October 17, 2021

I’m Not Paying For That F***ing Wall

guatamalawall

Share

Obama Bypasses Congress; New England Legislatures to Create Yet Another National Monument

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:
Reform Needed, Group Says: No President Should Be Able to Create a 5,000-Square-Mile National Monument Without Consulting Congress and Affected States

National Center for Public Policy Research Calls on Congress to Repeal 1906 Law that Allows Presidents of Both Parties to Bypass States and Localities When Creating National Monuments

Says States Lose Opportunities for Environmental Management of Lands After Monument Designations Are Made

Hiking, Fishing, Swimming, Hunting and Other Uses Also Often Are Restricted, which In Turn Kills Local Jobs and Reduces Local Tax Revenues

Washington, D.C.  R.J. Smith and Bonner Cohen, senior fellows for environmental policy at the National Center for Public Policy Research, are responding to the White House’s announcement that President Obama is today unilaterally creating a new 5,000-square-mile national monument off the coast of New England.

President Obama is creating the monument without the approval of Congress or local state legislatures under the 1906 Antiquities Act, and has chosen the name “The Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument.”

“The 1906 Antiquities Act was designed to allow presidents to protect the theft of items from ancient Indian archaeological sites, and significant natural items such as fossils or petrified wood,” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Because the scope of the Act was perceived to be limited, and due to the slowness of communication and transportation during that era, the Act was written not to require Congressional or local approval for monument designations.”

“Communications and transportation technologies have advanced tremendously in 110 years while presidents of both parties have exploited the Act to expand federal land control in ways never dreamed of by Congress in 1906,” Ridenour continued. “The National Center for Public Policy Research has called on Congress to repeal the Antiquities Act of 1906 and replace it with a law that allows not just Presidents, but Congress, affected states, and affected localities to have a say in federal monument designations. These designations affect states and localities tremendously. Unknown to most, they limit environmental management of affected lands. They also limit multiple-use activities such as hiking and fishing, and kill jobs and with them the loss of local tax revenues, which in turn affects revenues of local public schools and public services.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research published a new paper, “Time to Repeal the Antiquities Act of 1906,” by R.J. Smith earlier this week. It is available online here.

Robert J. Smith:

President Barack Obama and his out-of-control pen seem to be on a mission to demonstrate disregard of the Congress and the American people. He is accelerating the pace of his use of the long out-of-date Antiquities Act of 1906 to lock up vast expanses of the nation’s land and waters — in no-use or extremely limited-use categories. He is effectively creating national parks and wilderness areas — areas traditionally under the purview of the Congress.

He is doing this against the wishes of state, county and local officials and the working men and women in or adjacent to those areas.

Such designations, if they are to be created at all, should be done following careful debate by the U.S. Congress and the officials of the affected areas.

The President should be representing the interests of all Americans and not just a crusade to please the radical Green fringe. Hopefully, his actions of the past few weeks will be of such concern to members of Congress that they will begin immediate efforts to repeal this antiquated law and return the management decisions of our land and water to the American people.

R.J. Smith has served as a senior fellow in environmental policy at The National Center for Public Policy Research since 2005. Once president of a local Audubon Society chapter, Mr. Smith has studied environmental policy for nearly forty years and coined the term “free market environmentalism.” He has served as a consultant to the U.S. Department of the Interior, a consultant to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality, and as a special assistant at the EPA.

Bonner Cohen, Ph.D.:

The Administration’s alleged concern for undersea wildlife is ludicrous. This is the same Administration that has proposed giving operators of giant industrial, and taxpayer-subsidized, wind facilities 30-year permits to kill thousands of eagles and other birds. The area’s red crab fishery already operates under a management plan that has been certified by the independent Marine Stewardship Council. These are the kinds of arrangements that protect rare species and the livelihoods of fishermen. We see how well the Washington ‘protects’ eagles and other avian species on wind-farm-laden federal land. Who can seriously believe they’ll do a better job in the Atlantic Ocean?

Bonner R. Cohen is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research. His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor’s Business Daily, the New York Post and dozens of other publications. He has testified before U.S. Senate and House committees and has spoken at conferences on three continents, and is the author of two books, including “The Green Wave: Environmentalism and its Consequences (Washington: Capital Research Center, 2006).”

