Monday, June 18, 2018

Will The 44th Presidency's, Carter's Second Term, FBI Ever Be Trusted Again?

Former FBI official: the Bureau has become corrupted by ideology and ego... and there's growing discontent among the rank and file (VIDEO). Image Credit: Tucker Carlson via FB (2018)

Will The 44th Presidency's, Carter's Second Term, FBI Ever Be Trusted Again?

MAYBE ... never ...

... include the whole of the Department Of Justice (DOJ) now that they just issued their Inspector General (IG) Report and it followed the exact template that then FBI Director presented nearly 2 years ago when he, Comey, went through the laundry list of law-breaking by Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) then ending with the conclusion that NO PROSECUTOR would take HRC to trial.

The DOJ IG Report went through nearly 500 pages of descriptions of Political BIAS, over-reaches in power, deviance of FBI procedure, and unequal justice - then ending with the concluding ruling that NO Provable Political BIAS existed in the illegal HRC private email server investigation.

These people distort process in order to pursue their collective progressive political ego and personality. Ego and emotion rules the day as these bureaucracies pile Bias upon Bias in order to undo the fair election of a 45th President that is anybody but Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The FBI was rigging an election for President of the United States on behalf of one political party over the other.

We, at Carter's Second Term, see Bias upon Bias along with Fix upon Fix "being placed in" to insure a Clinton Presidency using a two-tiered justice system where anybody but Hillary Clinton would be arrested for the countless felonies in the mishandling of classified information on her illegal private email server.

If the FBI will ever be trusted again, the rank and file will have to step forward and become the face of  - first, justice - then proper process over ideology and ego. 

TAGS: DEEP STATE, James Clapper, John Brennan, Barack Obama, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton, #BIAS, #corruption,#ego, #BHO44, MAXINE

Friday, January 27, 2017

Congressional Review Act Can Effectively End The Obama Carter's Second Term

Newly inaugurated 45th President of the United States signs his first executive order in the Oval Office of the White House. Image Credit: Getty Images (2017) 

Congressional Review Act Can Effectively End The Obama Carter's Second Term

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) is an oversight tool that Congress may use to repeal or prevent a regulation issued by a federal agency from taking effect. The CRA was included in the “Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996” and allows Congress to review, and to cancel by majority rule, new federal regulations issued by federal agencies.

The Bitter Clingers - Cartoon by Ben Garrison

This excerpted and edited from Bloomberg Government -

How to use the Congressional Review Act to undo regulatory actions
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP - Kevin O'Neill, Dana Weekes, Sara Garofalo Linder & Roxana Boyd - January 26, 2017

With a Republican sweep of Congress and the executive branch, there will be a concerted effort this year to reform and restrain the current regulatory state. The Trump Administration and Republican Congress have a number of options to repeal regulations issued by the Obama Administration, with the Congressional Review Act (CRA) being one vehicle for affirmatively undoing some of the regulatory actions of the last six months.

The CRA is an oversight tool that Congress may use to repeal or prevent a regulation issued by a federal agency from taking effect. The 1996 law grants Congress: (1) proper notification of new agency regulations; and (2) the authority to use a joint resolution of disapproval to overturn a rule that may not meet the congressional intent. Under the CRA, a joint resolution of disapproval can only repeal an interim final rule or final rule in its entirety, as it does not necessarily apply to draft regulations, and Congress cannot use it to reform parts of a rule.

Congress has only successfully overturned one rule under the CRA since its enactment in 1996, the final rule on ergonomics standards issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under the Clinton Administration.
5 things you need to know about the CRA:

1. As Congress has only repealed a rule under the CRA once before, more than 15 years ago, there are many unknown questions, including procedural questions and how a federal agency can engage on the issue following a repeal of the rule.

2. For rules issued by the Obama Administration on or after January 3, 2017, Congress has 60 legislative days from when the agency publishes each rule in the Federal Register or when Congress receives the rule report, whichever date is later, to use the CRA to repeal the regulation.

3. For a rule issued by the Obama Administration from June 13, 2016 (the parliamentarian in each chamber will set the actual date) through January 2, 2017, Congress has 60 legislative days starting from January 31 in the House and January 24 in the Senate to use the CRA to repeal the regulation.

4. Any use of the CRA cannot be filibustered in the Senate, which disadvantages those Democrats looking to challenge Republican efforts to restrain the current regulatory state.

5. Repealing a rule under the CRA likely foreclosures opportunities for a federal agency to reengage on the matter through a rulemaking for at least the next four years.
[Reference Here]

Interestingly, during President Obama's first two years in office, Congress did not use the CRA to repeal any Bush Administration final rules, despite the Democratic control of Congress.

