Thursday PM ~ TheFrontPageCover

Merry Christmas
aGT3yOMM5MEZuZOU8ZaVkHBBITtugkF-S56PP4XF48NOVGeTMKz6saHgbuGPfzU8yAsg8uNV0nM_jKVEr39fEn6KSlPPcHwa8CeVArTElFfNpmI0A4a9HZoTujZq1FsPb9N5n3OTVCc=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
The Front Page Cover
 The Events of the Week -- Featuring: 
Trump’s Repeal/Appeal Dilemma
by Joel Zinberg
 
AGHnzvDgAIc_dkrUO59jF21LrUmiQ79dA3RIshU-YlAdfSFPOhc54BmJs1OTRtvnrEX-cCbeiMVXdurlydL03p7YzXsWg_6cAavWTIOYU1PogQU4ftAjtXM=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
.
 Trump Wins, Again 
6pCnSkpFn9sIZ6MbtnnurPyz5NTeP54Edw5kEraj-WINLCZi3jfpeC-F2whGLJBPUNOaxIBzS86gOqGEdb_k3dqA5zaPvfQH9DUJCbJU8AvA6WDCXDQNmWuG_Tme8Q=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
The Electoral College members cast their votes yesterday, securing Donald Trump as the next and 45th President of the U.S. In spite of all the efforts by some Democrats and the Leftmedia to convince "faithless electors" to vote against the will of the people, there was little drama. Ironically, it was liar-Hillary Clinton who ended up with more faithless electors voting against her than did Trump.
          Interestingly, the Left's attempt to sow seeds of doubt regarding the legitimacy of Trump's victory has only proved to further establish its validity. For example, Jill Stein's ridiculous demand for recounts in the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin resulted in Trump gaining votes. Then there is the ploy suggesting that, because liar-Hillary won the popular vote, Trump's victory should be viewed as artificial. To that line of reasoning the best response is the Constitution and Rule of Law, which helped prove to yet another generation of Americans the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in crafting a system that preserves states' rights and limits the power of a centralized federal government.
          A final item to note is the fact that neither candidate received a majority of the popular vote; liar-Clinton received 48% to Trump's 46%. Which means even if U.S. presidential elections were decided by the popular vote, neither candidate would have received a majority, furthering the complaint expressed by the Left that a minority of Americans has decided for the majority. In other words, it would not have resolved their supposed problem. The good news is that there is little the Left can do now but whine and complain. Trump is President-elect. 
~The Patriot Post
.
 FLOTUS: Say, We Sure Could Use Some Hope 
XIxin_ycFEY745LN4KAz_j1SBZSjzGzRuGuY6IXQaU0xvhmceHMxWiYSwLJAGWEK1iXhIubGX1R__OVi_cw6PgbQeuZHE_a8gCtllpOJRMPu7fDqd-2C01H7C_Qrpw=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
Voters sent Barack liar-nObama to the White House in 2008 because his campaign slogan resonated: "Change We Can Believe In." In his 2008 victory speech, liar-nObama spoke of the "arc of history" bending "once more toward the hope of a better day." He added, "It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this date in this election at this defining moment, change has come to America." After eight long years, change did come. But hope? We'll let Michelle liar-nObama speak for herself. From a recent interview with Oprah Winfrey:
          Winfrey: "Your husband's administration, everything, the election, was all about hope. Do you think that this administration achieved that?"
          liar-nObama: "Yes. I do, because we feel the difference now. Now we're feeling what not having hope feels like. Hope is necessary."
          If that sounds contradictory, that's because it is. Here's a more accurate translation: "Michelle liar-nObama Confesses To Oprah: 8 Years Of Hope And Change Left People Without Hope."
          Exit polling shows that the overwhelming majority (82%) of Trump voters saw him as someone who could break the status quo. Moreover, 68% of his supporters said the country was on the wrong trajectory. And as Allahpundit adds, "The exit poll also asked people if they thought life for the next generation of Americans would be better than, worse than, or about the same as it is for theirs. The split was 37/33/25. The 'hope' presidency couldn't crack 40 percent on a basic question about your kids' lives being better than yours."
          Hope was a promise that was never delivered. That the liar-nObamas miss this proves just how incapable they are of seeing outside the mainstream. The only "hope" they offer now is a future that doesn't include a supposedly unfair electoral college. ~The Patriot Post.
G3awWDhq0cgsx1oLFdnSVnRhXyexuF4d4rUDu3lfkpM9CEhh9A5FQE1OH4TFrExvY2Q4ahoGJYapHkZh9qWTNzup1a-HaWzeK4jRKG9BkzXE=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
NSA Whistleblower Destroys CIA Narrative – “Hard Evidence Points To Inside Leak,
Not Russia Hack”
by Vin Armani
{activistpost.com} ~ “A group of retired senior intelligence officials, including the NSA whistleblower William Binney (former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA), have posted an open letter on consortiumnews.com that destroys the liar-nObama administration’s “Russian hacking” narrative... Within the letter, Binney argues that, thanks to the NSA’s “extensive domestic data-collection network,” any data removed remotely from liar-Hillary Clinton or DNC servers would have passed over fiber networks and therefore would have been captured by the NSA who could have then analyzed packet data to determine the origination point and destination address of those packets. As Binney further notes, the only way the leaks could have avoided NSA detection is if they were never passed over fiber networks but rather downloaded to a thumb drive by someone with internal access to servers.”  http://www.activistpost.com/2016/12/nsa-whistleblower-destroys-cia-narrative-hard-evidence-points-inside-leak-not-russia-hack.html?utm_source=Activist+Post+Subscribers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ad655f04b2-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_b0c7fb76bd-ad655f04b2-387888649
