About that Obama SCOTUS Nominee

Posted on March 17, 2016March 17, 2016 by Denise Simon

None of the names have the record or reputation of Justice Scalia. Changing the balance of the Supreme Court is in fact in jeopardy. If all the Justices had the resolve and dedication to the historical spirit of the Constitution as did Scalia. If they did….final opinions and decisions would have been quite different and America would not be angry with a branch of government.

Family of Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee Donated Only to Democrats

Wife and daughter made contributions to DNC, Elizabeth Warren

FreeBeacon: The family of Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s pick to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, has donated only to Democratic campaigns.

Garland, the current Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, does not appear to have ever donated to political parties, candidates, or causes.

However, his wife and daughter have contributed only to Democrats.

Merrick married his wife, Lynn Rosenman, in 1987. In September 1992, Lynn made a $200 donation to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Services Corporation.

One month after the donation, Merrick provided assistance to Bill Clinton for a presidential debate. This information appeared on a questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1995, the Washington Free Beaconreported Thursday.

“I provided volunteer assistance on a Presidential Debate for President Clinton in October 1992 and for Michael Dukakis in October 1988,” Garland wrote of his political activity. “I did some volunteer work for Walter Mondale’s presidential campaign in 1983-84. As a college student, I worked two summers for the campaign of my then-congressman, Abner Mikva, in 1972 and 1974.”

Merrick’s daughter, Rebecca, has also made at least one donation to a Democratic politician.

Rebecca made a $500 contribution to Elizabeth for Massachusetts, the campaign committee of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), in December 2011.

The New York Timeswrote that if Garland is confirmed, it would result in the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years.

Gun rights proponents have said that Garland should not be confirmed because of his record opposing gun rights as a federal judge, the Free Beaconreported Wednesday.

The Beacon also reported that Garland generally sides with labor regulators at the expense of businesses.

Juanita Duggan, president of the National Federation of Independent Business, said that her group has “great concerns” about Garland’s record of siding with government regulators.

***** Others on Obama’s short list…..donors

4 Out of 5 Obama SCOTUS Nominees Obama Donors

TruthRevolt: President Obama has whittled down his list of potential Supreme Court nominees to five — four of whom have donated to his own political campaigns.

According to the Free Beacon, the five federal judges to be interviewed for the position include:

Sri Srinivasan (who has donated $4,250 to Obama), Jane Kelly ($1,500 to Obama), Paul Watford ($1,000 to Obama), Ketanji Brown Jackson ($450 to Obama), and Merrick Garland, who has not donated to Obama.

None of the judges are major political donors and the contributions made to Obama account for the majority of each judge’s political giving. The donation from Jackson is the only federal political contribution she made that was large enough to be included in election filings.

Jackson’s donation, according to FB, can be explained by the fact that she worked as an attorney for the Obama 2008 campaign:

On her official questionnaire filed with the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee she disclosed that she “was an election poll monitor for both the primary and general elections on behalf of Lawyers for Change, Obama for America Presidential Campaign.”

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who chairs the judiciary committee, reaffirmed the senate’s vow that none of the president’s nominees will be confirmed:

“Everybody knows any nominee submitted in the middle of this presidential campaign isn’t getting confirmed. Everybody. The White House knows it. Senate Democrats know it. Republicans know it. Even the press knows it,” Grassley said during a committee hearing on Thursday.

Still, one wonders what Obama thinks is to be gained by putting forth candidates who have financially contributed to his past campaigns.

***** Additional items from the National Law Journal:

Garland, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit since 1997 and chief judge since 2013, didn’t earn any income on top of his judicial salary in 2014, according to the most recent financial disclosure report that he filed last year. He didn’t report any outside income the previous two years.

If he’s confirmed to the Supreme Court, Garland would get a pay bump. As of 2016, federal appeals judge earned $215,400. Associates justices earned $249,300.