President Donald J. Trump give his inauguration address with House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell looking on. Image Credit Getty Images (2017)

This excerpted and edited from Washington Examiner -

Obscure rule about to take center stage in regulation rollbacks

Republicans this month will invoke the rarely used Congressional Review Act to extinguish some of the Obama administration's more recent regulations they believe will damage the economy.
The GOP controls the majorities in both chambers and President Trump is eager to sign the legislation undoing the regulations, which affect the environment, education and jobs.
"There is only a rare set of circumstances in which you can use it," Rutgers University professor Stuart Shapiro, a public policy expert, told the Washington Examiner.

Republicans have for years talked of undoing Obama administration regulations through legislation, but the CRA gives them an easier route in the Senate by allowing Republicans to avert the 60-vote filibuster. The CRA can be applied only to regulations issued within 60 legislative days.

"We are going to do that very quickly," House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said of using the CRA during a recent interview on the Hugh Hewitt show.

House Republicans announced that beginning on Jan. 30, they will move to reverse four recently announced regulations using the CRA and will target other regulations in the weeks ahead.

At the top of the GOP's list is the Stream Protection Rule announced by the Obama administration in December. The rule is aimed at curbing environmental damage from coal mines. It boosts requirements for mining companies to monitor streams and more strictly defines "material damage" to waterways located beyond the mining footprint.

Critics, including Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said the rule constitutes regulatory overreach and will hurt the coal industry.

"This costly regulation, along with others that are already having a devastating impact, are part of the administration's plan to demolish these coal communities right now and long after the president has left office," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said.
The House will also take on long-unpopular federal interference in education with a vote to eradicate a bevy of new federal rules that GOP lawmakers believe interfere and in some cases bypass the recently passed bipartisan law overhauling the unpopular No Child Left Behind Act.

Finally, the House will vote under the CRA to undo the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council's final rule, which critics call the "blacklisting order." The rule was finalized in August and establishes a long list of new record-keeping, reporting and compliance requirements that could be used to bar contractors from winning federal contracts. The rule was temporarily blocked in a Texas federal court.

"You're going to see in February, the first two weeks, a lot of those regulations that were in the last 60 legislative days start moving to be repealed," Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said on the Hugh Hewitt show. "Because people don't quite realize, since the November election to Jan. 5, this administration, Obama's, has authored 145 new regulations, they've enacted more than $16 billion on us just since the election."
[Reference Here]

Then candidate Donald Trump in an info-graphic from Facebook posting in 2016 before the November 8th election.

This excerpted and edited from Powerline -


Kim Strassel delivers today’s good news in her Wall Street Journal column “A GOP regulatory game changer” (accessible here via Google). She introduces the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Todd Gaziano to explain the mechanics of the rarely used (and almost always unsuccessful) Congressional Review Act of 1996 to undo executive agency regulations. (The text of the Congressional Review Act is accessible here.)

As a staffer to Rep> David McIntosh at the time, Gaziano was “intimately involved” in drafting the law. According to Strassel, “No one knows the law better.” Here’s the beauty part:

The accepted wisdom in Washington is that the CRA can be used only against new regulations, those finalized in the past 60 legislative days. That gets Republicans back to June, teeing up 180 rules or so for override. Included are biggies like the Interior Department’s “streams” rule, the Labor Department’s overtime-pay rule, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s methane rule.

But what Mr. Gaziano told Republicans on Wednesday was that the CRA grants them far greater powers, including the extraordinary ability to overrule regulations even back to the start of the Obama administration. The CRA also would allow the GOP to dismantle these regulations quickly, and to ensure those rules can’t come back, even under a future Democratic president. No kidding.

How does it work? Kim alludes here to 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A) & § 802(b)(2)(A) & (B). With a little help from Gaziano, she explicates the text:

It turns out that the first line of the CRA requires any federal agency promulgating a rule to submit a “report” on it to the House and Senate. The 60-day clock starts either when the rule is published or when Congress receives the report—whichever comes later.

“There was always intended to be consequences if agencies didn’t deliver these reports,” Mr. Gaziano tells me. “And while some Obama agencies may have been better at sending reports, others, through incompetence or spite, likely didn’t.” Bottom line: There are rules for which there are no reports. And if the Trump administration were now to submit those reports—for rules implemented long ago—Congress would be free to vote the regulations down.

