[VIDEO] FNC’S ‘SPECIAL REPORT': SCHWEIZER’S ‘CLINTON CASH’ SCANDALS CAUSE HILLARY TO DROP IN POLLS

On Fox News Channel’s “Special Report” on Wednesday, White House correspondent Ed Henry broke down a Fox News poll showing Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton sliding in the polls after a series of scandals were revealed in Peter Schweizer’s book “Clinton Cash.”

Henry pointed to the latest Fox News poll showing her underwater in terms honesty and trustyworthiness.

“Amid the drip, drip of revelations about her family’s foundation, Hillary Clinton’s image continues to take a hit,” Henry explained. “A new Fox poll found when asked if she’s honest and trustworthy — 45 percent say yes, 52 percent say so. Republican pollsters believe she’s missing a key ingredient that allowed former President Bill Clinton to survive one scandal after another.

Henry continued by going into detail about one controversy in particular involving the Russian government and its efforts to bolster its position in the international uranium market.

“Controversies like the sale of uranium to the Russian government during her time as secretary of state may not have helped,” he said. “In an interview with WMUR in New Hampshire, Clinton denied that a $500,000 speaking fee to her husband by a Kremlin bank and millions in contributions to the Clinton Foundation were tied to Russian President Vladimir Putin, getting a corner on the uranium market.”

“The former secretary telling WMUR quote, ‘I was not personally involved because that wasn’t something the secretary of state did,’” Henry said. “‘Clinton Cash’ author, Peter Schweizer scoffed declaring in an op-ed quote, ‘The transfer of 20 percent of U.S. uranium, the stuff used to build nuclear weapons to Vladimir Putin did not rise to the level of secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s time and attention?’”

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Ted Cruz, angered by Obamacare ruling, tells ‘rogue justices’ to resign and run for Congress

Sen. Ted Cruz delivered a full-throated critique Thursday of the Supreme Court, saying that it is clear that the “rogue justices” that ruled in favor of Obamacare subsidies are “lawless” political foot soldiers that have joined forces with the Obama administration.

Speaking on the Senate floor, the Texas Republican and 2016 GOP presidential candidate said that if the “justices want to become legislators, I invite them to resign and run for office.”

The remarks came shortly after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Obama administration is lawfully doling out Obamacare’s subsidies in dozens of states despite contested language in the law that sparked a legal battle with major political and economic ramifications.

---

PHOTOS: Bang for your buck: Best handguns under $500

---

“The Supreme Court willfully ignored the words that Congress wrote, and instead read into the law their preferred policy outcome,” Mr. Cruz said. “These judges have joined with President Obama in harming millions of Americans.”

He continued, “Those justices are not behaving as umpires calling balls and strikes. They have joined a team, and it is a team that is hurting Americans across this country.”

Mr. Cruz said the 2016 election will be a referendum on Obamacare, which he said is hurting millions of Americans.

Via: Washington Times

Continue Reading.....

House bill would force the Supreme Court to enroll in ObamaCare

A House Republican on Thursday proposed forcing the Supreme Court justices and their staff to enroll in ObamaCare.

Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) said that his SCOTUScare Act would make all nine justices and their employees join the national healthcare law’s exchanges.

“As the Supreme Court continues to ignore the letter of the law, it’s important that these six individuals understand the full impact of their decisions on the American people,” he said.

“That’s why I introduced the SCOTUScare Act to require the Supreme Court and all of its employees to sign up for ObamaCare,” Babin said.

Babin’s potential legislation would only let the federal government provide healthcare to the Supreme Court and its staff via ObamaCare exchanges.

“By eliminating their exemption from ObamaCare, they will see firsthand what the American people are forced to live with,” he added.

His move follows the Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday morning that upheld the subsidies under ObamaCare that are provided by the government to offset the cost of buying insurance.

The 6-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, said consumers purchasing health insurance from the federal exchange in roughly 34 states could continue to do so.

The ruling in King v. Burwell has spurred anger on the right, with conservatives questioning the logic of the decision.

“They deserve an Olympic medal for the legal gymnastics,” Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, told The Hill. 

Via: The Hill

Continue Reading...

