Category Archives: illegal

RADIO FREE BRAT: Cong. Brat Calls for the IMPEACHMENT of the IRS Commissioner!

While we in Hanover and New Kent are behind the lines, I will try to keep you informed – from a Brat campaign email:

Dear Elwood,

Last week, the Senate Finance Committee heard testimony from IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, who stunned members with his admission that the IRS looks the other way when illegal aliens use stolen social security numbers to file tax returns.

Mr. Koskinen stated that when people fraudulently use Social Security numbers to get a job, and then file taxes using their IRS-issued individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITIN), the IRS is only concerned whether taxes are paid — not about people in the U.S. illegally, committing identity fraud.

Oftentimes, the Social Security numbers are borrowed from friends with permission, he told the committee, and, although the IRS is aware that the tax returns contain false W-2 information, the IRS proceeds to process the returns normally. Incredibly, this highly placed federal official then went on to say that the agency does not even bother to notify the people whose social security numbers have been abused!

BUT Brat was on the case (cite:  PJ Media):

Brat sought to clarify comments Koskinen made in a recent Senate hearing about illegal immigrants using someone else’s Social Security number to work and an individual tax identification number to file a tax return.

***

“Should any agency go along with what it knows to be illegal activity?” Brat asked.

“Our responsibility is the administration of the tax code and it’s been made clear that not everybody who has an ITIN as it’s called is an illegal alien –for some reason they can’t get a Social Security number. And so the tax code is set up and our enforcement is that people who are earning money have an obligation to pay taxes, and we do everything we can to make sure they pay those taxes,” Koskinen said.

“To the extent that to get the employment they have borrowed or somehow gotten a Social Security number, that’s not a jurisdiction we have. In other words, our responsibility is to make sure they pay their taxes,” he added.

So Brat comes out this with:

Mr. Koskinen must be removed as head of the IRS

This admission by the IRS Commissioner is another example of why I and 62 other members of the House have signed on to a Resolution calling for Mr. Koskinen’s impeachment due to the repeated breach of his basic fiduciary duties.

I can understand the IRS’ dilemma but there must be a better way than placing people’s personal info at risk.  Cong. Brat is taking a bold stand.  Read my next post if you want to consider a protest at the polls about losing our beloved Representative.

 


Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

What Should Be the Response to the Panama Papers? NOTHING – the Use or Publication of the materials Potentially VIOLATES the Attorney-Client Privilege!

There is a fascinating article in the Orange County (CA) Register written by James Poulos about:

What GOP should do about Panama Papers

I have a modest proposal about that:  Nothing.  The Panana Papers are a gross violation of the most important legal privileges in existence – one that in most states does not end with the death of the client (see the litigation over the late DC Madam and her legal papers for example) in most states in the USA.

The attorney-client privilege is designed to ensure that the right to counsel is not a hollow promise.  No court can demand (subject to carefully crafted exceptions such as helping the client commit a present or future crime or defraud someone or knowing perjury) the attorney to “rat out” his client.  Even if the client admitted to a past crime.  Even willful murder.  Even where a body being found would provide closure to a grieving family.  The privilege wins.  Even if the client is deceased in most states.   You might as well repeal the Sixth Amendment right to counsel if there is no privilege.  The attorney must go to jail before disclosing privileged information.  The privilege is essential to a legal system consistent with due process.

BUT isn’t that what these off-shore accounts designed to do?  Evade taxes?  Maybe money laundering?  Not necessarily.  From the Orange County Register article:

In an unparalleled release of documents and data, the so-called Panama Papers have thrown open for public scrutiny the secretive world of offshore accounting – used in many instances by business interests with legitimate aims and traditional practices, but also by corrupt figures in public and private life trying to hide dirty money, launder cash, mask ill-gotten gains and often to evade various forms of taxation.  (emphasis added by me)

The leaker (even if the law firm did it) and/or the investigative reporters are not a court or other authority that can demand the law firm reveal illegality under the strict exceptions to the privilege.  No due process or privacy considerations for these clients.  Their private financial transactions are now public knowledge.

Instead those involved are at best purveyors of stolen and illegal information.  I am not even sure to what extent an attorney in the US could legally use this situation over the protests of the original client.  I wouldn’t touch it.  I would not use this information or any facts derived from anything found in the Panama Papers and the reporters, if they had any integrity would decline to do so as well.

But to the extent we as conservative/libertarians should comment on it, here’s what we must say:  Tax avoidance, as long as it is legal, is not tax evasion.  The President and the leading Democrat candidate for the White House both say some scary things:

Which brings us to the United States of America, where, so far, the Panama Papers have not made as big of a splash as abroad. But Democrats have seized on the opportunity to mount a relatively more populist case for tightening the screws on taxes. “There is no doubt that the problem of global tax avoidance generally is a huge problem,” said president Obama. “The problem is that a lot of this stuff is legal, not illegal.” He went so far as to say it shouldn’t be legal “to engage in transactions just to avoid taxes,” appealing to “the basic principle of making sure everyone pays their fair share.”