*     *     *

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter.

Share

I Understand Your Struggle…You Idiot!

Hillary12kArmaniSuit

Share

Obama Pays Iranian Ransom – $400 Million, Part of $1.7 Billion Bribe

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran, according to U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation afterward.

Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials. The U.S. procured the money from the central banks of the Netherlands and Switzerland, they said.

The money represented the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement the Obama administration reached with Iran to resolve a decades-old dispute over a failed arms deal signed just before the 1979 fall of Iran’s last monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Perverted Dictator-in-Chief

Bigot

Share

Little Did Anyone Know What Obama Meant by “Change”

HopeSexChange

KennedyObama

Ask not whether men can go in the little girls room, ask whether our perversion and decadence is right!

Share

Obama Locker Room Edict Condemned by Black Conservatives

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

“The physical and emotional abuse blacks endured under segregation, on a good day, are in no way analogous to the adulation and ‘rights’ that those who suffer from gender dysmorphia are experiencing and receiving…”

“Middle- and upper-income Whites in search of artificial oppressed person status can do so without using our history…”

 
“Attaching this insanity to the legacy of civil rights… trivializes everything the brave men and women experienced and sacrificed in the pursuit of social, economic and legal equality…”

“Civil rights champions were not spat upon, beaten with police batons and sometimes murdered for the right of men to go to the same restroom with little girls…”

“Why is there such a rush to strip away the innocence of American children?”

“As a Christian conservative, Black clergyman, I am deeply offended…”

“The idea that a mentally ill person should assume the mantle of civil rights so hard-fought and won by black Americans is insulting…”

“This is cruel and divisive and will ultimately be overturned…”

“We are expected to accept the notion that the privacy concerns of ‘straight’ students is simply not as valuable as the claimed rights of transgender youths…”

“This is nothing less than legalized blackmail…”

Washington, D.C. – Members of the Project 21 black leadership group have joined the national discussion about the Obama Administration’s threat to withhold federal education funding from schools that assign bathroom and locker rooms by biological sex.

Project 21 members lack enthusiasm for the Administration’s edict.

Many also are offended that federal officials have compared their effort to mix biological genders in locker rooms and restrooms to the multi-decade struggle against Jim Crow, and the multi-century battle against racial discrimination.

Among the members of Project 21 who are publicly speaking out:

From Missouri

“Comparing gender dysphoria to innate characteristics such as race is a bridge too far for scientific-minded individuals, but not for the Organized Left. The idea that a mentally ill person should assume the mantle of civil rights so hard-fought and won by black Americans is insulting,” said Project 21’s Stacy Washington, a former elected school board member, Emmy-nominated TV personality and talk show host on KFTK 97.1 FM in St. Louis.

“But where are the women’s rights advocates? Where are those who trumpeted the War on Women campaign so successfully during the last presidential cycle,” Washington asks. “If you look at the numerous assaults against women and children in the bathrooms, locker rooms and changing facilities in retail outlets across the country, you see a clear pattern: perverts need no invitation to assault women. Making it easier by giving them the cover of law that purports to offer newfound rights to transgendered people isn’t the answer. The edict issued by the Obama Administration is just another reason for parents and legislators to support school choice.”

From California

“As if the nation needed it, we just got another reminder of the wild ride we’ll be on during the final remaining months of the Obama regime,” said Joe Hicks, a political analyst and Project 21 member. “Released from any need to pretend that he’s a ‘moderate,’ Obama ran his leftist social justice flag even higher up the flagpole by threatening every public school district in the nation with punishment if they don’t allow all transgender students to use any bathroom or locker room they want. The nation’s Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, idiotically compared a North Carolina law to white supremacist Jim Crow laws that legalized race-based segregation. Mirroring the rhetorical tactics of Eric Holder, Obama’s former A.G., Lynch announced that she is suing North Carolina over its commonsense law, which simply says that people have to use a bathroom that corresponds to the sex on their birth certificates.”