Related: Read Garland’s financial reports filed in 2013, 2014 and 2015

His reimbursed travel from 2012 to 2014 was limited to one or two trips annually to Harvard Law School, his alma mater, and Yale Law School. He participated in moot courts and career forums.

Garland reported no gifts, no financial agreements and no financial liabilities. He serves on the board of directors of the Historical Society of the D.C. Circuit, but he holds no other positions with nonprofits, private companies or other organizations.

Garland’s financial holdings include a mix of bank accounts, trusts, brokerage accounts and IRAs. Judges don’t report the precise value of their accounts, stocks and other assets, but instead list a range. They must report their own investments as well as those of a spouse and any dependent children, and the reports don’t specify which holdings are joint or individual.

He is also very PRO-labor: In nearly two decades on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Judge Merrick Garland has rarely ruled against the National Labor Relations Board. But when he has overturned NLRB’s decisions, departing from his typical deference to federal agencies, he has done so to the benefit of labor unions.

The month before Scalia’s death, the high court heard arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case that could decide whether public-sector employees can be required to pay union fees.

After arguments in January, the U.S. Supreme Court was seen as leaning 5-4 against labor. But Garland’s appointment to the court would likely flip the court. And if Garland has an opportunity to rule on the case, his vote could give a victory to the California Teachers Association and confidence to public-sector unions concerned that the decision could jeopardize future revenue from dues.

Rating Congressional Members, Scores on Protecting Taxpayers

Posted on March 17, 2016March 17, 2016 by Denise Simon

Credit where credit is due….

2015 Congressional Ratings

Since 1989, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) has examined roll call votes to help identify which members of Congress have defended taxpayer interests and which have backed down on their promises of fiscal responsibility. The Ratings separate the praiseworthy from the profligate by evaluating important tax, spending, transparency, and accountability measures. CCAGW applauds those members of Congress who stood up for taxpayers and ignored the temptations of satisfying local or special interests. However, those who supported a big-government agenda should be prepared to face the consequences for their spendthrift behavior.

CCAGW’s 2015 Congressional Ratings, for the first session of the 114th Congress, scored 100 votes in the House of Representatives and 35 votes in the Senate. By comparison, CCAGW rated 85 votes in the House of Representatives and 13 votes in the Senate in the second session of the 113th Congress.

CCAGW rates members on a 0-100% scale. Members are placed in the following categories: 0-19% Hostile; 20-39% Unfriendly; 40-59% Lukewarm; 60-79% Friendly; 80-99% Taxpayer Hero; and 100% Taxpayer Super Hero.

HOUSE AND SENATE BREAKDOWN

In 2015, 17 lawmakers (15 senators and two representatives) earned the coveted title of Taxpayer Super Hero by achieving the highest possible score of 100 percent: Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), David Perdue (R-Ga.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and David Vitter (R-La.), as well as Reps. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) and Tom McClintock (R-Calif.).

In 2014, 17 lawmakers (nine senators and eight representatives) received a perfect score.

There are 36 Taxpayer Heroes in the Senate, an increase of 57 percent from the 23 Taxpayer Heroes in 2014. In 2015, there are 152 Taxpayer Heroes in the House of Representatives, two more than the 150 Taxpayer Heroes in 2014.

On the other end of the spectrum, 26 representatives had a score of zero and 25 senators had a score of zero. In 2014, one representative had a score of zero and 30 senators had a score of zero.

The first session of the 114th Congress was the first time since 2007 that the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. As a result, there were many more victories on behalf of taxpayers than in prior years, but numerous amendments to cut wasteful spending even further were defeated.

VICTORIES

House

Repeal of Obamacare. H.R. 596, which would repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, passed by a vote of 239-186.

Elimination of Duplicative Climate Change Programs. During consideration of H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Ca.) offered an amendment that would eliminate a requirement for the Government Accountability Office to identify certain overlapping climate science-related initiatives. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 187-236.

