Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON While President Donald Trump has cut over 800 regulations during just his first six months in office, freeing up small businesses to grow and prosper, one California farmer is hoping that his administration will drop a costly lawsuit held over from the Obama years.

So he can pursue his livelihood, farming, without the shadow of a misapplied regulation.

John Duarte, a farmer and owner of Duarte Nursey, Inc., planted winter wheat in 2012 on land thathe owns in Tehema County, California. In February 2013, he received a cease-and-desist order from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, according to the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing the Duarte family in this case.

The cease-and-desist order was based on allegations that the Duartes, in plowing their own land, had violated the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to govern navigable waters in the U.S., according to the EPAs website.

See Charlie Daniels in his latest starting role, in Revelation: Dawn of Global Government, which explains how America, Christianity and liberty all are being destroyed by the Trojan horse of globalism.

Under the Obama administration, the government expanded this definition to include even soggy areas on agricultural land, which can be as small as pools of standing water that only appear in the wet seasons of the year in areas that are normally entirely dry. Farming practices in general are supposed to be exempt from the Clean Water Act.

John Duarte attributes this cease-and-desist order to a mistake made in the government office. In a July 16 statement posted on the Duarte Nursery Facebook page, Duarte said: Wheat plantings and the shallow tillage involved have never triggered regulation, nor required permitting prior to this case. The prosecution got started when a federal bureaucrat confused the shallow 4-6 inch tillage operation with 3-4 feet deep ripping for vineyard or orchard preparation.

This kind of mistake is forgivable, given that Duarte Nursery does sell trees and vines. However, when it was discovered that they were planting wheat instead of an orchard or vineyard, the government should have dropped the case and left the Duartes in peace, his lawyers said.

Instead, the bureaucrats doubled down.

The government denied the Duartes a hearing to establish the facts, prompting them to sue the government for taking away their Fifth Amendment right to due process.

And the feds responded to the familys lawsuit with one against the family, for destruction of wetlands.

If the Duartes lose the suits, they will be force to pay $2.8 million in direct penalties, plus another $20-$30 million in additional mitigation to a private third-party organization, and they will lose the right to use their own land, according to Duartes statement.

So far, all the legal action taken against the Duartes has been by Obama administration officials.

Since the government side of the suit is now owned by the Trump administration, there may be hope that the government will drop the suit and leave the Duartes in peace.

EPA Director Scott Pruit has indicated sympathy with the Duartes, and members of Congress have petitioned Attorney General Jeff Sessions to drop the case against the California farmers.

President Trump has already directed that the EPA review the rules concerning what constitutes navigable waters under the Clean Water Act, which could lead to the case against the Duartes being thrown out anyway.

The government has been arguing that the exemptions granted for farming and plowing only apply if soil is not moved. Duarte said in his statement that he and other farmers have yet to understand how plowing can be done without moving soil.

If this unprecedented prosecution succeeds, it threatens nearly every farm in the United States, Duarte warned.

As well as suing for due process under the Fifth Amendment, the Duartes are arguing that the amount of fines being levied against them for simply plowing a wheat field violates the Eighth Amendments protections against cruel and unusual punishment. In addition, after a federal attorney said they are suing us so we are suing them back, the Duartes are suing the government for attempting to stifle their First Amendment right to free speech.

In June 2016, a judge sided with the federal government against the Duartes, saying they had indeed violated the Clean Water Act by plowing their wheat field. They have appealed the judges decision to throw out the First Amendment retaliation case to the Ninth Circuit Court, and the case will begin there on Aug. 15.

See Charlie Daniels in his latest starting role, in Revelation: Dawn of Global Government, which explains how America, Christianity and liberty all are being destroyed by the Trojan horse of globalism.

View original post here:
Obama-era rules jeopardize California farming - WND.com

A former Obama administration official who earlier this year acknowledged urging her D.C. contacts to leak dirt on President Trumps team returned to the spotlight Thursday using an appearance at a security forum to accuse the president of Kremlin tactics and openly question whether he owes the Russians money.

Evelyn Farkas, who left the Obama administration in 2015 after serving as a deputy assistant secretary of defense, spoke on a panel Thursday at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado. She took aim at Trump for past remarks that the United States, like Russia, has killed people too.

Thats very dangerous, Farkas said, accusing the president of adopting Kremlin tactics with that language of relativism.