King v. Burwell Decision Doesn’t Change That Obamacare Remains Unworkable, Unaffordable and Unpopular

Today the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the administration to allow Obamacare subsidies to flow through HealthCare.gov. This is a disappointment for the rule of law and for the states that have fought to keep some of Obamacare’s flawed policies out of their states.

While the administration and Obamacare supporters attempt to convince the American people that it is now smooth sailing for Obamacare, nothing could be further from the truth.

Despite the decision, the problems with Obamacare are real and not getting better. The law’s flawed foundation continues to make Obamacare unworkable, unaffordable and unpopular.

As my colleague Ed Haislmaier skillfully points out, “The complexity and cascade of adverse effects are the inescapable byproducts of major flaws in the legislation’s basic design.” For instance, the complexity of the tax credits has resulted in two-thirds of those receiving subsidies, having to repay some portion of the subsidies they received, according to H&R Block.

Nothing in the court’s ruling will change this moving forward. Each year individuals wishing to claim a subsidy will have to estimate their income for the year in advance. Any miscalculation, specifically underestimating their income, necessitates a repayment to the IRS.

     Select Your State     Alabama     Alaska     Arizona     Arkansas     Delaware     Florida     Georgia     Illinois     Indiana     Iowa     Kansas     Louisiana     Maine     Michigan     Mississippi     Missouri     Montana     Nebraska     New Hampshire     New Jersey     North Carolina     North Dakota     Ohio     Oklahoma     Pennsylvania     South Carolina     South Dakota     Tennessee     Texas  Utah     Virginia     West Virginia  Wisconsin     Wyoming 

In King v Burwell, the Supreme Court could decide that ACA subsidies are no longer available to individuals in the 34 states that chose not to set up a state exchange. Americans affected by such a decision will need access to more affordable coverage. Select above to see how much you could save if Congress removed the ACA insurance regulations that are driving up the cost of coverage.

Today, a majority of the Supreme Court chose to overlook the clear language of the statute. As Justice Antonin Scalia noted in his dissent it is “quite absurd” that Congress meant to allow subsidies in the exchange established by the federal government when it expressly limited those subsides to state-run exchanges. This flawed ruling allows the administration to continue making the law, rather than enforcing it.

The law continues to be unaffordable for everyday Americans. Obamacare’s costly insurance regulations have made coverage more expensive. The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the subsidies to flow through HealthCare.gov only helps a few million people pay for coverage leaving millions more facing higher, not lower, health care costs.

Even now, double digit rate increasesare being submitted for 2016. These trends fuel the mounting budgetary pressures facing the law, as my colleagues Robert Moffit and Pat Knudsen have well documented.

Via: Daily Signal

Continue Reading....

Massachusetts Flag Is ANOTHER A Symbol Of White Supremacy, Says Boston Columnist

THESE PEOPLE HAVE GONE AROUND THE BEND!!!!

In the wake of Governor Nikki Haley’s decision to remove the Confederate flag from South Carolina’s capitol building, a columnist from Boston has started to profess that the Massachusetts flag is also offensive and racist.

“Though the Massachusetts state flag is not as overtly abhorrent as the one that flies on South Carolina’s state capital grounds,” Boston Globe columnist Yvonne Abraham wrote on Thursday, “it is still pretty awful.”

The state flag of Massachusetts depicts the state’s Coat of Arms: a blue shield on a white plain marked by a white star, a gold arm wielding a sword, a Latin motto that translates to, “By the sword we seek peace, but peace under liberty,” and the central figure — a gold Native American man holding a bow and arrow.

The Coat of Arms is riddled with symbolism that refer to the state’s history. The single star is meant to represent Massachusetts as one of the first Thirteen Colonies, while the Native American’s arrow is positioned downwards to symbolize peace.

Abraham, however, believes that while it may be a representation of Massachusetts history, it’s overall message is indicative of one of the state’s more shameful moments in state history.

“It is hard to read it all together as anything but a flag designed by and for the colonial conquerors who made the Bay State,” Abraham wrote, “The ones who won the land by all but eradicating the people who got here first.”