.
Are Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait
Funding German Salafism?
by George Igler
ZUIKcZ9cMx28-Uy1jrNuvZ-m6KPWvlaQHCGKcpk-WJ4axKuk-xvVzCjAGa3XhexmX0-1YDYCtWyy2Yz1WzcG2RO7fSTgqQ=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
{gatestoneinstitute.org} ~ Salafism -- from salaf, "ancestors" or "predecessors" in Arabic -- urges the emulation of the first three generations of the Islamic prophet Mohammad's companions, and Mohammad himself... It is often deemed the most fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. Security agencies in Germany claim that 9,200 such Islamic extremists currently call the country home. Another intelligence briefing cited by Süddeutsche Zeitung, warns that "the ideology already has 10,000 followers" and growing, in the country. "Almost all of the German nationals who have travelled to Syria to fight for Islamic State became radicalized by Salafis, who target low-income Muslim youths in German cities," wrote the Los Angeles Times, adding that it is proving increasingly challenging for German intelligence officials, "to differentiate between those who identify intellectually with Salafism and those who espouse using violence to realize a radical version of Islam."...
Medicaid Blew $26 Mil on
Health Coverage for Dead People
{judicialwatch.org} ~ The government spent a breathtaking $26 million to provide dead people—who were poor when they were alive—with health insurance in one state alone, according to a new federal audit... The benefit was administered through Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the needy and the astonishing multi-million-dollar figure applies to just Florida but similar atrocities are likely occurring in other states. American taxpayers may wonder how this could possibly happen, though fraud and corruption are rampant in government, especially in welfare programs. First let’s explain how Medicaid, jointly funded by federal and state governments, functions. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) administers the program at the federal level. States must create CMS-approved plans to run their Medicaid programs, which provide low-income residents with medical coverage. In some states, such as Florida, the government contracts with insurance companies and makes fixed monthly payments to provide coverage. In Florida 37 insurance companies have contracts to provide coverage...
.
Russia Conducts Fifth Test of
New Anti-Satellite Missile
by Bill Gertz
4lts0GL17I9EZqLOiQny8VY0P_6qessvJX32zNrC1Y1hF2jDcGFcMeDTxyGPnlXehCdNjPNZCkGInCV5V8iwu3rwRg=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
{freebeacon.com} ~ Russia successfully flight tested a new missile capable of knocking out strategic U.S. communications and navigation satellites, according to Pentagon officials... The test of the PL-19 Nudol missile was carried out Dec. 16 from a base in central Russia, and was monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies. It was the fifth test of the Nudol missile and the third successful flight of a system Moscow has claimed is for use against enemy missiles, said officials familiar with the reports of the launch...
.
L.A. County Pledges $3M To Fight Deportations,
While Local Schools See $333M Shortfall
by Brittany M. Hughes
eLDt_SGCNhrMYSv-ad4fR3Vx6koncCqTO66aaSrbwCN4CKdvNTTR8ohmIn0Tr9e6NlUX9T88Fxmry335Ja9KcVR3iROZwSjDEfSBGGga2yyt=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
{mrctv.org} ~ Los Angeles County just pledged $3 million in taxpayer money to help illegal aliens fight deportation, in yet another example of a liberal-run bastion of "progressivism" that puts politics ahead of its own citizens... KPCC, a radio station out of Southern California, reported that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted almost unanimously Tuesday to put millions in public funding toward the legal defense initiative over the next two years. Only one lone Republican supervisor dissented. The fund, which has a total goal of $10 million, was launched Monday by L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti in response to President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign promise to deport millions of illegal aliens living in the United States. According to Garcetti, half the money used to defend illegal aliens against being removed from the country will come from city and local governments (i.e., the taxpayers), while the other half will be supported by private donors...  http://www.mrctv.org/blog/
.
G3awWDhq0cgsx1oLFdnSVnRhXyexuF4d4rUDu3lfkpM9CEhh9A5FQE1OH4TFrExvY2Q4ahoGJYapHkZh9qWTNzup1a-HaWzeK4jRKG9BkzXE=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
.
Trump’s Repeal/Appeal Dilemma
by Joel Zinberg
Fj63fviqVV8ykEdY_marCwgNmyfle_Eg4UsxqR6m03SnUMJPA2cDh_YiziBiIhT5eUmRJP8wzvpZUbm0-g78thYbWakrhlg5jccM0Pw5oOWskTgEM6aOr-jv0VaZRcFibWcTo-Qb61n5TBpYMlcOYViCJ1v7rru1BgOiJb4=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=

{city-journal.org} ~ The election of Donald Trump and the Republican Party’s retention of both houses of Congress make the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) likely. The incoming administration now has the responsibility for dealing with the ongoing appeal of a successful challenge to the liar-nObama administration’s application of the ACA’s cost-sharing subsidy program.