Let me pause here to ask Steve Hayward to tune in:

There’s more. It turns out the CRA has a[n] expansive definition of what counts as a “rule”—and it isn’t limited to those published in the Federal Register. The CRA also applies to “guidance” that agencies issue. Think the Obama administration’s controversial guidance on transgender bathrooms in schools or on Title IX and campus sexual assault. It is highly unlikely agencies submitted reports to lawmakers on these actions.

“If they haven’t reported it to Congress, it can now be challenged,” says Paul Larkin, a senior legal research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Larkin, also at Wednesday’s meeting, told me challenges could be leveled against any rule or guidance back to 1996, when the CRA was passed.

The best part? Once Congress overrides a rule, agencies cannot reissue it in “substantially the same form” unless specifically authorized by future legislation. The CRA can keep bad regs and guidance off the books even in future Democratic administrations—a far safer approach than if the Mr. Trump simply rescinded them.

It sounds too good to be true. Nevertheless, to quote Lyndon Johnson as he undertook the vast expansion of the edifice of the administrative state: “Let us begin.” Roll away the administrative stone!
[Reference Here]

Key point on what can actually be placed on the chopping block of the Congressional Review Act ... ANY RULE/REGULATION that has not been reported to Congress within the prescribed 60 days can be challenged in this procedure going back to when the CRA was put in place ... 1996!

TAGS: Hugh Hewitt, Congressional Review Act, CRA, 1996, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kim Strassel, Wall Street Journal, Powerline, Washington Examiner, The Fourth Way, Donald J. Trump, Carter's Second Term

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Threats To Freedom Left By Carter's Second & Third Terms ... The 44th Presidency

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

HRC At Clintonian Best In Post 9/11 Anderson Cooper Interview

HRC At Clintonian Best In Post 9/11 Anderson Cooper Interview

It is this response in a phone interview to a question asked by Anderson Cooper about the occurrence:

This excerpted and edited from People Magazine -

When Cooper asked how many times she'd had experienced dizziness in the past five years, citing her concussion in 2012, she said it'd only happened a few times.

"I think really only twice, that I can recall,” she responded. "It is something that has occurred a few times over the course of my life, I'm aware of it and can usually avoid it."
[Reference Here]

Only Twice and the word Few do not match up grammatically ... further, how does one develop a protocol on addressing the condition when the malady had occurred "Only Twice?"

Also, her husband Bill Clinton was right there in the Clintonian cabal of words explaining Hillary's condition:

This excerpted and edited from CBS News -

Asked if there was any chance her faintness on Sunday could be a sign of some more “serious” illness, Clinton said he did not believe that was the case.

“Well if it is, it’s a mystery to me and all of her doctors,” he said, “because frequently — well not frequently, rarely — but on more than one occasion, over the last many, many years, the same sort of thing happened to her when she got severely dehydrated.”
[Reference Here]

This pull quote "because frequently — well not frequently, rarely — but on more than one occasion" definitely has Carter's Second Term to conclude that, when matched up with Hillary Clinton's word "Few" as opposed to "Only Twice", that Hillary has had many episodes (definitely more than "Really Only Twice") and that this medical condition is way more common and serious ... so hence the confusion and Clintonian Cover-Up!

Laura Ingraham asks a medical expert on her morning program Tuesday 9/13/2016 (paraphrased) - "Why would a personal doctor need to be nearby at an appearance recognizing the 15 year 9/11 attacks at the World Trade Center buildings in New York if this is a condition that had been stated as being Pneumonia?" - the medical expert suspected that given the known history of incidents (fainting, coughing, losing balance while walking, forgetfulness) that this suggests something much more serious.

Friday, January 9, 2015

Caliphate vs Caliphate - What The Charlie Hebdo Massacre Exposes

Spanish cartoonists are sharing this image with the message: "To arms, companions!" via @sicevis #CharlieHebdo #tcot

Caliphate vs Caliphate - What The Charlie Hebdo Massacre Exposes

The world is run by ideas and the people/forces that back them. Throughout time, the human effort of governance has always been held by ideas backed through force.

Most of the noise that consumes the information airways since 12 people who were involved with producing the cartoon based opinion publication "Charlie Hebdo" in Paris, France were murdered in an effort to silence their opinion that religion, any religion, and religious ideas that govern human behavior and social roles are not serious and a source for humor.

The Muslim religion, and its enforcers (informed through Sharia Law) are busy at the business of shutting down all parts of organized humanity, that do not agree with their view on how humanity should be governed, in order to set up their own structure of governance that is not based in geographically defined countries - a Muslim Caliphate.

Their most recent target in the Western world was aimed at one of the human freedoms modern society agrees is most important ... the freedom of speech.

