine Foreign Policy, revealed that Obama’s State Department, led by Hillary Clinton, refused to employ an easy and straightforward process to keep the U.S. troops in Iraq:

Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the [Iraqi] Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy’s diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.

“An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that’s done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry,” said one former senior Hill staffer. “If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its a**.”

These claims that Obama and Clinton could have used this option were proven true in 2014, when Obama employed the same process to provide immunity for 300 U.S. troops sent back into Iraq after ISIS rose to power and began wreaking havoc. As reported in a 2014 New York Times article:

The Obama administration said on Monday that it has accepted from the Iraqi government the same sort of immunity agreement for newly dispatched Special Operations troops that it refused to accept in 2011, when it opted to withdraw all American troops from Iraq rather than keep a residual force behind.

The Times related that the White House defended these conflicting positions by claiming that “this situation is different because Mr. Obama is sending only 300 troops in an advisory role, rather than keeping 5,000 there, as was discussed in 2011.” However, the article presented no evidence that any relevant law or agreement made distinctions based on the number or role of the troops. Nor has any member of the Obama administration or media presented such evidence in dozens of articles reviewed for this research.

Obama Took Credit Until It Went Wrong

On the day the troop withdrawal was announced, Obama gave a White House press conference in which he stated:

“As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end….”

“After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011.”

Contrary to the notion that Obama wanted to keep U.S. forces in Iraq but was prevented by Bush’s agreement, the above-mentioned article by The Cable contains a note at the end of it that states:

This article was amended after a White House official called in to say that it was not the “White House” that was pushing for an extension of U.S. troops.

“The White House has always seen the president’s pledge to get all troops out of Iraq as a core commitment, period,” the White House official said.

A few days after the troop withdrawal was announced, Obama’s presidential campaign produced an ad stating: “Because of Barack Obama the mission in Iraq ended.”

A few months later, Obama boasted before soldiers in Fort Bragg, NC that “we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.” At the same event, Michelle Obama said to the troops that Obama “has kept his promise to responsibly bring you home from Iraq.”

In a 2012 debate with Mitt Romney, Obama said to Romney, “Every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong.” As an example of such, Obama said “You said that we should still have troops in Iraq to this day.”

Yet, in an August 2014 press conference, after Iraq was in the midst of what Obama called a “growing humanitarian crisis” and potential “genocide,” a reporter asked him if he had “second thoughts about pulling all ground troops out of Iraq.” Obama responded, “What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision.” Obama then gave the same explanation that Hillary used at the debate, which is that Bush’s agreement forced him to do this.

In sum, Obama campaigned on a promise to pull the troops from Iraq, which he and Clinton proceeded to do against the advice of Iraq’s top army officer and U.S. military officials. Obama then took credit for this, bragged about it, and defended it as the right thing to do — up until the point when it went wrong. Then he and Clinton began saying that Bush did it. (For more from the author of “Clinton and Obama’s Brazen Lie About the Iraq Withdrawal” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Checks and Balances: Congress Rebukes Obama’s Attempt to Protect Saudi Arabia From 9/11 Families

/0 Comments/in , /by

The United States Congress delivered a stinging blow to the president this week when they voted to override his veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), marking the first time Congress rebuked Obama’s veto.

JASTA is legislation pushed by the families of the victims of the attacks on September 11, 2001. In particular, the legislation weakens sovereign immunity laws to allow victims of terrorism to sue countries that were involved in the funding of those events. In this case, 9/11 survivors have, for the past 15 years, tried to sue the Saudi government for its presumed role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Although both chambers of Congress overwhelming defeated Obama’s veto — in the Senate, 97-1 and in the House, 348-77 — the law is controversial. Concerns have been raised that it will weaken sovereign immunity laws in a way that will violate international law. Perhaps the greatest concern, however, is the backlash this new law will have on the U.S.

The possibility for backlash is predicated on the U.S.’ ability to claim sovereign immunity in the courts of other countries. As the New York Times writes,

A nation’s immunity from lawsuits in the courts of another nation is a fundamental tenet of international law. This tenet is based on the idea that equal sovereigns should not use their courts to sit in judgment of one another … international law continues to guarantee immunity, even for alleged egregious crimes.

