Tuesday, February 19, 2019

Obama's DEEP STATE Unravels & Fails At Every Turn Says Historian Victor Davis Hanson

#DJT45 riding the legacy of the Barack H. Obama Executive Branch tidal wave of political corruption.
Image Credit: Doug Giles via Facebook

Obama's DEEP STATE Unravels & Fails At Every Turn Says Historian Victor Davis Hanson

We find ourselves two years and one month post the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama and its final overt vestiges are finally beginning to implode and end their effectiveness.

Our country, which faced a choice of having a one-party political rule - Democrat Political Party with the strong support of Establishment Republican Political Party protecting the back door - elected blue-collar billionaire Donald J. Trump against all odds and federal government power with the forceful aid of the Left-Wing Media & Entertainment Complex.

Recently, Andrew McCabe, who served as the Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from February 2016 to January 2018 and from May 9, 2017, to August 2, 2017, served as the Acting Director of the FBI following James Comey's dismissal by President Donald Trump, was interviewed by 60 Minutes with revelations about the conspiracy within the FBI that is now falling apart.

The attitude held by the Democrat Political Party today. Resistance and division continues to be pursued within the Federal Government and by the political leadership still headed by the former president Barack H. Obama.
Image Credit: Facebook Timeline

This has been a long process initiated by those at the very top of the leadership of the Democrat Political Party and these efforts began well before the election cycle of 2016, and continued in its effort to oust a duly elected opposition President through the following elements analyzed and diagnosed by Victor Davis Hanson:

Preparing the Battlefield - Weaponizing the Deep State - The Mueller Investigation - The Palace Coup

This excerpted and edited from American Greatness by historian Victor Davis Hanson -

Autopsy of a Dead Coup
February 17th, 2019

The illegal effort to destroy the 2016 Trump campaign by Hillary Clinton campaign’s use of funds to create, disseminate among court media, and then salt among high Obama administration officials, a fabricated, opposition smear dossier failed.

So has the second special prosecutor phase of the coup to abort the Trump presidency failed. There are many elements to what in time likely will become recognized as the greatest scandal in American political history, marking the first occasion in which U.S. government bureaucrats sought to overturn an election and to remove a sitting U.S. president.


A Hitch Cartoon. Image Credit: Facebook Timeline

Preparing the Battlefield

No palace coup can take place without the perception of popular anger at a president.

The deep state is by nature cowardly. It does not move unless it feels it can disguise its subterranean efforts or that, if revealed, those efforts will be seen as popular and necessary—as expressed in tell-all book titles such as fired FBI Directors James Comey’s Higher Loyalty or in disgraced Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s psychodramatic The Threat.

In candidate and President Trump’s case that prepping of the battlefield translated into a coordinated effort among the media, political progressives and celebrities to so demonize Trump that his imminent removal likely would appear a relief to the people. Anything was justified that led to that end.

All through the 2016 campaign and during the first two years of the Trump presidency the media’s treatment, according to liberal adjudicators of press coverage, ran about 90 percent negative toward Trump—a landmark bias that continues today.

Journalists themselves consulted with the Clinton campaign to coordinate attacks. From the Wikileaks trove, journalistic grandees such as John Harwood, Mark Leibovich, Dana Milbank, and Glenn Thrush often communicated (and even post factum were unapologetic about doing so) with John Podesta’s staff to construct various anti-Trump themes and have the Clinton campaign review or even audit them in advance.

Some contract “journalists” apparently were paid directly by Fusion GPS—created by former reporters Glen Simpson of the Wall Street Journal and Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post—to spread lurid stories from the dossier. Others more refined like Christiane Amanpour and James Rutenberg had argued for a new journalistic ethos that partisan coverage was certainly justified in the age of Trump, given his assumed existential threat to The Truth. Or as Rutenberg put it in 2016: “If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, non-opinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable. But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?”

I suppose Rutenberg never considered that half the country might have considered the Hillary Clinton presidency “potentially dangerous,” and yet did not expect the evening news, in 90 percent of its coverage, to reflect such suspicions.