Once one peels back the layers of commentary, however, this freedom is not as important to many of those this attack was aimed at, which is the current political leadership force that has formed over putting forward a non-religion/secular based human governance and control over activity - a Progressive Caliphate.

On this side of the struggle, Progressives are choosing not to look at these terrorist murderous acts in France as a war against their governance but more as a small outlier of activity performed by, as one news/opinion broadcaster (Christiane Amanpour) put it, "activists."

Many secular reporters are suggesting that if only Charlie Hebdo placed curbs on its freedom of expressing its secular opinion, these bloody murderous acts of killing 12 people, because the image Muhammad (the leader, through his teachings, of the Muslim religion) was defamed through published cartooning, would not have taken place.

Due to the lack of seriousness of religion and its effects on the formation of culture and governance, the Progressives who govern France have allowed a flood of immigration without an insistence on integration to the existing culture. What France now sees are a series of over 750 "NO GO ZONES" where the people who choose to live in these zones are governed through the Muslim based Sharia Law. If a fire, or murder, or other acts of potential criminal and/or damaging human activity to other humans happens, French first responders are never dispatched and control in these areas is abdicated to the current Muslim Caliphate that resides there.

This type of Muslim governance takeover is not just happening in France. The rest of Europe is at risk with this same set up of takeover through population concentration through immigration and non-insistence of cultural integration. A clash of civilizations.

AZTLAN Movement targeted at reclaiming control over the Western United States. The Mexican Cession (1848) is shown in red with the Gadsden Purchase (1853) in orange. © 2004 Matthew Trump.

Europe is not the only group of countries at risk because the Progressive political leadership structures in Canada and United States are open to these same tactics.  Open borders policies aided by government welfare, health benefits, and legal driver's licenses to non-documented/illegal aliens are nothing new to our combined Progressive political landscapes.

Here in the progressive atmosphere that is Carter's Second Term, it's Caliphate vs Caliphate - Progressives vs Muslims - in an effort to establish a "New World Order", and what had been created in the establishment of a Constitution of governance (here in the United States) that was based in the idea that all Human rights, which also includes the Freedom Of Speech, are not granted to man from man (not a Monarch, a Prophet, or a Progressive government) ... but through God (a power greater than man), is in peril.

Friday, July 25, 2014

President Barack Obama's human trafficking efforts become FedEx-ing

The number of children crossing the U.S. border alone has doubled since last year. More than three-quarters of unaccompanied minors are from mostly poor and violent towns in three countries: El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Children from Mexico, once the largest group, now make up less than a quarter of the total. Graphic Credit: New York Times

President Barack Obama's Human Trafficking Efforts Become FedEx-ing

Immigration of human beings into the United States use to be a semi-orderly process.

A high level of respect for our borders and political culture governed by the Rule-Of-Law by other humans not born in this country was an assumed standard. Further, laws were passed by Congress to address special situations where labor needs, education access, and political upheaval could be addressed with the assumption always being that our citizens elected to office would perform their Oath Of Office and enforce the laws to the best of their ability.

Over the last decade, this respect and political culture governed by the Rule-Of-Law has degraded to the point where our Executive Branch no longer enforces the existing laws on immigration but have sought to foment a form of (through assumption and formal agreement) multiple government human trafficking. Mexico, in response to President Obama's 2012 Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals - DACA (Dream Act) proclamation of executive fiat, has opened up and fast-tracked the approval of Visa's allowing ANYBODY 72 hours to pass from their southern border to the southern border of the United States. Further, Mexico has been working directly with "feeder governments" (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, etc.) on agreements that would aid in a seamless streamlining of the Visa process to allow more people to leave their countries and pass through North to the United States.

For the Executive Branch's part in this, the President has instructed all main border patrol management locations be moved back from the border by about 40 miles, and have them pick-up people they determine to be undocumented and perform a form of "catch and release" by having those processed sign a promise to appear for a case hearing on their immigration status. Some of these people that are processed are even given transportation to a destination of their choice within the United States, at taxpayer expense, where these people disappear into the country and never show up for their hearing of determination on their immigration status.

This expansion into not respecting our borders and political culture governed by the Rule-Of-Law has now been taken up by the Executive Branch of the United States backed by many in both houses of Congress. Lawlessness on immigration policy and established law is beginning to rule the day.

Rule by Executive proclamation and Congressional inactivity is becoming our de facto process for a path to citizenship for people who just happen to show up and set up shop in our country.

It is as if someone on the street found out where you live, finds and unlocked sliding door, and just make themselves residents in your living room ... eat out of your kitchen from a refrigerator you stock, bathe in the bathrooms that you clean and tend, take away your job for less pay, and expect you to keep the roof over their head.