President Donald Trump denied his company did business with Russia, during a New York Times interview this week. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

In February, Bill OReilly told Trump during a Fox News Channel interview that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a killer. Trump replied: There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers. Well, you think our country is so innocent?

On Thursday, Farkas floated a theory, without citing evidence, that the president may actually owe money to Russia, something that could be influencing his posture toward the government.

The influence these Russians have on him could be greater because of these business ties and because he may owe them money and of course the issue of his campaign manager and all the work he was doing and whether he was indebted to Russians or not, she said.

During an interview with the New York Times this week, the president denied his company did business with Russia. My finances are extremely good, my company is an unbelievably successful company, he said, according to the transcript. I dont do business with Russia.

Farkas got attention after a March interview on MSNBC when she said there had been a rush from Obama-era government officials to share information before President Trump took office.

I was urging my former colleagues, and frankly speaking, the people on the Hill get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration, because I had a fear that, somehow, that information would disappear with the senior people who left, she said.

Farkas added, Thats why you have the leaking, because people were worried.

OBAMA OFFICIALS PRESSURED BY FARKAS FOR MONTHS TO SPILL BEANS ON TRUMP-RUSSIA TIES

During her appearance at the Aspen Security Forum, Farkas offered criticism of former FBI Director James Comeys recent prediction that the Russians will again try to meddle in an American election.

It drives me crazy when former Director Comey says the Russians are coming back, Farkas said. They never left. Theyre still here, they still have all that information, theyre in our cyber and in our information sphere.

Fox News Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

The rest is here:
Ex-Obama official who urged anti-Trump 'leaking' lobs new ...

A U.S. official familiar with the case told Circa there are still holdovers within the State and Justice Departments who dont want to see the emails released, and are slow-rolling the process. But the report also said the presidents own Justice Department attorneys are citing diminished public interest in the emails, and that the president should demand the agencies abide.

According to Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, the FBI turned over to the State Department a new disk of emails belonging to Clinton aide Huma Abedin that were discovered on a laptop owned by her husband, Anthony Weiner.

State and Justice Department lawyers say they cant release them until they judge whether they are personal or government, and can be shared publicly. Fitton said there are apparently 7,000 emails on the laptop.

State Department spokeswoman Pooja Jhunjhunwala told Circa that the Department takes its records management responsibilities seriously and is working diligently to process FOIA requests and to balance the demands of the many requests we have received.

We are devoting significant resources to meeting our litigation obligations, she said.

Fitton argued they are moving too slowly. The State Department was ordered in November to process 500 pages per month, but he said it would take until 2020 for the bulk to be made public.

President Trump needs to direct his agencies to follow the the law but right now they are making a mockery of it by saying they wont finish releasing it until 2020, he said.

Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, released 448 pages of documents the State Department did turn over from Abedin last week. The group said the emails describe preferential treatment to major donors to the Clinton Foundation and political campaigns.

The documents included six Clinton email exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to at least 439 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department, and further contradicting a statement by Clinton that, as far as she knew, all of her government emails had been turned over to the State Department, the group said in a July 14 press release.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Link:
Report: Obama Holdovers Slow-Roll Release of Clinton Emails

"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible."

"Obama's complaints about Republicans stopping his agenda are BS since he had full control for two years. He can never take responsibility."

Those were president Trump's comments in 2012 and 2013 -- a far cry from his position on the GOP health care defeats yesterday and today, when he laid blame at the feet of both Democrats and some Republicans.

"It'll be a lot easier and I think we're probably in that position where we'll just let Obamacare fail," Trump said at the White House today. "We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it."

Earlier, he took his message to Twitter.

Several years ago, when the president was running his real estate empire and starring in his reality series, Trump appeared to have a different perspective.

White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked about this tweet during the White House briefing today, and said "no" when asked if Trump owned any of the blame in the bill stalling.

"The process of reforming health care is certainly not over, and we're going to continue to focus on reforming the health care system and putting one in place that isn't a failure like Obamacare," Sanders said.

Another one of Trump's past tweets also started circulating amid the change in the Republican approach to health care reform.

He also regularly tweeted thoughts on leadership.

In one message from August 2013, he quoted his own book: "'Leadership is perhaps the key to getting any job done.' The Art of The Deal."

And then shared another maxim about leadership from entrepreneur Stephen Covey, who wrote the book "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People."

View original post here:
Trump once decried Obama's leadership with control of ...

It'll take more than a bat to destroy Obamacare.