Abraham expresses that she believes the sword, and therefore the Latin motto as well, are meant to represent the English settlers’ victory and oppression over the Native Americans, thus making the entire state flag culturally offensive.

On the other hand, the secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts attributes the arm and sword to the Massachusetts province’s fight for freedom from the control of England as the imagery was added to the state seal during the American Revolutionary War.

Additionally, many vexillologists — professional flag scholars — have interpreted the centrally-focused figure to be a loyal Native American ally of the Massachusetts settlers.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Dem. Senator Hopes The DOJ Sues Global Warming ‘Deniers’

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is not a fan of anyone who disagrees with him about man-made global warming. And at an event hosted by environmentalists, he made it clear just how much he doesn’t like skeptics.

“But, this vast denial apparatus that propagates the false doubt, that props up the phony science, that gets these yahoos who can’t survive … peer-reviewed scrutiny onto Fox News, onto the cable shows, saying that their scientists, they create an artificial conflict about this and that’s why I think there’s doubt,” the Rhode Island Democrat told attendees at a League of Conservation Voters event in last month, according to a recently published Youtube video.

“A lot of people haven’t seen through the scam that’s being perpetrated,” Whitehouse said. “So that’s one of the reasons I hope that we get another lawsuit out of the Department of Justice, like the one they brought against the tobacco industry that showed that the whole fraudulent scam was a racketeering enterprise, held them accountable for it.”

This is not the only time Whitehouse suggested the federal government prosecute global warming skeptics under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for being a “racketeering enterprise.”

Whitehouse essentially wants the Justice Department to prosecute skeptics the same way it prosecuted the tobacco industry in the late 1990s.

“In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the major tobacco companies… alleging that the companies ‘engaged in and executed — and continue to engage in and execute — a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO,’” Whitehouse wrote in the Washington Post in May — The video that was recently posted to Youtube, was from an event that took place before his op-ed was written.

“The parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking,” Whitehouse added.

Whitehouse, however, was forced to admit at the end of his op-ed that he didn’t actually know “whether the fossil fuel industry and its allies engaged in the same kind of racketeering activity as the tobacco industry.” But, of course, he suggested there’s a lot of evidence pointing in that direction.

Ironically, Whitehouse’s support for using RICO against global warming skeptics came one month before he appeared at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think tank, to unveil a bill he wrote that would slap a tax on carbon dioxide emissions. While at AEI, Whitehouse talked about how a carbon tax was the “conservative” answer to global warming.

Via: American Spectator

Continue Reading.....

Rep. Ed Royce Continues His Attack on Shareholders, Favors Running Fannie and Freddie with No Capital

During a House Financial Services Committee hearing this week on the Financial Stability Oversight Council, Royce, in an exchange with Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, continued his anti-shareholder bias and also demonstrated his lack of understanding of basic math.

A video of the exchange, posted by Rep. Royce’s office, can be found here, and we’ve pulled some of the notable excerpts below:

“One of my colleagues asked if the GSEs have repaid the money that they have borrowed from the American taxpayer. The simple answer that my colleague tried to illicit, I think, is that the payments they have made to the government now exceed the rescued funds that they received. But, Mr. Secretary, I think you agree here, this is not the real answer nor the real question. The real question is have they repaid their debt to the American taxpayer, and for that answer I think we can go to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York… The New York Fed said thattaxpayers are entitled to substantial risk premium…The false narrative that is perpetuated is that the taxpayers have been repaid, it’s time to end conservatorship, and return the GSEs to the control of shareholders. From your comment earlier, I assume you disagree with this narrative…”

Yes, taxpayers are entitled to significant compensation for the risk borne in the $187 billion bailout of Fannie and Freddie, just as they are entitled to recompense for the $426 billion dollars in bailouts of the big banks and auto industry authorized under the TARP program. What Rep. Royce fails to mention, however, is that the GSE’s are already far and away America’s most profitable bailout, having returned over $40 billion to date in profit on top of what the Treasury invested.  The “real question” here, for which we have yet to receive a “real answer,” is, “Why does the government continue to let taxpayers bear all of risk at the point of first-loss under the guise of repayment?” Secretary Lew kind of acknowledges this in his response:

“I totally agree… the risk is being borne by taxpayers on an ongoing basis and the conservatorship is not over….So I think that the right thing is to do GSE reform and get on to a new restructured system, but it is not the right time to be talking about ending the conservatorship and paying dividends.”