President Barack Obama's human trafficking efforts through proposed Executive proclamation have, as defined, become a process of setting a formal in-country processing center for FedEx-ing non-citizens into the United States.

President Obama will sit down Friday with the presidents of Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala - the three countries that have been the greatest source of children illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Image Credit: FOX News via

This excerpted and edited from the New York Times -

U.S. Considering Refugee Status for Hondurans

Hoping to stem the recent surge of migrants at the Southwest border, the Obama administration is considering whether to allow hundreds of minors and young adults from Honduras into the United States without making the dangerous trek through Mexico, according to a draft of the proposal.

If approved, the plan would direct the government to screen thousands of children and youths in Honduras to see if they can enter the United States as refugees or on emergency humanitarian grounds. It would be the first American refugee effort in a nation reachable by land to the United States, the White House said, putting the violence in Honduras on the level of humanitarian emergencies in Haiti and Vietnam, where such programs have been conducted in the past amid war and major crises.
By moving decisions on refugee claims to Honduras, the plan aims to slow the rush of minors crossing into the United States illegally from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, which has overwhelmed the border this year. More than 45,000 unaccompanied minors from those three nations have arrived since Oct. 1, straining federal resources to the point that some agencies will exhaust their budgets by next month, the secretary of Homeland Security has said.
Administration officials stressed that no decision had been made to move forward, saying the idea was one of many being discussed by officials at the White House and the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services.
The proposal, prepared by several federal agencies, says the pilot program under consideration would cost up to $47 million over two years, assuming 5,000 applied and about 1,750 people were accepted. If successful, it would be adopted in Guatemala and El Salvador as well. It is unclear how the administration determined those estimates, given that since Oct. 1 more than 16,500 unaccompanied children traveled to the United States from Honduras alone.

Children would be interviewed by American immigration employees trained to deal with minors, and a resettlement center would be set up in the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, with assistance from international organizations like the International Organization for Migration.

The plan would be similar to a recent bill introduced by Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, who proposed increasing the number of refugee visas to the three Central American countries by 5,000 each.
Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports tighter controls on immigration, said that the proposal would increase, not stem, the flood of migrants from Central America trying to get into the United States.

“It’s clearly a bad idea,” Mr. Krikorian said. “Orders of magnitude more people will apply for refugee status if they can just do it from their home countries.”

He added that the proposal would allow people to claim to be refugees from their countries with “nothing more than a bus ride to the consulate. We’re talking about, down the road, an enormous additional flow of people from those countries.”
Under American law, refugees are people fleeing their country of origin based on fears of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.

The only category that would seem to apply is “social group,” experts said, but there is disagreement on what that means. Some contend that children could count as a group, but others say the refugee requirements are stricter, and would not apply to people fleeing general crime and violence.

“What is a social group?” said Muzaffar Chishti, director of migration policies for the Migration Policy Institute’s New York office. “This is going to create a huge deal of debate. You will see a lot of law developing on it.”
When a similar plan was adopted in Haiti, as a way to keep people from taking to the high seas, he said, it was ultimately criticized because Haitians already in the United States did not receive help. “It ended up being counterproductive to the goal,” Mr. Appleby said.

Stacie Blake, the director of government relations for the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, an advocacy group, said the processing of potential refugees in Central America could be handled by the United States or by the United Nations, which makes refugee determinations in many other countries. She said some of the people designated as refugees in Honduras could end up in countries other than the United States.

“It’s a way to help folks avoid life-threatening escapes and journeys,” Ms. Blake said. “It’s a good idea. It’s a tested idea.”
On Friday, Mr. Obama is scheduled to meet with the presidents of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador at the White House in an effort to urge the Central American leaders to do more to help stem the flow of children fleeing their countries for the United States.
Critics of the plan were quick to pounce, saying it appeared to redefine the legal definition of a refugee and would only increase the flow of migration to the United States. Administration officials said they believed the plan could be enacted through executive action, without congressional approval, as long as it did not increase the total number of refugees coming into the country.
[Reference Here]

So the agencies of this United States government, under this re-definition of refugee status, will be setting up shops in the form of refugee processing centers in targeted countries on which refugees are deemed, then shipped (presumably by plane) into the United States - Welcome to the age of "FedEx-ing" our immigration system through Executive Branch proclamation.

Do not be surprised to hear, before this 44th President leaves office - ending Carter's Second Term, that President Barack Obama P-A-R-D-O-N-S all people breaking the law by being here in the United States illegally ... and grants them full citizenship through Executive Order.