Repeal of the Medical Device Tax. H.R. 160, the Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2015, which would repeal the 2.3 percent medical device tax included in Obamacare, passed by a vote of 280-140.

Congressional Approval of “Major Rules.” H.R. 427, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2015, which would require Congress to approve all regulatory proposals with an economic impact greater than $100 million (“major rules”), passed by a vote of 243-165.

Senate

Elimination of the Federal Estate Tax. During consideration of S. Con. Res. 11, the fiscal year (FY) 2016 Budget Resolution, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) offered an amendment to eliminate the federal estate tax. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 54-46.

Solar Panel Rebates. During consideration of S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) offered an amendment to establish a rebate program for individuals and businesses for the purchase and installation of solar panels on residential and commercial properties. The amendment failed by a vote of 40-58.

Obamacare for Members of Congress. During consideration of S. Con. Res. 11, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) offered an amendment to compel all members of Congress, the President, Vice President, and all political appointees to obtain their health insurance on the individual healthcare exchanges under Obamacare. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 52-46.

LOSSES

House

Prohibiting Federal Employment for Delinquent Tax Debt. H.R. 1563, the Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act, would make existing and future federal employees with “delinquent tax debt” ineligible for employment with the federal government. The bill was rejected by a vote of 266-160 (284 votes were needed for passage).

Across-the-Board Cuts to Appropriations Bills. There were seven amendments in the Ratings to make across-the-board spending reductions in appropriations bills, but they all failed. For example, during consideration of H.R. 2028, the FY 2016 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, an amendment offered by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to cut 1 percent across the board was rejected by a vote of 159-248.

Essential Air Service (EAS). During consideration of H.R. 2577, the FY 2016 Transportation and Housing & Urban Development Appropriations bill, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Ca.) offered an amendment to eliminate funding for the EAS. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 166-255.

Export-Import Bank Reauthorization. The Export-Import Bank Reform and Reauthorization Act, H.R. 597, passed in the House by a vote of 313-118. This vote, along with several amendments related to the Export-Import Bank, are included in the Ratings, as CCAGW has long opposed this corporate welfare program.

Senate

Keystone XL Pipeline Veto Override. After the House and Senate voted to approve the Keystone project, the Senate failed to override the president’s veto by a vote of 62-37, five votes short of the necessary two-thirds majority.

Repeal the Individual Mandate in Obamacare. During consideration of H.R. 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) offered an amendment to repeal the individual mandate in Obamacare. The amendment failed by a vote of 54-45 (60 votes were needed for passage).

Repeal Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). During consideration of H.R. 1314, Trade Promotion Authority, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) offered an amendment to eliminate the extension of the TAA program. The amendment failed by a vote of 35-63.

FURTHER ANALYSIS

CCAGW also analyzed ratings based on party affiliation and House membership in the Republican Study Committee.

The averages were: Senate Republicans – 93 percent, up 8 percentage points from 85 percent in 2014; Senate Democrats, including Independents – 5 percent, unchanged from 2014; House Republicans – 82 percent, down 2 percentage points from 84 percent in 2014; House Democrats – 4 percent, down 5 percentage points from 9 percent in 2014; House Republican Study Committee – 86 percent, down 1 percentage point from 87 percent in 2014.

CCAGW congratulates the members who stood by taxpayers and championed fiscal responsibility throughout the first session of the 114th Congress and encourages the constituents of the non-Heroes to demand better results in the 2016 election and beyond.

It’s Bad when the UK Tells Obama to Butt Out

Posted on March 17, 2016March 17, 2016 by Denise Simon

Petitions

UK Government and Parliament

Petition Prevent Obama From Speaking In Westminster Regarding The In/Out Referendum..

Stop President Obama from speaking inside OUR Westminster Parliament concerning Britain staying inside the European Union..

Five Members of the British Parliament and a Member of the European Parliament have written to U.S. President Barack Obama urging him to stay out of Britain’s referendum on the country’s membership of the European Union (EU).