President Donald Trump may not like it, but he cant -- so far -- reverse two of President Barack Obamas signature accomplishments: the Affordable Care Act and the Iran nuclear deal. In one emblematic, frustrating day, Trump both saw the failure of the Senate bill to repeal and replace the ACA and was forced by his advisers to certify that Iran is in compliance with its nuclear obligations.

Trump ran against Obamacare and the Iran deal. Hes got a Republican Congress and unilateral legal authority on Iran. So why cant he act?

The answer is half the stickiness of past decisions in highly constraining political systems, and half Obamas self-conscious plans to entrench his most important accomplishments. Both are reminders that as president, Trump doesnt rule the U.S. or the world. Without Congress, he cant govern at home. Without foreign allies, he cant impose his will internationally.

The difficulty of putting together 50 Senate votes (plus the tiebreaker, Vice President Mike Pence) to repeal the ACA is, most notably, an object lesson in constitutional constraints derived from the separation of powers. In a parliamentary system, a prime minister with a majority can generally pass or repeal whatever legislation he or she chooses on the basis of party discipline. But the American presidential system denies the executive this sort of authority. By requiring a majority in both houses of Congress, it pushes the president to negotiate a compromise.

Thats particularly noteworthy because some critics have argued that the separation of powers only works the way the framers intended it when there are no political parties. Trumps failure to repeal the ACA thus far shows that even when the same party controls the presidency and Congress, internal divisions can be broad enough to block the president from passing favored legislation.

Put another way, its not an accident that the Republican Partys far-right wing and its most moderate members are the ones who balked on the repeal bill. Its a feature of a constitutional design that pushes legislation toward the center to get it enacted.

As for the Obama administration, it couldnt do anything about a future Republican Congress. But it did have the advantage of passing a law that was intended to confer benefits on citizens who would then be loath to give them up.

This was, for Democrats, an intentional part of the ACA. Obamas team hoped that it would be hard to repeal the ACA because it would be politically difficult to take away something that is already given. They were keenly aware of what behavioral psychologists and economists call the endowment effect, also called status quo bias. This is the notion that, rationally or not, people tend to value something more once they are in possession of it, and consequently dont want to give it up.

The Iran deal is proving to be just as sticky as Obamacare, albeit for international reasons rather than domestic ones. Here, too, the structure of politics matters. The sanctions against Iran that pressured it to make the deal in the first place werent just from the U.S. They were imposed by European allies, under intense lobbying pressure from the U.S.

As a result, the Iran deal, although the accomplishment of Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry, was in large measure and achievement of international coordination. The European countries were only too happy to sign on, because they never much cared about Irans nuclear ambitions in the first place. But their participation was nonetheless a necessary condition for the deal to take place.

Similarly, the U.S. cant effectively suspend the Iran deal without European buy-in -- which is never coming, and certainly not during a Trump administration. Without European agreement to reimpose sanctions on Iran, U.S. sanctions wouldnt have much bite.

Obama and Kerry knew perfectly well that a future Republican administration might want to reverse the deal. They faced tremendous opposition from Republican senators, and not a few Democrats. So they built in a rather brilliant or, if you prefer, devious entrenchment mechanism. If the U.S. says that Iran isnt complying, the European states can still take the view that it is, thereby refusing to reimpose their own sanctions.

Clear thinking from leading voices in business, economics, politics, foreign affairs, culture, and more.

Share the View

Whats more, they structured the deal so that if the U.S. decertified Iran, it loses its ability to do inspections that to some degree curtail Irans nuclear program. Thats why Trumps advisers have pressured him to certify that Iran is complying. Without that certification, the U.S. would have little leverage over Iran and no inspection capacity. In other words, the U.S. is better off certifying than not -- and that will remain the case so long as Europe has no intention of imposing sanctions.

Blocked from reversing Obamas signature initiatives by the Senate domestically and by Europe in foreign affairs, Trump will have to look elsewhere for a political agenda. Cutting taxes would be the natural next step. In theory, Trump should be less constrained here because neither entitlements nor allies are threatened.

But even tax cuts may turn out to be a bridge too far for a president with no prior political experience. The Republican Party still has budget hawks who think tax cuts have to come with spending cuts, and there are congressional rules limiting legislation that cant be paid for. That will bring Trump back to cutting something from somewhere -- and the game of entrenchment may begin again.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Noah Feldman at nfeldman7@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stacey Shick at sshick@bloomberg.net

Read the original post:
Trump Learns Just How Durable Obama's Policies Are