The Democratic National Committee’s appendages often helped to massage CNN news coverage—such as Donna Brazile’s primary debate tip-off to the Clinton campaign or CNN’s consultation with the DNC about forming talking points for a scheduled Trump interview.

So-called “bombshell,” “watershed,” “turning-point,” and “walls closing in” fake news aired in 24-hour news bulletin cycles. The media went from fabrications about Trump’s supposed removal of the bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office, to the mythologies in the Steele dossier, to lies about the Trump Tower meeting, to assurances that Michael Cohen would testify to Trump’s suborning perjury, and on and on.

CNN soon proved that it is no longer a news organization at all—as reporters like Gloria Borger, Chris Cuomo, Eric Lichtblau, Manu Raju, Brian Rokus, Jake Tapper, Jeff Zeleny, and teams such as Jim Sciutto, Carl Bernstein, and Marshall Cohen as well as Thomas Frank, and Lex Harris all trafficked in false rumors and unproven gossip detrimental to Trump, while hosts and guest hosts such as Reza Aslan, the late Anthony Bourdain, and Anderson Cooper stooped to obscenity and grossness to attack Trump.

Both politicos and celebrities tried to drive Trump’s numbers down to facilitate some sort of popular ratification for his removal. Hollywood and the coastal corridor punditry exhausted public expressions of assassinating or injuring the president, as the likes of Jim Carrey, Johnny Depp, Robert de Niro, Peter Fonda, Kathy Griffin, Madonna, Snoop Dogg, and a host of others vied rhetorically to slice apart, shoot, beat up, cage, behead, and blow up the president.

Left wing social media and mainstream journalism spread sensational lies about supposed maniacal Trump supporters in MAGA hats. They constructed fantasies that veritable white racists were now liberated to run amuck insulting and beating up people of color as they taunted the poor and victimized minorities with vicious Trump sloganeering—even as the Covington farce and now the even more embarrassing Jussie Smollett charade evaporated without apologies from the media and progressive merchants of such hate.

At the same time, liberal attorneys, foundations, Democratic politicians, and progressive activists variously sued to overturn the election on false charges of rigged voting machines. They sought to subvert the Electoral College. They introduced articles of impeachment. They sued to remove Trump under the Emoluments Clause. They attempted to invoke the 25th Amendment. And they even resurrected the ossified Logan Act—before focusing on the appointment of a special counsel to discredit the Trump presidency. Waiting for the 2020 election was seen as too quaint.


Faked information used to create the illusion of actual muli-sourced verification of real information through leaks to a compliant 4th Estate in order to have permission to spy on a competitive political campaign via the Department Of Justice through the FISA Warrant process. Image Credit: Facebook Timeline

Weaponizing the Deep State

During the 2016 election, the Obama Department of Justice warped the Clinton email scandal investigation, from Bill Clinton’s secret meeting on an airport tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, to unethical immunity given to the unveracious Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, to James Comey’s convoluted predetermined treatment of “likely winner” Clinton, and to DOJ’s Bruce Ohr’s flagrant conflict of interests in relation to Fusion GPS.

About a dozen FBI and DOJ grandees have now resigned, retired, been fired, or reassigned for unethical and likely illegal behavior—and yet have not faced criminal indictments. The reputation of the FBI as venerable agency is all but wrecked. Its administrators variously have libeled the Trump voters, expressed hatred for Trump, talked of “insurance policies” in ending the Trump candidacy, and inserted informants into the Trump campaign.

The former Obama directors of the CIA and National Intelligence, with security clearances intact, hit the television airways as paid “consultants” and almost daily accused the sitting president of Russian collusion and treason—without cross-examination or notice that both previously had lied under oath to Congress (and did so without subsequent legal exposure), and both were likely knee-deep in the dissemination of the Steele dossier among Obama administration officials.

John Brennan’s CIA likely helped to spread the Fusion GPS dossier among elected and administrative state officials. Some in the NSC in massive and unprecedented fashion requested the unmasking of surveilled names of Trump subordinates, and then illegally leaked them to the press.