BretibartUK: Peter Bone (Conservative), Kate Hoey (Labour), Kelvin Hopkins (Labour), Tom Pursglove (Conservative), Sammy Wilson (Democratic Unionist Party), and UKIP leader Nigel Farage have co-authored a letter to President Obama warning him that an intervention by a foreign leader could have the opposite effect than intended.

The letter states: “With so much at stake, it is imperative that the question of exiting the European Union is not one answered by foreign politicians or outside interests, but rather by the British people who must ultimately live with change or the status quo.

The British politicians declare: “issues of national sovereignty must be decided exclusively by the people of the United Kingdom”. They state: “even a passive diplomatic recommendation in the matter of our national decision will receive the opposite of the intended effect.”

“The referendum vote is an act of democracy in its most direct form, and the question of whether or not to leave the EU is a rare political topic that is not owned by any one political party. This is a chance for the British people to choose the path of their country. Interfering in our debate over national sovereignty would be an unfortunate milestone at the end of your term as President.”

The open letter is being circulated to U.S. politicians of all stripes, running in Politico magazine, the Weekly Standard and Roll Call – with hard copies delivered to all Members of Congress in the Senate and House of Representatives as well as to the White House itself and Cabinet Offices located within the administrative Beltway of Washington, D.C.

Kate Hoey MP said of the warning: “We felt it is important the President of the United States is aware that feelings will run high in the UK if he chooses to make an intervention. We have chosen to respectfully request he recognises matters of sovereignty are best left to the citizens directly affected. We would certainly never think of visiting the United States and telling the US public how to vote in an election or the amendment of their constitution.”

Peter Bone MP said: “Whatever the President perceives the interests of the US to be it would be better for the relationship between our countries and his reputation with the British people if he kept his counsel to himself.”

The warning comes as nearly 25,000 Britons have signed a petition looking to ban U.S. President Barack Obama from making an intervention in the referendum. If the petition receives over 100,000 signatures, it is likely to be debate in the House of Commons.

**** Then to make matters even worse for Barack Obama and his foreign policy failures, there is Egypt.

TheBlaze: In a preview clip of a Fox News special called “Rising Threats — Shrinking Military,” former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Bret Baier that the president went against the advice of the “entire national security team” during the Egyptian coup that ousted the country’s president, Hosni Mubarak, in 2013.

According to Gates, Obama called for Mubarak’s immediate removal despite his national security team urging him to be cautious.

“Literally, the entire national security team recommended unanimously handling Mubarak differently than we did,” Gates said. “And the president took the advice of three junior backbenchers in terms of how to treat Mubarak. One of them saying, ‘Mr. President, you gotta be on the right side of the history.’ And I would be sitting there at the table, and I’d say, ‘Yeah, if we could just figure that out, we’d be a long way ahead.’”

Corruption at the Doorstep, London

Posted on March 17, 2016March 17, 2016 by Denise Simon

Given the investigation and model defined, perhaps we should look inward here at home as the United States, especially a handful of cities are precisely the same.

Corruption On Your Doorstep: How Corrupt Capital Is Used to Buy Property in the UK

Corruption on your Doorstep looks at how corrupt money is used to buy property in the UK by analysing data from the Land Registry and Metropolitan Police Proceeds of Corruption Unit. Findings in the report include the fact that 36342 London properties totalling 2.25 sq miles are held by offshore haven companies.

The research – analysing data from the Land Registry and Metropolitan Police Proceeds of Corruption Unit – found that 75%of properties whose owners are under investigation for corruption made use of offshore corporate secrecy to hide their identities.