“It is important that all of this liberal and leftist angst and claims of victimization be put in a proper context,” Hicks continued. “Only 0.3 percent of the nation’s population identifies as transgender. The entire LGBT population is estimated to be 3.4 percent. Only a year ago, the stated goal of LGBT activists was the right to marry. Now accomplished, this movement wants more — always more. Now, we are expected to accept the notion that the privacy concerns of ‘straight’ students is simply not as valuable as the claimed rights of transgender youths. At the White House, and within liberal-left activist circles, commonsense is like Kryptonite to Superman.”

From California

“When Barack Obama ran for president back in 2008, he promised to fundamentally change the United States of America. He has done just that,” said Derryck Green, who is completing his doctorate in theology and ministry at Azusa Pacific University near Los Angeles.

“Culturally normalizing and celebrating homosexuality and the redefinition of marriage through an unrelenting social program of dishonesty — at the expense of the traditional understanding and institution of marriage, in addition to the intentional violation and suppression of religious liberty — is part of Obama’s transformational promise,” added Green. “So is his devotion to erasing the distinction between male and female by forcing the country into participating in the celebration of the mental and emotional illness of transgenderism.”

“On its own merits, advancing this new and destructive social morality is problematic. That Barack Obama has done so by attaching this insanity to the legacy of civil rights, specifically that of Jim Crow segregation, trivializes everything the brave men and women experienced and sacrificed in the pursuit of social, economic and legal equality. The physical and emotional abuse blacks endured under segregation, on a good day, are in no way analogous to the adulation and ‘rights’ that those who suffer from gender dysmorphia are experiencing and receiving. For the Obama Administration to say as much insults the intelligence, and brazenly disrespects the tradition of, the black civil rights movement,” Green concluded.

From Louisiana

“As a Black Southern man who grew up fighting what I call ‘Jim Crow-lite’ in the 1970s-1980s, in Savannah, Georgia, home of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, I find the ridiculous transgender/civil rights movement comparison insulting and disrespectful,” said Nadra “Cap Black” Enzi, a New Orleans anti-crime activist.

“Once again the Black experience is hijacked by individuals whose contempt and desperation is obvious! Middle- and upper-income Whites in search of artificial oppressed person status can do so without using our history to prop up delusional defenses. The fact that co-conspirators in this farce include a bi-racial President of the United States who self-identifies as Black, and the second Black U.S. Attorney General, speaks volumes on how far some have strayed away from the straight and narrow path pioneered by the Civil Rights Movement and the moral culture which produced it,” Enzi concluded.

From New Jersey

“As a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ, who happens to be Black by His design, I am thoroughly outraged that Obama would think he could even suggest, no less implement, such madness as ‘gender identity’ and ‘transgender rights’!” says Project 21’s Reverend Steven Louis Craft, M.Div.

“We in this nation are under satanic attack when people cannot even discern that there are only two sexes, male and female! How does Obama get the authority to decree that men can use women’s restrooms or be denied federal funding? This is nothing less than legalized blackmail. Hopefully, every school district in America will simply ignore this madness, and finally the people will demand that Obama be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. As a Christian conservative, Black clergyman, I am deeply offended, and I pray that justice will prevail,” says Craft.

From Washington, D.C.

“President Obama continues to focus his priorities on everything but the American people. Instead of focusing on the struggling economy or any number of issues plaguing our country, he decides to legalize sexual harassment,” says Gianno Caldwell, who runs a lobbying firm in Washington, D.C. “Any male individual can claim an identity in the moment to follow a woman into the bathroom, thereby creating an harassing environment. This must be stopped by Congress.”

From Indiana

“The Obama Administration should be ashamed of itself for forcing the use of restrooms in public schools to transgender people. First of all, education is an issue for the states to control. Secondly, there are but two God-created genders. Male and Female,” said Tea Party activist Emery McClendon.

“Such a move will destroy our schools as our children and grandchildren will be intimidated and confused. The focus in our learning institutions shout be on the three ‘R’s, and on preparing our children for adulthood, the job market, and higher learning. Our schools are already failing, and this move will place our education system at risk of a collapse,” McClendon said.

“This is not a civil rights issue. It is a blatant abuse of people’s personal rights, and a tradition that almost every culture holds dear,” McClendon concluded.