The NYT then argues, perhaps accurately, that few nations benefit as much from sovereign immunity than the U.S., especially given our status as the most active player in diplomatic, economic, and military endeavors around the world.

Examples that help illustrate the hazards of this bill would include Iran and Cuba. Both nations have sued the U.S. and hold billions of dollars in judgments against us. (Although, hopefully we haven’t actually paid those off.) More so, lawyers are also uncertain how to view foreign aid — particularly military foreign aid — for example, to Israel. In the event military aid could be traced to deaths, say in the West Bank, the U.S. could be subject to a litany of lawsuits.

In all fairness, the bill certainly raises a number legitimate questions. But the fear mongers — and, well, it’s just about every news outlet and blog — need to calm down.

First, as much as Obama hates this bill, in the end, the new law grants the executive considerable power over suing foreign nations. That power allows the attorney general to request a court to halt a lawsuit proceeding against the foreign nation for 180 days if the U.S. government is “engaged in good faith discussions with the foreign state defendant concerning the resolution of the claims against the foreign state.”

Since the bill provides the option to extend the stay by an additional 180 days if more time is needed, in theory, the government could thwart a lawsuit indefinitely.

And really, there’s nothing stopping Obama from assisting the Saudis over the 9/11 families.

I wouldn’t put it past him.

Second, this bill is all about seeking justice for 9/11 families against the Saudi government’s involvement. It’s hard to argue against that. The role Saudi Arabia played in the worst terrorist attack on American soil is increasingly obvious as the U.S. government offers additional transparency into U.S. intelligence reports.

In July, The Washington Times reported that based on the “28 pages” — classified pages from a congressional report on the 9/11 hijackings — that Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the country’s ambassador to the U.S. at the time, was funneling cash to one particular individual who had ties to the hijackers. Sadly, the list goes on and on.

After all, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, including terrorist mastermind too, Osama bin Laden. Yet, after all these years, Saudi Arabia has faced no repercussions, mostly thanks to our dependence on oil and its strategic location in the Middle East accessible to U.S. military assets.

Nevertheless, the Saudi government, just as any nation’s, should be held accountable for its participation in the murder of 3,000 Americans. Period.

Finally, this is merely a law that is aimed at terrorism. Lawyers Jack Goldsmith and Curtis Bradley argue in their op-ed, How to Limit JASTA’s adverse impact”:

It also will create a broad precedent that can be used against the United States and its allies as an excuse for “reciprocal” or “analogous” reductions in immunity even if no suit is brought against those countries in the United States.

However, there will be limited instances in which foreign nations directly contribute to terrorism in the U.S. Those that may are certainly not countries that should cause the U.S. significant alarm in any reciprocal actions. Even if other nations decide to follow America’s lead in reducing sovereign immunity clauses regarding terrorism, it should be expected that again, there would be only a few nations we would have to worry about.

In the end, this bill represents the voices of thousands of families who feel that for too long politics has outweighed justice for the tragedies on September 11. Sometimes it’s better to do what is right than it is to do what is easiest. Victims of terrorism deserve justice, and this is but one small step. (For more from the author of “Checks and Balances: Congress Rebukes Obama’s Attempt to Protect Saudi Arabia From 9/11 Families” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Likely to Face Opposition After Nominating Cuban Ambassador

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Obama nominated Jeffrey DeLaurentis Tuesday to serve as the first U.S. ambassador to Cuba in more than 50 years.

DeLaurentis has already been serving as the senior U.S. diplomat in Havana while Obama worked on restoring relations with the Communist island. Technically, he already has the rank of ambassador, but the post must still be confirmed by the Senate.

“Jeff’s leadership has been vital throughout the normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba, and the appointment of an ambassador is a common sense step forward toward a more normal and productive relationship between our two countries,” Obama said. “There is no public servant better suited to improve our ability to engage the Cuban people and advance U.S. interests in Cuba than Jeff.”

The decision will undoubtably face strong opposition from a Republican-controlled Senate.

Cuban-American Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas have been very vocal in their criticism of opening relations with Cuba, arguing the country and its leader have done nothing to earn American engagement.