Key statistics

£180m+ worth of property in UK have been brought under criminal investigation as the suspected proceeds of corruption since 2004. This is believed to be only the tip of the iceberg of the scale of proceeds of corruption invested in UK property. Over 75% of the properties under criminal investigation use offshore corporate secrecy

The average price of a property under criminal investigation in the UK is £1.5m. The minimum is £130,000, the maximum is £9m and the median is £910,000. 48% of properties investigated were valued at over £1m

36,342 London properties totalling 2.25 sq miles are held by offshore haven companies. Of these, 38% in the British Virgin Islands, 16% in Jersey, 9.5% in Isle of Man, and 9% in Guernsey

Almost one in ten properties in the City of Westminster (9.3 per cent), 7.3 per cent of properties in Kensington & Chelsea, and 4.5 per cent in the City of London are owned by companies registered in an offshore secrecy jurisdiction. TI-UK has launched an interactive map of London which reveals the statistics for each borough – ukunmaskthecorrupt.org

In 2011 alone £3.8bn worth of UK property was bought by British Virgin Islands–registered companies

According to the latest figures, which cover October 2013 to September 2014, estate agents contributed to only 0.05% of all Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) submitted. This figure does not match the risks posed by money launderers to the UK property market

Transparency International makes 10 recommendations for reform, calling for buy in from the UK Government, lawyers, and estate agents to ensure that the UK property market is no longer a safe haven for corrupt funds. Action from the British Overseas Territories is also necessary to end this crisis.

The key recommendation is thattransparency should be established over who owns the companies that own so much property in the UK through making such transparency a Land Registry requirement. Sign our petition to UK political party leaders here.

A visual story of this journey and interactive map detailing the number of offshore-owned homes per London borough can be viewed at ukunmaskthecorrupt.org

I took a “Kleptocracy tour” around London and discovered the corruption capital

A sightseeing trip around central London properties revealed just how much dirty money there is swimming around the city.

In part, NewStatesmen: London is a globally leading city, bustling with culture and educational capital, a booming economy, and abiding by the rule of law. But, combined with regulations allowing for the anonymous purchase of real estate, it’s for these reasons that the UK’s capital is one of the world’s largest laundromats, a city where money from corruption is being poured into property.

The scale of money laundering

The amount of money laundered through the UK is estimated to be at £48bn, or two per cent of GDP, while it estimated £120bn worth of UK property is owned by offshore entities and up to 36,000 properties in London exist where offshore havens were used to hide the true buyers’ identities.

How they get away with it

“This is a real problem,” Simon Farrell QC, an expert in money laundering and corruption, says. “The only reason for corporate ownership is to disguise the true ownership and for those with dubious funds and who have avoided tax to shelter profits in London, a safe haven where the rule of law prevails. It’s a disgrace.”

So now, “London is now the premier location worldwide for corruption-based money laundering,” says Ben Judah, author of a book about Russia called Fragile Empire (2013).

Bowe Bergdahl Mental Issues or a Cover?

Posted on March 17, 2016March 17, 2016 by Denise Simon

He does not appear to be affected here.

Bergdahl Explains His Reasoning in Newly Released Documents

ABC: Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl said he left a post in Afghanistan in 2009 to draw attention to what he saw as bad decisions by officers above him, according to documents released Wednesday that also show he was diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder.

Attorneys for Bergdahl, who faces charges including desertion, said they released the documents to help counteract negative publicity over the case.

Bergdahl told a general who investigated the case that he hoped to cause an alarm by leaving his post, then walk to a larger base in Afghanistan so he could have an audience with a top commander.

“So, the idea was to — it was— literally, it was a sacrificial — it was a self-sacrifice thing,” Bergdahl said, according to the transcript of a 2014 interview with Maj. Gen. Kenneth Dahl.

Another newly released document from July 2015 shows that an Army Sanity Board Evaluation concluded that Bergdahl suffered from schizotypal personality disorder when he left the post. A Mayo Clinic website says people with the disorder have trouble interpreting social cues and can develop significant distrust of others.

Bergdahl faces charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, the latter of which carries up to a life sentence. He was held five years by the Taliban and its allies before a swap involving five Guantanamo Bay detainees, prompting criticism from some in Congress that the move threatened national security.