From Missouri

“Just as the liberals use the Commerce Clause to justify any kind of tax or government overreach, now they abuse civil rights codes to justify legalizing any kind of perversion, all in name of equality. Civil rights champions were not spat upon, beaten with police batons and sometimes murdered for the right of men to go to the same restroom with little girls,” says St. Louis political consultant Christopher Arps.

From Pennsylvania

“When I was in a student at Woodside Elementary in Silver Spring, Maryland, there was something mysterious about the boys’ and girls’ bathrooms. I remember when the boys in our playground clique found out there were doors on the stalls in the girls’ bathrooms and I remember the girls being appalled there were no doors in the boys’ bathrooms. My friend David didn’t believe it, so he went into the girls’ bathroom to find out for himself… He got in trouble — a lot of trouble… and I wasn’t allowed to hang out with him for a while,” recalls the Right Reverend Council Nedd II, Ph.D., TOSF.

“Why is there such a rush to strip away the innocence of American children? Why do children need to be exposed to anything and everything at the earliest possible age? Do we really want our children growing up in a world and age where nothing is taboo?,” Nedd, who is rector of St. Alban’s Anglican Church in Pine Grove Mills, Pennsylvania, and an elected state constable, wonders.

“As a child I wish my friend David had been allowed to use the gender identity defense. However, there is an equally important issue. When you dance with the devil, the devil don’t change. The devil being the federal government in this parable. We’ve seen over the last 100 years, the consequences of relying too much on the federal government. The federal welfare system a wrought destruction on millions of poor people and slowly eroded their moral compasses, and it has destroyed the sovereignty of states and their ability to enforce their own community standards,” said Nedd.

From Virginia

“The White House is pushing a radical agenda that has no support in the language or history of existing civil rights law. And they are pursuing it by threatening to punish the most vulnerable students in public school — withholding lunch and remedial teaching assistance from poor and minority students. This is cruel and divisive and will ultimately be overturned,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, an attorney and legal commentator who taught constitutional law at George Mason University.

* * *

Project 21 has been a leading voice of black conservatives since its founding in 1992. Its volunteer members come from all walks of life. Individual comments by Project 21 members represent the opinion of that member. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated, and may be earmarked for the use of Project 21.

Share

Shadow Boxing and the Fake Ridicule of Obama’s Line-Drawing in the Sand

Why can’t people see through this crap?

Remember when President Obama drew an imaginary red line in which Media reported was meant to warn Syria that if they used chemical weapons, the U.S. might issue a “military response.” Supposedly Syria did and Obama didn’t… do anything. The Republicans took the opportunity to take cheap shots at the president. The news was full of the nonsense. It was a great opportunity for both parties to mark their territories, like dogs on a backyard fence, and to convince the ignorant masses that one side is good and the other side is bad – and let’s further prop that up with some serious hating on somebody.

We move ahead about 2 1/2 years and we find President Obama signing a Paris agreement, on the fake Earth Day, in which he promises to steal more and more of American’s money to use to bribe other countries to support the fake “Climate Change” amalgamation. Can’t we all just get along…and keep giving to the Cause?

According to “The New American,” they claim that because of a law signed during Bill Clinton’s era, it is illegal for Obama to fund any part of implementing the Paris climate agreement, because The State of Palestine is not recognized by the U.S. as a state and member of the United Nations….or something. – “Thanks to a Clinton-era statute and an obscure vote last month by the United Nations, federal law now officially makes it illegal for the Obama administration to send a single penny of your money to the UN climate bureaucracy.”

Isn’t that nice?

But not so fast. According to the same article, Obama was a criminal because he gave a half-billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to fascist Climate Change dictators within the United Nations. “Among the UN agencies affected will be the giant slush fund for dictators run by dictators’ representatives known as the Green Climate Fund, which Obama lawlessly gave $500 million to in defiance of Congress after illegitimately pledging billions during a trip to Australia.”

So, let’s get this straight. According to this information, President Obama carried out an act that certain republican members (perhaps we should name them the Bowry Boys) of Congress say was, “illegal on multiple accounts,” and yet, one has to ask, what did this same group of mouthy republican Congressmen do about Obama’s supposed illegal action?