In House v. Burwell, the House of Representatives claimed that the liar-nObama administration unlawfully made billions of dollars in payments to reduce ACA insurance costs without an appropriation from Congress. The case centers on ACA section 1402, which requires insurance companies to reduce the out-of-pocket costs (deductibles, co-payments, and co-insurance) of ACA-exchange enrollees in so-called “silver” plans who earn incomes less than 250 percent of the federal poverty level. Approximately 7 million people—or 57 percent of exchange enrollees—are receiving such cost-sharing reductions from insurers. Section 1402 directs the federal government to offset the financial burden to insurance companies via cost-sharing reduction payments (CSRPs), but the ACA doesn’t include an appropriation to pay for them. When the liar-nObama administration’s FY2014 budget request asked for a current appropriation for CSRPs, Congress turned it down. Instead, Congress passed and the president signed an Appropriations Act that failed to appropriate any monies for CSRPs. Undeterred, the administration spent $2.8 billion dollars to reimburse insurers in 2014. The House sued.

After finding last year that the House has “standing”—the right to pursue a judicial remedy—District Court judge Rosemary Collyer this year found that the administration violated the constitution’s appropriations clause. Collyer enjoined the administration from making further payments, but stayed her ruling pending appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit approved the House’s request to delay further action in the case until a February 21, 2017—after Trump is sworn in.

ACA repeal will not relieve the incoming administration of the need to decide whether to continue the appeal. Millions of people have already signed up for 2017 exchange plans with premiums calculated based on receipt of ACA subsidies. Immediate ACA repeal through the reconciliation process without any delay or replacement would remove those subsidies and leave the market in chaos. Most Republican policymakers are therefore proposing to delay implementation of repeal for a year or two. This will give the market time to adjust while a replacement plan is enacted.

The Burwell case poses two important issues for the Trump administration. The first is legal: what to do about a ruling that gives Congress “standing” to sue the executive branch? Article III of the Constitution limits courts to hearing only “cases or controversies.” A plaintiff must demonstrate it suffered a concrete, particularized injury in order to seek legal redress. Judge Collyer found the House had adequately alleged injury to its constitutionally protected interest as the only body empowered to direct expenditures from the U.S. Treasury. The liar-nObama administration argued the that House lacks standing because its lawsuit is actually about a non-justiciable dispute between the president and Congress over the interpretation of the ACA that should be resolved through the political tools Congress has at its disposal. Yet Congress already exercised its political tools by passing an appropriations bill rejecting the administration’s request for a cost-sharing appropriation. Additional legislation limiting expenditures that liar-nObama would have vetoed or ignored would have been fruitless. And no one would have welcomed an impeachment proceeding over this issue.

This is the first time a single house of Congress has been granted standing to sue the executive. Most administrations wouldn’t want to leave this potential curb on presidential power and prerogatives intact. If the administration withdraws the appeal, Collyer’s ruling stands, though the decision of a District Court is of limited precedential value. If Trump pursues the appeal, the standing decision might be reversed, but it could also be affirmed, creating a more important Court of Appeals precedent.

Trump must also consider another important issue relating to Burwell: what to do about the CSRPs? The Congressional Budget Office estimates the subsidies will cost $9 billion in 2017. Collyer’s decision enjoined payment of CSRPs without an express appropriation from Congress. If her decision on this issue is appealed and reversed, the Trump administration could pay CSRPs without going back to Congress—an outcome that will infuriate Congressional Republicans. If her decision is affirmed, or stands because the appeal is withdrawn, insurers will face huge losses. Insurers could sue the federal government to recover cost-sharing subsidies. But that is an expensive, time-consuming burden with uncertain results. Insurers might try to leave the market or increase premiums, but this may not be allowed under 2017 marketplace contracts and state laws.

The guerilla legal warfare against the ACA has left Trump with a dilemma. The best strategy is probably to withdraw the appeal and obtain a 2017 CSRP appropriation from Congress. This will give his administration time to hammer out a repeal-and-replace strategy without insurance market upheaval and financial fallout. It will also allow him to sidestep establishment of an appellate court precedent on Congressional standing that could come back to hamper him or future presidents.

http://city-journal.org/html/trumps-repeal-appeal-dilemma-14908.html

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of Command Center to add comments!

Join Command Center