His military trial had been tentatively scheduled to begin over the summer, but it has been delayed by disagreements over access to classified materials.

Bergdahl’s attorney Eugene Fidell said the decision to release the documents was made to fight negative publicity and because prosecutors have already entered part of the interview into the court record.

“The more Americans know about this case, the better,” Fidell said in an email.

An Army spokesman didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment about the new documents after hours Wednesday.

In the interview, Bergdahl expressed misgivings about how he and other soldiers were sent to help retrieve a disabled armored vehicle before encountering explosives and enemy fire that turned a six-hour mission into one lasting several days. None of the men was killed, but Bergdahl said an officer complained they were unshaven upon their return to base.

He said he began to worry that if he didn’t say anything, a future bad order could get someone in his platoon killed.

He described coming up with a plan to leave the observation post his platoon was manning: “The only thing that I could see was, I needed to get somebody’s attention.”

He ruled out going to the media and instead decided to trigger an alarm by sneaking off and then walking to a larger base nearby. He described his thought process, referring to himself in the third-person: “That guy disappears. No one knows what happened to him. That call goes out. It hits every command. Everybody goes, what has happened?”

Within a couple days, he planned to show up at the base: “the Soldier shows up … People recognize him. They ID him. They go, ‘What did you just do?’ And that Soldier says, ‘I am not saying anything about what I did until I am talking to a general.'”

Instead, he wound up in enemy captivity.

**** The Bergdahl case is delayed indefinitely.

Military: A military appeals court halted proceedings against U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl on Tuesday while it considers a dispute over how much leeway the defense should have in accessing classified information.

The order delaying the case against Bergdahl, who walked off an outpost in Afghanistan in 2009, was issued by the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals. Prosecutors asked the appeals court to consider overturning a decision by the trial judge regarding thousands of pages of classified documents. The defense has argued that prosecutors want them to follow a cumbersome process of seeking classified information while it prepares for trial.

The issue had been debated for weeks in pretrial motions and emails between the sides. It wasn’t clear how long the trial tentatively scheduled for this summer could be held up while the prosecution’s appeal unfolds.

The judge overseeing Bergdahl’s military trial, Col. Jeffery Nance, ordered prosecutors last week to turn over many of the classified documents they had gathered, subject to certain rules.

“All CI which the government may offer into evidence at trial will immediately be provided to the defense” within the specified constraints, he wrote in his Feb. 2 order, using an abbreviation for classified information.

The judge also disagreed with prosecutors’ arguments that Bergdahl’s attorneys needed an extra layer of approval when they did their own research from the officials who initially restricted a given document — referred to as original classification authorities.

Within days, the prosecutors asked the appeals court to overturn the judge’s decision, adding in their written appeal that “no session of the court should be held or rulings should be issued until conclusion of the appeal.”

A defense attorney for Bergdahl, Eugene Fidell, issued a statement describing the timeline of events leading up to the appeal but declined further comment when reached by phone.

Bergdahl faces charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, a relatively rare charge that carries a punishment of up to life in prison. He was held by the Taliban and its allies for five years after he left the base in Afghanistan.

Bergdahl, of Hailey, Idaho, walked off his post in eastern Afghanistan’s Paktika province on June 30, 2009, and was released in late May 2014 as part of a prisoner swap, in exchange for five detainees in Guantanamo Bay. The move prompted harsh criticism, with some in Congress accusing President Barack Obama of jeopardizing the safety of the country.

He was arraigned in December but has yet to enter a plea.

Walter Huffman, a retired major general who served as the Army’s top lawyer, said the appeals court should move swiftly to resolve the issue because of rules giving the matter priority, but the case could be delayed further if either side were to appeal again.

“It will be resolved as speedily as it can, but if it’s appealed to another court the clock starts ticking again,” he said.