Supposedly, Obama’s lawyers, noted as “Obama’s legions of U.S. taxpayer-funded lawyers” declared that it was not illegal to spend 500 million taxpayer dollars to fund Climate Change dictators at the U.N.

The group of republican Congressmen warned Obama that he better not do something like that again, or else…..(here is where a “red line” can be drawn.) And if that doesn’t scare the president enough, weeeellllll, these lying, gutless politicians really let Obama have it by writing a letter, described as a, “stake through the heart of the UN’s “climate” regime.” – “The American people must understand the dynamics and the hollow promises of Paris Agreement supporters, lest they allow these meaningless agreements to gain credibility and cause further damage [to](sic) the American economy and sovereignty.”

By God that ought ta just about scare the living crud right out of anybody! The letter further “threatened” that a signed “pseudo-treaty has no force or validity.” Last time I checked, whatever Obama or any president before him signed as a “treaty” will have no “force or validity” unless and until the United States Senate ratifies a formal treaty.

It appears that this muscled-up group of blowhard idiots have drawn at least two “Red Lines” with not the courage to do anything about it. But is it actually courage they are lacking? I think not. What they are lacking is nothing really. Perhaps a few lessons on how to better lie to the American people – or am I just catching on quicker – to make them think the republicans have the answer? They are allowed to do that until it’s the democrats turn to lie when a republican president is making up his own laws and defying (wink, wink) Congress.

If, as this group of hacks claim, President Obama violated the law by sending $500 million to the U.N. for Climate Change Dictators, then it is their duty to actually do something about it. I heard someone on TV (Fox News – another wink, wink) just this morning say the United States was a nation of laws. Therefore, it must be so.

So, either the Bowry Boys are slimy, useless, slugs, or they actually want the money to go to the U.N., or it really isn’t against the law (laws don’t matter) – or any combination of these three issues.

Doesn’t one then have to ask, if Obama and his lawyers thought and acted as though giving that half-billion to the U.N. was not illegal, why then do these mental-midget, criminal republicans think Obama and his “legion of lawyers” is going to avoid stepping over that “red line” and not send any funding to prop up the Paris agreement?

Share

Obama Implicates Self, Clinton and U.S. Government in Latest Executive Order

Because President Obama declared a state of emergency in 2011 via Executive Order 13566, under the powers he gave himself, he further establishes bans and prohibitions in the most recent Executive Order 13726, against himself, former Secretary of State Clinton and all complicit governmental agencies and individuals, as well as all clandestine organizations, foreign and domestic, participating in any kind of illegal or terror-related activities in Libya that might disrupt the Libyan government and the flow of oil from the National Oil Company, in addition to targeting anyone seeking protection from the government.

Highlighted below:

Executive Order — Blocking Property And Suspending Entry Into The United States Of Persons Contributing To The Situation In Libya

EXECUTIVE ORDER

– – – – – – –

BLOCKING PROPERTY AND SUSPENDING ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

OF PERSONS CONTRIBUTING TO THE SITUATION IN LIBYA

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), section 5 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c) (UNPA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, hereby expand the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13566 of February 25, 2011, finding that the ongoing violence in Libya, including attacks by armed groups against Libyan state facilities, foreign missions in Libya, and critical infrastructure, as well as human rights abuses, violations of the arms embargo imposed by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 (2011), and misappropriation of Libya’s natural resources threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, democratic transition, and territorial integrity of Libya, and thereby constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. To address this threat, and in view of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 2174 of August 27, 2014, and 2213 of March 27, 2015, I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:

(i) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, any of the following:

(A) actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability of Libya, including through the supply of arms or related materiel;

(B) actions or policies that obstruct, undermine, delay, or impede, or pose a significant risk of obstructing, undermining, delaying, or impeding, the adoption of or political transition to a Government of National Accord or a successor government;

(C) actions that may lead to or result in the misappropriation of state assets of Libya; or

(D) threatening or coercing Libyan state financial institutions or the Libyan National Oil Company;

(ii) to be planning, directing, or committing, or to have planned, directed, or committed, attacks against any Libyan state facility or installation (including oil facilities), against any air, land, or sea port in Libya, or against any foreign mission in Libya;