Both senators have stated they would block any ambassador appointed by Obama.

“A U.S. ambassador is not going to influence the Cuban government, which is a dictatorial, closed regime,” Rubio said during a phone interview with Politico in July.

Deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told Yahoo News that he doesn’t believe having an ambassador should be a “reward” that America doles out to someone.

“We have such a basic difference on that,” Rhodes added. “To us, the concept that it’s a reward for a country to have an ambassador makes no sense. On the contrary, having an ambassador gives you a higher profile, a higher-ranked advocate for what America cares about, whether that’s bilateral cooperation or whether that’s speaking out for human rights.”

Rhodes did admit that “it will be hard” to get DeLaurentis confirmed. There is a good possibility the Senate won’t even consider his nomination before Obama leaves office in January.

The president also faces a longstanding tradition which allows an individual senator to anonymously impose a delay, and potentially end, the confirmation process.

“We have no illusions,” Rhodes said. “But we feel that it’s important to validate the good work that Jeff DeLaurentis has done while also indicating that we think the norm should be that there’s an ambassador — and put the onus on opponents to articulate why it makes any sense at all to not have such a well-qualified person in the position.”

“He is exactly the type of person we want to represent the United States in Cuba, and we only hurt ourselves by not being represented by an ambassador,” Obama said of DeLaurentis. “If confirmed by the Senate, I know Jeff will build on the changes he helped bring about to better support the Cuban people and advance America’s interests.”

Commercial flights between the U.S. and Cuba resumed in August for the first time in 55 years.

”We only hurt ourselves by not being represented by an ambassador,” the president added. (For more from the author of “Obama Likely to Face Opposition After Nominating Cuban Ambassador” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Could Be First Modern President to Serve Two Full Terms and Have Only One Veto Overridden

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Barack Obama could likely face his first veto override of his presidency this week—which will probably also be the last given his pending exit in January 2017.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, generally referred to as the 9/11 bill, will return to the Senate Wednesday and to the House as early as Thursday for an override vote before lawmakers take another pre-election recess.

It was the rare bipartisan piece of legislation that met a presidential veto last Friday. The bill grants families of 9/11 victims the right to sue Saudi Arabia for any role the monarchy might have played in the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The last president to have only one veto overridden was President George H.W. Bush, who served one term from 1989 through 1993. For Obama’s two immediate predecessors, Congress mustered up the needed two-thirds majority twice to override Bill Clinton’s vetoes and four times to override George W. Bush’s vetoes.

Obama could become the first president to serve two full terms with just a single veto overridden, according to numbers tracked by the U.S. Senate, although some two-term presidents had zero vetoes overriden.

Vetoes themselves are tied heavily to political circumstances, said Sarah Binder, a political science professor at George Washington University.

“The pattern for vetoes and veto overrides is a pattern less about the president and his leadership ability than it is tied to the congressional partisanship of the time,” Binder told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “Vetoes are unusual when you have unified party control, which the president had for his first two years, and the Democrats controlled the Senate for the first six years. So, any bills that passed the House, such as a repeal of Obamacare, were stopped in the Senate. Split control makes it less likely the president will cast a veto.”

Up to this point, Obama was the first president since Lyndon B. Johnson to have zero vetoes overridden. Johnson’s predecessor, John F. Kennedy, also had no vetoes overridden.

The first nine U.S. presidents didn’t have a single veto overridden. Vetoes were somewhat less common in in the early days, as Thomas Jefferson issued zero during his two first terms. James Madison issued seven vetoes and James Monroe issued one veto.

Andrew Jackson was the first to regularly veto bills, issuing 12 over his two terms in office from 1829 to 1837, and Congress didn’t overturn any.

Other presidents to have zero vetoes overturned were Warren Harding, who served from 1821 until his death in 1823; William McKinley, elected in 1896 and assassinated during the first year of his second term; Abraham Lincoln, elected in 1865, also murdered in the first year of his second term; and Lincoln’s predecessor James Buchanan, who served a single term. Other one-term presidents, James Polk and Martin Van Buren, also had zero veto overrides.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Obama is very sympathetic to the 9/11 families. But, he said such legislation could expose Americans to lawsuits around the world in international courts.