Hillary Clinton has mounted a similar response, vowing to ensure that nobody would be permitted to make off with the people’s money in her own administration. But this is a difficult development for her.  (Emphasis added by me, again!)

So we should not try to pay the least in taxes?  Isn’t it vaguely unpatriotic?  Seems ironic to say in early April of any year!  Compare and contrast President Obama with who might be the most scholarly (I would say learned but that would be a bad pun!) jurists never to sit on the United States Supreme Court:  Judge Billings Learned Hand of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the early part of the last century.  Here’s what Judge Hand said in judicial opinions about paying taxes:

#4  Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.

Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934)

#5  Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.Commissioner v. Newman, 159 F.2d 848, 851 (2d Cir. 1947) – dissenting opinion

The tax lawyer I got these quotes from [Andrew Mitchel] thanked Frank Santoro.  I thank both of them!

So our goal should be:  Let’s stand for financial liberty and privacy and to pay as little in taxes as legally possible!  And take my advice:  Protect the Attorney-Client Privilege!  Boycott the Panama Papers.  If there is no market for dubious goods, there will be fewer leaks.


Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Beware the Son of Magnitsky: Global Meddling at a Whim of Congress or the President! It MUST BE Stopped!

I just posted on the original Magnitsky Act, which was a gross meddling in the internal affairs of Russia and which named names and convicted those as human rights abusers.  It violates in my view the clear provision of the US Constitution that states as follows (Article I, Section 9):

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Congress cannot name names and then punish those alleged offenders or delegate that unconstitutional power to any President.  (I am well aware that some lower federal court precedent is against me on this but this question has not been clearly adjudicated by any US court!)

BUT, now we have the Son of Magnitsky:  The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. (This bill like many others introduced or passed such as the Affordable Care Act or the No Child Left Behind Act or the USA Patriot Act, is another example of another of Sandy’s Political Laws:  Bills with fancy names usually lie in the name or it is a propaganda cover for something bad – in this case both!

This is bad policy:  Who made US the arbiter of human rights accountability?  We are not just the policeman of the world, we’re now it’s judge and jury and will execute the sentence too!  It’s monstrous.

Here is the text of this monstrous act (passed by the Senate by unanimous consent) and below are a few highlights:

(1) FOREIGN PERSON.—The term “foreign person” means a person that is not a United States person.

(2) PERSON.—The term “person” means an individual or entity.

(3) UNITED STATES PERSON.—The term “United States person” means—

(A) a United States citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence to the United States; or

(B) an entity organized under the laws of the United States or of any jurisdiction within the United States, including a foreign branch of such an entity.

***

(a) In general.—The President may impose the sanctions described in subsection (b) with respect to any foreign person the President determines, based on credible evidence—

(1) is responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights committed against individuals in any foreign country who seek—

(A) to expose illegal activity carried out by government officials; or

(B) to obtain, exercise, defend, or promote internationally recognized human rights and freedoms, such as the freedoms of religion, expression, association, and assembly, and the rights to a fair trial and democratic elections;

(2) acted as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign person in a matter relating to an activity described in paragraph (1);

(3) is a government official, or a senior associate of such an official, that is responsible for, or complicit in, ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, acts of significant corruption, including the expropriation of private or public assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, bribery, or the facilitation or transfer of the proceeds of corruption to foreign jurisdictions; or

(4) has materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, an activity described in paragraph (3).

***

(1) INADMISSIBILITY TO UNITED STATES.—In the case of a foreign person who is an individual—

(A) ineligibility to receive a visa to enter the United States or to be admitted to the United States; or

(B) if the individual has been issued a visa or other documentation, revocation, in accordance with section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1201(i)), of the visa or other documentation.

(2) BLOCKING OF PROPERTY.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The blocking, in accordance with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), of all transactions in all property and interests in property of a foreign person if such property and interests in property are in the United States, come within the United States, or are or come within the possession or control of a United States person.

***

(c) Consideration of certain information in imposing sanctions.—In determining whether to impose sanctions under subsection (a), the President shall consider—

(1) information provided by the chairperson and ranking member of each of the appropriate congressional committees; and

(2) credible information obtained by other countries and nongovernmental organizations that monitor violations of human rights.

(d) Requests by chairperson and ranking member of appropriate congressional committees.—Not later than 120 days after receiving a written request from the chairperson and ranking member of one of the appropriate congressional committees with respect to whether a foreign person has engaged in an activity described in subsection (a), the President shall—

(1) determine if that person has engaged in such an activity; and

(2) submit a report to the chairperson and ranking member of that committee with respect to that determination that includes—

(A) a statement of whether or not the President imposed or intends to impose sanctions with respect to the person; and

(B) if the President imposed or intends to impose sanctions, a description of those sanctions.

***

(f) Enforcement of blocking of property.—A person that violates, attempts to violate, conspires to violate, or causes a violation of subsection (b)(2) or any regulation, license, or order issued to carry out subsection (b)(2) shall be subject to the penalties set forth in subsections (b) and (c) of section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705) to the same extent as a person that commits an unlawful act described in subsection (a) of that section.