(iii) to be involved in, or to have been involved in, the targeting of civilians through the commission of acts of violence, abduction, forced displacement, or attacks on schools, hospitals, religious sites, or locations where civilians are seeking refuge, or through conduct that would constitute a serious abuse or violation of human rights or a violation of international humanitarian law;

(iv) to be involved in, or to have been involved in, the illicit exploitation of crude oil or any other natural resources in Libya, including the illicit production, refining, brokering, sale, purchase, or export of Libyan oil;

(v) to be a leader of an entity that has, or whose members have, engaged in any activity described in subsections (a)(i), (a)(ii), (a)(iii), or (a)(iv) of this section;

(vi) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of (A) any of the activities described in subsections (a)(i), (a)(ii), (a)(iii), or (a)(iv) of this section or (B) any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(vii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order. The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section are in addition to export control authorities implemented by the Department of Commerce.

Sec. 2. I hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section 1(a) of this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of such persons. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions). Further, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2174 shall be treated as a Resolution listed in Annex A of Proclamation 8693.

Sec. 3. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13566 and expanded in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 4. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include but are not limited to:

(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and

(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 5. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 6. For the purposes of this order:

(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;

(b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

(d) the term “Government of National Accord or a successor government” means:

(i) a Government of National Accord formed pursuant to the terms of the Libyan Political Agreement signed in Skhirat, Morocco, on December 17, 2015, or any amendments thereto;

(ii) a governmental authority formed under the Libyan Constitution pursuant to the terms of the Libyan Political Agreement signed in Skhirat, Morocco, on December 17, 2015, or any amendments thereto;

(iii) any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the foregoing, and any partnership, association, corporation, or other organization owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by, or acting for or on behalf of, the foregoing; or

(iv) any other person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be included within paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.

Sec. 7. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13566 and expanded in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.

Sec. 8. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA and the UNPA, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.

Sec. 9. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 19, 2016.

Share

Obama Trip to Cuba Condemned by Black Activists

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research

Project 21 Black Leaders Condemn Obama Trip to Cuba

“Communism has never worked, can never work and… must be challenged”

“Why is the President cozying up to killers?”

“This president… has pole-vaulted over America’s territory of Puerto Rico, which is dying on the economic vine, to play kissy-face with the Castros”

“Cuba gets legitimacy and currency while America gets empty promises”

“Castro turned on us; not us on them”

“Mr. Obama should think before he acts”

“Many members of the Obama Administration are making excuses for this bastion of institutional racism”

 

Washington, D.C. – Members of the Project 21 black leadership network are issuing strong statements of condemnation about President Obama’s trip to Cuba, which continues today.

“President Obama has truly let down America and the supporters of freedom all over the globe with his recognition of Cuba,” charged Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper. “Recognizing President Castro and his despotic co-autocrats who make up the Communist party leadership as welcome members of the world’s family of nations is bad enough. Appearing on their soil and declaring that Cuba’s confiscation of private property and government-controlled economy makes sure ‘that everybody is getting a decent education or health care, has basic security and old age, that those things are human rights as well’ is beyond the pale.”

“Supporting the enemies of America and isolating our friends is not just terrible for America, it sends the wrong signals to dispossessed people all over the globe,” Cooper continued. “Communism has never worked, can never work and instead of being appeased, must be challenged. Shame on Mr. Obama.”

“President Obama has been humiliated by foreign dictators before, but this trip to Cuba is taking humiliation to a whole new level,” said Project 21’s Bishop Council Nedd II, the rector of St. Alban’s Anglican Church in Pine Grove Mills, PA and an elected Pennsylvania State Constable. “The White House said the president would not travel to Cuba unless there were improvements in human rights. The White House must have thought the Castros would want the visit so much they’d make at least cosmetic improvements, but President Obama guessed wrong: they didn’t. But Obama did, so he went anyway, and dissidents were being rounded up even as Air Force One was headed to the island. Some of these ‘dissidents’ have done nothing more than attend church!”

“Raul Castro has gone out of his way to insult the president, and through him, every American,” Bishop Nedd continued. “Heads of state go to the airport to meet important foreign guests. Raul Castro went to the airport for the leader of Iran. He skipped the trip for President Obama. That’s a calculated insult.”