The FISA courts, fairly or not, are now mostly discredited, given they either were willingly or naively hoodwinked by FBI and DOJ officials who submitted as chief evidence for surveillance on American citizens, an unverified dossier—without disclosure that the bought campaign hit-piece was paid for by Hillary Clinton, authored by a discredited has-been British agent, relied on murky purchased Russian sources, and used in circular fashion to seed news accounts of supposed Trump misbehavior.


DEEP STATE friends hire friends to take on the post election effort to oust a duly elected sitting POTUS. Much of the facts that led up to the appointment of a Special Counsel investigation without a crime are detailed in the book by Gregg Jarrett, The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.
Image Credit: Barnes and Noble  

The Mueller Investigation

The Crown Jewel in the coup was the appointment of special counsel Robert Muller to discover supposed 2016 Trump-Russian election collusion. Never has any special investigation been so ill-starred from its conception.

Mueller’s appointment was a result of his own friend James Comey’s bitter stunt of releasing secret, confidential and even classified memos of presidential conversations. Acting DOJ Attorney Rod Rosenstein appointed a former colleague Mueller—although as a veteran himself of the Clinton email scandal investigations and the FISA fraudulent writ requests, Rosenstein was far more conflicted than was the recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Mueller then packed his investigative team with lots of Clinton donors and partisans, some of whom had legally represented Clinton subordinates and even the Clinton Foundation or voiced support for anti-Trump movements.

Mueller himself and Andrew Weissmann have had a long record of investigatory and prosecutorial overreach that had on occasion resulted in government liability and court mandated federal restitution. In such polarized times, neither should have involved in such an investigation. Two subordinate FBI investigators were caught earlier on conducting an affair over their FBI-issued cell phones, and during the election cycle they slurred the object of their subsequent investigation, ridiculed Trump voters, and bragged that Trump would never be elected. Mueller later staggered, and then hid for weeks the reasons for, their respective firings.

The team soon discovered there was no Trump-Russian 2016 election collusion—and yet went ahead to leverage Trump campaign subordinates on process crimes in hopes of finding some culpability in Trump’s past 50-year business, legal, and tax records. The point was not to find who colluded with whom (if it had been, then Hillary Clinton would be now indicted for illegally hiring with campaign funds a foreign national to buy foreign fabrications to discredit her opponent), but to find the proper mechanism to destroy the presumed guilty Donald Trump.

The Mueller probe has now failed in that gambit of proving “collusion” (as even progressive investigative reporters and some FBI investigators had predicted), but succeeded brilliantly in two ways.

The “counterintelligence” investigation subverted two years of the Trump presidency by constant leaks that Trump soon would be indicted, jailed, disgraced, or impeached. As a result, Trump’s stellar economic and foreign policy record would never earn fifty percent of public support.

Second, Mueller’s preemptive attacks offered an effective offensive defense for the likely felonious behavior of John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, and a host of others. While the Mueller lawyers threatened to destroy the lives of bit players like Jerome Corsi, George Papadopoulos, and Roger Stone, they de facto provided exemption to a host of the Washington hierarchy who had lied under oath, obstructed justice, illegally leaked to the press, unmasked and leaked names of surveilled Americans, and misled federal courts under the guise of a “higher loyalty” to the cause of destroying Donald J. Trump.


Listing of the 58 Democrat Political Party representatives in the House Of Congress that voted to oust the 45th President Of The United States, Donald J. Trump - a Nay vote equaled a yes vote to impeach.
Image Credit: Facebook Timeline

The Palace Coup

All of the above came to a head with the firing of the chronic leaker FBI Director James Comey (who would lie to the president about his not being a target of an FBI investigation, lie to House investigatory committees by pleading amnesia and ignorance on 245 occasions, and repeatedly lie to his own FBI bureaucrats).

In May 2017, acting FBI director Andrew McCabe took over from the fired Comey. His candidate wife recently had been a recipient of huge Clinton-related campaign PAC donations shortly before he began investigating the Clinton email scandal. McCabe would soon be cited by the Inspector General for lying to federal investigators on numerous occasions—cynically stooping even to lie to his own New York FBI subordinates to invest scarce resources to hunt for their own nonexistent leaks as a mechanism for disguising his own quite real and illegal leaking.