Via: Investors Unite

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Chief Justice Roberts affirms: ObamaCare was poorly written

While Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a blow to ObamaCare foes with a majority opinion upholding subsidies, he backed up the law's opponents on one point: The language in the Affordable Care Act was kind of a mess. 

"The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting," he wrote. 

The 6-3 Supreme Court decision Thursday upheld the legality of ObamaCare subsidies nationwide. The case centered on language in the law that technically limited subsidies to those who purchase insurance in exchanges established by the states. 

Opponents argued this rendered subsidies invalid for insurance purchased through the federal HealthCare.gov. 

But Roberts and the majority ruled that Congress never intended that. "Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid," he wrote. 

Further, the majority opinion reasoned that the law itself was poorly written, and so the court must look to Congress' intent -- rather than the specific language in the law itself. 

"Congress wrote key parts of the Act behind closed doors, rather than through 'the traditional legislative process,'" Roberts wrote. 

He proceeded to cite process issues that Republicans have long complained contributed to the bill being rushed. 

Roberts wrote: "And Congress passed much of the Act using a complicated budgetary procedure known as 'reconciliation,' which limited opportunities for debate and amendment, and bypassed the Senate's normal 60-vote filibuster requirement. ... 

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

GOP ESTABLISHMENT CAVES… TO CONSERVATIVES FOR ONCE!!!

While we’re all licking our wounds from being betrayed by Supreme Justice Benedict Roberts, let’s at least savor the fact that conservative criticism actually got the GOP establishment to cave to US for once!!

From the Hill:

Facing enormous blowback, Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) on Thursday reversed his decision and said he was reinstating Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) as a subcommittee chairman.

Chaffetz stripped Meadows of his subcommittee gavel last week after the congressman joined nearly three dozen other conservatives in voting against leadership on a procedural motion that nearly scuttled a major trade package.

Last week’s move was part of a pattern of punishment targeting conservatives who’ve defied leadership on key votes.

But Chaffetz soon came under heavy fire from conservatives, including Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who’s running for president. By Thursday, Chaffetz had backpedalled, saying a number of colleagues had urged him to reconsider his decision.

Sorry Boehner, but I don’t think Mark Levin is gonna back down even after this minor capitulation.

“Having spoken with Mark Meadows several times during the past week, I think we both better understand each other. I respect Mark and his approach. The discussions and candor have been healthy and productive,” Chaffetz said in a statement.

BOOM! Geez, crapping on conservatives is usually the only time the GOP establishment grows a spine! Mark that a score for the good guys, Smokey.

Via: The Right Scoop

Continue Reading....

SSA Paid the Dead $46.8 Million Audit:

 Feds paid disability beneficiary representatives long after they died

The Social Security Administration (SSA) paid individuals acting as representatives for disabled beneficiaries nearly $50 million even though they were dead.

An audit from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) is just the latest example of the SSA’s inability to figure out who on their rolls is still alive.

The audit focused on “representative payees,” or a person who manages another’s finances due to mental or physical limitations. The OIG found that many payees acting on behalf of disability beneficiaries had died.

“SSA did not ensure new representative payees were selected when current payees died,” the OIG said. “Based on our sample results, we estimated 2,548 deceased payees received approximately $46.8 million in [Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance] OASDI benefits and [Supplemental Security Income] SSI payments.”

The total amount estimated to be “managed by deceased payees” was $46,886,205.

The majority of payments were made to dead payees who controlled payments to OASDI recipients, which receive an average $1,182.24 per month.

The OIG based its results on a sample of 200 representative payees, finding that 109 were deceased. The average total benefit payment to deceased payees was $15,762. Many received payments more than 2 years after their death.

The SSA is more likely to continue payments to dead payees than to cut them off, according to the OIG estimates. A total of 2,548 deceased payees received payments, while only 2,014 payees were not issued benefit funds after their death.