“President Obama even allowed himself to be photographed in front of a huge memorial to racist Che Guevara,” Bishop Nedd concluded. “Would the President allow himself to be photographed in front of a memorial to a KKK or Confederate leader, or any avowed racist here in the United States? Even one who was not a murderer, as Che Guevara was? It’s extremely unlikely, but he was willing to do it for the Castros. Why? Why is the President cozying up to killers?”

“What this president is doing in opening relations with Cuba is near treason,” said Project 21’s Niger Innis, the national spokesman for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), one of the nation’s most famous and influential civil rights organizations. “He does it at a time when the Castro regime has given nothing to the United States, and when its senior patron, Venezuela, is also on the economic ropes.”

“It seems the raison d’etre of this president is to make bridges to America’s enemies while simultaneously undermining our strongest allies, as he has done to Israel, the Czech Republic, and Poland,” Innis continued. “But in perhaps the most glaring effort by this president to undermine America’s interest, he has pole-vaulted over America’s territory of Puerto Rico, which is dying on the economic vine, to play kissy-face with the Castros.”

“Once again, President Obama, being anxious to make history while appeasing America’s enemies, looked absolutely foolish yesterday as the Cuban dictator declared in front of him with a straight face that Cuba doesn’t hold any political prisoners,” said Project 21’s Christopher Arps, a Missouri-based political consultant and co-founder of Move-On-Up.org, a 43-state network of conservative and moderate black Americans. “Like Iran, Cuba gets legitimacy and currency while America gets empty promises. This is dangerous diplomacy for America and her allies.”

“President Barack Obama desperately wants a clean victory before leaving office,” said Project 21’s Wayne Dupree, host of the Wayne Dupree Show and founder of the WAAR Media Group. “So far, Obama has been a weak president at best and a complete failure at worst. When I was young, Cuba was the country that allowed Soviet missiles to be stationed there so they could present a mortal threat to the United States of America. Fidel Castro was the communist leader who pointed a gun at us, like the guy in North Korea points one at South Korea. President Kennedy mistakenly trusted and welcomed the ascension of Fidel Castro. Then Castro turned on us; not us on them. People have been fleeing Cuba for 50-plus years. No one should start celebrating yet. Are we to just wipe the slate of history; act as though history doesn’t exist? We will be paying billions if we try to bring Cuba up to modern standards of living.”

“Obama is trying to get an automatic win here,” Dupree continued. “Those of us who remember know we need a lot more from Cuba’s communist leadership before we smoke cigars and drink a beer with them.”

“Our President is always attempting to make history or be the first to visit a hostile nation or country that is at odds with the USA,” said Project 21’s Emery McClendon, an Indiana Tea Party activist and past winner of Americans for Prosperity’s “Activist of the Year” award. “Mr. Obama should think before he acts because each time that he has done this over his past seven years in office things have not worked out for the better for America. Iran and North Korea are just two examples.”

“President Obama’s visit to Communist Cuba may indeed be historic in nature, but many members of the Obama Administration are making excuses for this bastion of institutional racism,” said Project 21’s Kevin Martin, a Navy veteran. “The plight of Afro-Cubans, or ‘Mulatos,’ has been well documented since the Castro brothers came to power more than 50 years ago. While many liberal activists have built a business of condemning America for its past transgressions of racism against minorities in America, the Obama Administration and these same Liberals have taken a hands-off approach to the plight of Afro-Cubans, who are the most oppressed minority on the Cuban Island.”

“The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) has often praised the Castro brothers and the Cuban socialist system and has repeatedly called for the lifting of the U.S. embargo, while at the same time ignoring the plight of those who look like them,” added Martin. “If the president, our liberal elected officials and State Department can condemn other nations, such as Myanmar, Zimbabwe and others for their human rights records, then they need to explain why they have taken a hands-off approach to the plight of Afro-Cubans over the years. This is especially true now, during this historic Presidential visit to the island nation, during the administration’s effort to cement normalized relations with Cuba.”

Project 21 has been a leading voice of black conservatives since its founding in 1992.

Share