“Carving out exceptions to sovereign immunity puts the United States at greater risk than any other country in the world by virtue of the fact that we are more engaged around the globe than any other country in the world,” Earnest said Tuesday during the White House press briefing. “That’s the concern the president has. … It’s the president’s responsibility to consider the broader impact that this bill, as it’s currently written, would have on our national security and standing around the world and on our diplomats and service members who represent America around the world.”

Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., co-sponsored the legislation. Cornyn said he looked forward to overriding the veto to “send a clear message that we will not tolerate those who finance terrorism in the United States.”

“It’s disappointing the president chose to veto legislation unanimously passed by Congress and overwhelmingly supported by the American people,” Cornyn said in a statement. “Even more disappointing is the president’s refusal to listen to the families of the victims taken from us on Sept. 11, who should have the chance to hold those behind the deadliest terrorist attack in American history accountable.”

The scarce number of veto overrides is less astounding when considering the comparatively few vetoes. Obama, and his predecessor George W. Bush, each cast a dozen vetoes, and both maintained at least one house of Congress for the first six years of their presidency. In contrast, the previous two-term presidents, Clinton and Ronald Reagan, had 37 vetoes and had 78 vetoes respectively. Clinton had a Democratic Congress for his first two years. Reagan, who had a Republican Senate for his first six years, had nine of his vetoes overridden by Congress.

Even the last two single-termers used the veto pen far more often. George H.W. Bush vetoed 44 bills from a Democratic Congress. Jimmy Carter actually vetoed 31 bills in a Congress controlled by his own party, only two of which were overridden.

Further, the successive presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower produced more than 1,000 vetoes. Roosevelt, elected to four terms and serving the entirety of three, vetoed 635 bills, and Congress overturned nine. Truman vetoed 250 bills and Congress reversed 12. Eisenhower vetoed 181 bills and Congress only vetoed two.

It isn’t entirely surprising that a veto override would come at this juncture in Obama’s term, Binder added.

“Normally, enough Democrats would stick with the president to prevent a two-thirds majority, but in this case, they might not want to be on the unpopular side of a vote,” Binder said. “When the issue is framed as either standing with 9/11 families or standing with the Obama administration, Democratic members will be hard-pressed to stand with the Obama administration.”

Other presidents with just one veto overridden are John Tyler, who served from 1841 to 1845; Rutherford B. Hayes, who served a single term from 1877 to 1881; Chester A. Arthur, who served from 1881 through 1885; Benjamin Harrison, who served a single term from 1889 to 1893; Theodore Roosevelt, who fulfilled one president’s term and won another in his own right serving from 1901 through 1909; William Howard Taft, who served one term from 1909 to 1913; and the first President Bush.

Having just one discarded veto likely doesn’t speak to Obama’s legacy, said Tim Hagle, a political science professor at the University of Iowa.

“The difference under Obama, and it really started under Bush, is we’ve seen minorities in the Senate blocking a lot of legislation,” Hagle told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “It’s a nice trick to accuse a do-nothing Congress when nothing gets done, but it’s not a great sign of Obama’s leadership.”

In the final weeks of a national election, the veto override comes at an interesting time, said Gary Rose, the chairman of the political science department at Sacred Heart University, noting Obama’s approval rating is higher than it has been in years.

“It’s unusual for a president to have his veto overridden when his approval rating is actually strong, but this demonstrates that members of Congress are looking ahead to their own re-election and are ready to move on and distance themselves from the president,” Rose said in a phone interview. (For more from the author of “Obama Could Be First Modern President to Serve Two Full Terms and Have Only One Veto Overridden” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A Proper American Response to Chinese Aggression and Humiliation

/0 Comments/in , /by

Upon entering office, President Obama fought a nomenclature battle with the Bush administration over China. “Strategic competitor” became “strategic partner.” The “Strategic Economic Dialogue,” critically, became the “Strategic AND Economic Dialogue.” Despite this lunacy and China’s flagrant disrespect for Obama, our China policy did not change all that much from President Bush’s. Yes, Obama’s fecklessness accelerated the downward trajectory of our position in Asia, but that trajectory was already plunging. Presidents Bush and Obama share the same affliction: muddling our economic and security interests. The muddle results in China’s regional security provocations going unchallenged, and the reasons why are linked.