Though the OIG said a majority of payments to the dead did not show signs of fraud, the report highlights continuing problems with the SSA’s record keeping methods.

Via: WFB

Continue Reading.....

Obama: ‘This Has Never Been a Government Takeover of Health Care’

(CNSNews.com) – In a Rose Garden press conference on Thursday, President Barack Obama reacted to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling upholding Obamacare subsidies, calling it “a victory for hard-working Americans,” adding that “this has never been a government takeover of health care.”

“This has never been a government takeover of health care despite cries to the contrary. This reform remains what it’s always been – a set of fairer rules and tougher protections that have made health care in America more affordable, more attainable and more about you, the consumer, the American people. It’s working,” said Obama in praising the high court ruling.

“Today is a victory for hard-working Americans all across this country whose lives will continue to become more secure in a changing economy because of this law,” said the president.

As CNSNews.com reported, the justices ruled 6-3 that the subsidies that people receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live. "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

“Because of this law, and because of today’s decision, millions of Americans who I hear from every single day will continue to receive the tax credits that have given about eight in 10 people who buy insurance on the new marketplaces the choice of a health care plan that costs less than $100 a month,” said Obama.

“As the law’s provisions have gradually taken effect, more than 16 million uninsured Americans have gained coverage so far. Nearly one in three Americans who was uninsured a few years ago is insured today,” he said.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

SCOTUS grants Obama another gift, ignores the English language to uphold ObamaCare subsidies

And that’s that. Obama, as usual, gets his way. It was predictable, really. Having abandoned the meaning of words within the English language, the Supreme Court is now free to ignore the actual text of laws and pretend things were written that never were.

As the AP reports:

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans.

The justices said in a 6-3 ruling that the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, under the 2010 health care law.
The outcome is the second major victory for Obama in politically charged Supreme Court tests of his most significant domestic achievement. It came the same day the court gave the administration an unexpected victory by preserving a key tool the administration uses to fight housing bias.

John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which stated that the law was upheld because:

Here, the statutory scheme compels the Court to reject petitioners’ interpretation because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very “death spirals” that Congress designed the Act to avoid. Under petitioners’ reading, the Act would not work in a State with a Federal Exchange. As they see it, one of the Act’s three major reforms—the tax credits—would not apply. And a second major reform—the coverage requirement—would not apply in a meaningful way, because so many individuals would be exempt from the requirement without the tax credits. If petitioners are right, therefore, only one of the Act’s three major reforms would apply in States with a Federal Exchange.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading.... 

[VIDEO] Obama has issued 19 secret directives

WASHINGTON — A one-digit correction to President Obama's directive on hostage policy Wednesday had the effect of disclosing the existence of a previously unknown — and still-secret — Obama order on national security.

The hostage policy was originally released Wednesday as a presidential policy directive numbered PPD-29. When the White House corrected that number to PPD-30, it meant Obama had issued a secret directive as PPD-29 sometime in the past 17 months.

Obama signed PPD-28, an order on electronic eavesdropping in the wake of revelations by Edward Snowden, in January 2014.

So what is PPD-29? No one's talking. A spokesman for the National Security Council declined to comment of the existence of classified PPDs Wednesday.

USA TODAY

Obama order clears way for private ransom payments

"The only reason we know about it is the sequential numbering of the directives, and realizing they skipped a few," said Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, which tracks the directives.

PPD-29 isn't the first to be tacitly acknowledged only by a missing number. Of the 30 PPDs issued by Obama, 19 have not been released. And for 11 of those, the White House has not disclosed even the subject of the order.

"It's not only the public that doesn't have copies. It's also Congress that doesn't have copies," Aftergood said. "It's a domain of largely unchecked presidential authority. It doesn't mean it's bad, but it's lacking in independent oversight."

But they have the same legal force as an executive order, forming a body of largely secret law, said Harold Relyea, a political scientist who advised Congress on national security directives before retiring from the Congressional Research Service.

"The difference is that while executive orders are public by law — they must be published in the Federal Register to be effective —- PPDs are not," he said. "It is a kind of secret law. People have to obey it. But it's a directive that can allocate money, direct people or take a course of action."

Via: USA Today

Continue Reading....