The newly promoted McCabe apparently felt that it was his moment to become famous for taking out a now President Trump. Thus, he assembled a FBI and DOJ cadre to open a counterintelligence investigation of the sitting president on no other grounds but the fumes of an evaporating Clinton opposition dossier and perceived anger among the FBI that their director had just been fired. In addition, apparently now posing as Andrew McCabe, MD, he informally head counted how many of Trump’s own cabinet members could be convinced by McCabe’s own apparent medical expertise to help remove the president on grounds of physical and mental incapacity under the 25th Amendment. This was an attempted, albeit pathetic, coup against an elected president and the first really in the history of the United States.

At one point, McCabe claims that the acting Attorney General of the United States Rod Rosenstein volunteered to wear a wire to entrap his boss President Trump—in the manner of Trump’s own attorney Michael Cohen’s entrapment of Trump, in the manner of James Comey taking entrapment notes on confidential Trump one-on-one meetings and leaking them to the press, and in the manner of the Department of Justice surveilling Trump subordinates through FISA and other court authorizations.

McCabe was iconic of an utterly corrupt FBI Washington hierarchy, which we now know from the behavior of its disgraced and departed leadership. They posed as patriotic scouts, but in reality proved themselves arrogant, smug, and incompetent. They harbored such a sense of superiority that they were convinced they could act outside the law in reifying an “insurance policy” that would end the Trump presidency.

The thinking of the conspirators initially had been predicated on three assumptions thematic during this three-year long government effort to destroy Trump:

One, during 2016, Hillary Clinton would certainly win the election and FBI and DOJ unethical and illegal behavior would be forgotten if not rewarded, given the Clintons’ own signature transgressions and proven indifference to the law;

Two, Trump was so controversial and the fabricated dossier was so vile and salacious, that seeded rumors of Trump’s faked perversity gave them de facto exemptions to do whatever they damned pleased;

Three, Trump’s low polls, his controversial reset of American policy, and the general contempt in which he was held by the bipartisan coastal elite, celebrities, and the deep state, meant that even illegal means to continue the campaign-era effort to destroy Trump and now abort his presidency were felt to be moral and heroic acts without legal consequences, and the media would see the conspirators as heroes.

In sum, the Left and the administrative state, in concert with the media, after failing to stop the Trump campaign, regrouped. They ginned up a media-induced public hysteria, with the residue of the Hillary Clinton campaign’s illegal opposition research, and manipulated it to put in place a special counsel, stocked with partisans.

Then, not thugs in sunglasses and epaulettes, not oligarchs in private jets, not shaggy would-be Marxists, but sanctimonious arrogant bureaucrats in suits and ties used their government agencies to seek to overturn the 2016 election, abort a presidency, and subvert the U.S. Constitution. And they did all that and more on the premise that they were our moral superiors and had uniquely divine rights to destroy a presidency that they loathed.

Shame on all these failed conspirators and their abettors, and may these immoral people finally earn a long deserved legal and moral reckoning.
[Reference Here]

We, at Carter's Second Term (the #BHO44 Administration which seems to never end), have this (these immoral people finally earn a long deserved legal and moral reckoning) as our over-riding hope, but know that the tentacles of those in Federal Government power will do everything to keep this power at all costs, even at the destruction of the founding documents of our grand experiment in human self-reliance and individual power over mob rule that allows the United States to remain that shining city on the hill.




TAGS: Victor Davis Hanson, VDH, Coup, DEEP STATE, FBI, DOJ, CIA, Barack Obama, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, James Clapper, John Brennan, John Podesta, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Donald J. Trump, Carter's Second Term

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
By SUSAN FERRECHIO (@SUSANFERRECHIO) - 1/23/17 12:01 AM

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 -

REVIEW THIS
POSTED ON JANUARY 27, 2017 BY SCOTT JOHNSON

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 pic.twitter.com/RZTitxGTZp #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.