Firstly, administrations fail to respond to China’s security transgression for fear that it will damage our economics interests. It is a perverse, defensive form of mercantilism. Secondly, we have a bad habit of reaching for economic sanctions as part of our toolkit for responding to security threats.

For both of these reasons, China’s security transgressions should only beget security responses.

Why? Because economic sanctions tend to boomerang back on us and act as a regressive tax on the middle class. We may not like it, but American and Chinese economic interests align more often than not. We and the global economy need a healthy Chinese economy (and vice versa). Most of what we would sanction are things that we buy or need for manufacturing inputs. That spells inflation here and less competitive manufacturing and exports. Imagine Chrysler sales if the Detroit automakers’ vehicles suddenly cost more than a Mercedes. And that is before Chinese retaliation or a move in the value of the dollar.

The other big reason Chinese security violations should be met with a security response is the empty nature of our economic threats. Policy makers usually figure out that economic threats will hurt U.S. consumers and consequently back down. We end up looking feckless, and China’s security challenges go unanswered.

When China tests us, we need a firm response. Failure to do so just invites more antics from Beijing, and we look like, well, Obama.

During his last trip to China the Chinese gratuitously snubbed Obama by making him deplane “from the ass end of the plane.” China likewise set the tone in 2010 in Copenhagen when the they sent a junior official to negotiate with Obama. After making the president wait for hours, Obama met with the waterboy.

China has stolen the files of millions of Americans, including me. Maybe the government passed China a stern note, but as far as I could tell the only administration response was to give me a subscription to an identity monitoring service … as if China using my credit card numbers is the worry.

Similarly, when China established an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea in November 2013, Obama’s silence was deafening. China made a naked attempt at a territory grab that could restrict trade routes, freedom of navigation, and pit our ally Japan against China. Obama flew one unarmed B52 sortie through the area and then advised U.S. airlines to comply with China’s demands.

So when China began building islands in the South China Sea and claiming new territory, it correctly assumed a weak U.S. response would follow.

Each of these events had an appropriate rejoinder. Obama should have refused the meeting with the junior official in Copenhagen and ignored China’s demands to deplane from the back of Air Force One. Why did he follow small orders from Beijing’s communist leadership? The ADIZ and the South China Sea situations placed China’s credibility in our hands, but we did not use that leverage. We should have regularly sent planes and ships through the territory China claimed. When China did not back up their threats of force (and they would not have), we could have advertised it.

It should trouble us that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump want to lead with an economic and not a security response. They thunder about economic reprisal, but, should they be elected, will almost certainly back down. Clinton has adopted Sen. Schumer, R-N.Y. (F, 2%) and Donald Trump’s currency manipulation hobbyhorse (which, by the way, is wildly inaccurate), and Trump has his trade war threat. Both are terrible ideas, though does anyone doubt that they will get left on the cutting room floor after November? To be sure, both belong on the floor, but we should worry that — in the midst of the flip-flops — we will once again fail to respond to China.

China presents a security challenge for us in Asia, but we must better relearn how to respond. Our reflexive grasp for economic responses creates threats from which we must eventually climb down or, if followed through on, would significantly harm the U.S. economy. The Chinese must be overjoyed at economic threats because they must know we do not mean it. China sees the American presence in the region as limiting its geopolitical rise, but the zero-sum thinking stops there. Economically they need us, and we need them. While no politician, especially Trump and Clinton, will say that in our populist moment, failure to do so merely aids China. (For more from the author of “A Proper American Response to Chinese Aggression and Humiliation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

FBI Report: Obama Used Phony Name to Email Clinton on Her Private Server

/0 Comments/in , /by

Communications from President Barack Obama have been discovered among those in the cache of emails recovered from Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

The emails show that during the time Clinton, now the Democratic presidential candidate, was secretary of state in Obama’s first term, Obama used a phony name when he was emailing Clinton and other officials.

The latest disclosure came in 189 pages of documents released Friday by the FBI.

The FBI has been investigating Clinton’s use of a private server while she was secretary of state. Although the FBI said Clinton has been careless in handling classified information, she was not charged with breaking any laws. The FBI has been issuing reports from its investigation.

The FBI report includes an interview with Clinton aide Huma Abedin in which she was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama. However, Abedin did not recognize the sender’s name.

The report explained what happened next.

“Once informed that the sender’s name is believed to be pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed, ‘How is this not classified?’” the report says. “Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.”

The contents of the emails between Obama and Clinton have not been made public by the State Department, which has cited “presidential communications privilege,” to hide the communications from the Freedom of Information Act.

The FBI report does not provide details about the emails between Clinton and Obama.

The report is the first clear evidence that Obama used Clinton’s unsecured email server to communicate with his secretary of state.

The FBI earlier revealed Clinton had relied on others’ judgment to not send her classified material during email correspondences.

“Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system,” the FBI said in its Sept. 2 report. “She relied on State officials to use their judgment when emailing her and could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her email address.”

The information revealed Friday includes the FBI interviews with a number of individuals, including Clinton aides Abedin and Cheryl Mills; senior State Department officials; and Marcel Lazar, better known as the Romanian hacker “Guccifer.”

Friday’s reports also covered interviews with Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s policy director; Bryan Pagliano, a former Clinton technology aide; Monica Hanley, a Clinton aide; and Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton confidante.

Interviews were also released from FBI sessions with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former CIA acting director Mike Morell, State Department official Patrick Kennedy, and other officials. (For more from the author of “FBI Report: Obama Used Phony Name to Email Clinton on Her Private Server” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Legal or Not, Obama Wants to Bring Gitmo Detainees to the US

/0 Comments/in , /by

Despite the fact it’s illegal, further proof that the Obama administration is not opposed to moving inmates from Guantanamo Bay’s military detention facility to U.S. soil was confirmed this week.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt disclosed the Pentagon spent federal dollars to scope out Fort Leavenworth — where the Department of Defense’s only maximum security prison is located — as a potential site to house former Gitmo detainees,” the Topeka-Capital Journal’s Justin Wingerter reports.

“As time runs out for the Obama administration to make good on its promise to close Guantanamo, this document raises new concerns for those who object to bringing detainees to the U.S. mainland,” Schmidt said after his office discovered the Pentagon’s actions through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Schmidt’s office underwent a 10-month battle with the DOD over the FOIA request.

However, bringing Gitmo inmates to the U.S. is illegal and prohibited by federal law. Additionally, multiple members in Congress have emphasized it will continue to remain illegal.

“After seven years, President Obama has yet to convince the American people that moving Guantanamo terrorists to our homeland is smart or safe. And he doesn’t seem interested in continuing to try,” Speaker of the House Paul Ryan R-Wis., (F, 53%) said in a statement in February after Obama confirmed his intentions to close the facility in Cuba.

“His proposal fails to provide critical details required by law, including the exact cost and location of an alternate detention facility. Congress has left no room for confusion. It is against the law — and it will stay against the law — to transfer terrorist detainees to American soil. We will not jeopardize our national security over a campaign promise.”

Questions regarding the transference of remaining Guantanamo detainees have been rekindled. Just this month, Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C. (A, 96%), reintroduced a proposal halting detainees to be transferred to U.S. soil. This resolution was first introduced in February and is now gaining support from 50 Republican House members.

Similar to Kansas residents near Fort Leavenworth, the issue is relevant for Duncan and his district, since another potential U.S. site for the detainees is the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C.

“No state should be a terrorist dumping ground. I know the people of South Carolina are vehemently opposed to this plan,” Duncan said in a statement. “If brought to a city like Charleston, the community would immediately become a high priority terrorist target where millions of tourists travel every year to visit. In fact, any community forced illegal to house these notorious terrorists would be at risk.”

Currently, there are 61 detainees remaining at the Gitmo facility; Obama said earlier this month 20 of those are approved for transfer.

It’s important to note 66 percent of Americans are opposed to closing the facility, according to a Gallup poll from June.

Americans are concerned about former terrorists on the loose, and Obama should be, too. (For more from the author of “Legal or Not, Obama Wants to Bring Gitmo Detainees to the US” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.