***

(i) Identification of sanctionable foreign persons.—The Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs and other bureaus of the Department of State, as appropriate, is authorized to submit to the Secretary of State, for review and consideration, the names of foreign persons who may meet the criteria described in subsection (a).

***

(j) Appropriate congressional committees defined.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; and

(2) the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.

I am not sure where to start, there are so many things wrong with this law.  Let’s start with:

  • “[C]redible evidence” – who decides?  The President.  There is no criteria as to what is credible and no procedure to go to court to protest these personal sanctions.
  • The bad behaviors sound pretty severe at first BUT closer examination it could cover a broad brush:  “other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights committed against individuals in any foreign country…[against among other things, those who seek to] obtain, exercise, defend, or promote internationally recognized human rights and freedoms,…”  Who decides that?  The President, again.  (Subject to the provisions that authorize powerful politicians – chairpersons and ranking members of key committees – to recommend names to the President!)
  • The sanctions are the offenders cannot come into the US and any property they have in the US is “blocked” – seized perhaps and taken from them – without a trial!  Note that if the property comes into the hands of any US citizen or legal resident, it comes under this law.  Or a US bank.  Even abroad.  More paperwork at the least.  And even the foreign subsidiary of such a US bank.  It must be turned in by that person or entity to the Federal Government.  Or else…
  • It would be a new Federal crime to attempt to stop the or hinder the blocking of assets and a willful violation is a FELONY punishable by up to 20 years in prison!  That is not just a crime a foreigner can commit – only a foreigner can be sanctioned – but an American citizen can be convicted of helping the bad guy keep his or her (or its) property too!

This law will “legalize” the meddling in other nations’ internal matters that has been conducted by both parties:  Serbia was attacked without cause in 1999 by a Democrat President and numerous meddling (Iraq is one example) by the Republican (President Bush 41) President and then more meddling (Syria and Libya etc.) by the present Democrat in office now.  The parties are Tweedledee and Tweedledum on this question.

There will be blowback – maybe other nations will do the same to us – or try to.  The Russians responded to Magnitsky by blocking US adoptions of Russian children – even stopping pending legal actions!  (Putin was compared to Herod here in the US because it happened at Christmas 2012 BUT few blamed Congress for their initial meddling that started it!)

This article at the Hill states the law in summary and states why some think this is a better method than blanket sanctions:

In a recent Forbes article, Doug Bandow commented that, “Sanctions have become a tool of choice for Washington to coerce governments short of war. Yet severing commercial relations rarely has promoted America’s ends. Nothing obvious has been achieved in Sudan, where the U.S. stands alone.”

Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and at the Institute on Religion and Public Policy, rightly argues that blanket sanctions imposed on states do not achieve the ends intended. Instead, sanctions — particularly those imposed for human rights purposes — only serve to harm the general population of the country while the leadership remains both unchanged and unaffected.

Bandow is right of course as far as it goes.  But this law is worse, much worse.  It is unconstitutional and bad policy.  John Quincy Adams warned us against seeking monsters to slay abroad.  The American people must reject this law immediately by advising their House member to say NO.

Here is the general list of members of the House of Representatives.  I intend to advise my representative Dr. Dave Brat tonight when I see him about this foolish, unconstitutional and dangerous bill.


Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Sandy’s (Sort of) Live Blog of the Ted Cruz Rally in Mechanicsville! (PS: I Think Cruz is Right about Whether he Supported Legalization in ’13)

I tried to live blog from the Mechanicsville Ted Cruz rally at Life Church (right across the street from my church – Hope Community Church of the Nazarene!) but I could not find a Internet connection BUT my bloggers’ credentials were accepted and I got to see a real Presidential candidate press conference. I thought I recognized a few faces but I really was a tiny observer.

First I met Shak Hill (would have shaken his hand but I am fighting a cold) and he is impressive in how he carries himself. Glad to finally meet him.

I was ushered into a press conference and it was exciting.  Senator Cruz came in with Santa Claus and they bantered a bit and then Cruz made a short statement and took questions. He said the omnibus budget bill was a betrayal (I think that is the word he used.)

When he took questions, the place erupted for questions – I was a bit in awe – little ol’ blogger me at a presser for a Presidential candidate. I didn’t have a chance for a question.

There was a huge issue about whether Cruz stood for some sort of legalization of illegal immigrants and he denied it. He said that there was a one page amendment (I think I did find that amendment – it was 2013 after all.  Here is the potential amendment.) that said no illegal immigrant could become a citizen. The general tone of the press is that Cruz is wrong. But Cruz replied that [Senator Marco] Rubio was for amnesty and he is not – Cruz used this term:

Ted is telling the truth – Marco is not!

Nice phrase. Very effective.

Here is the text of the amendment I think the Texas senator was referring to:

SA 1323. Mr. CRUZ submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 744, to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 1076, strike line 20 and insert the following:

SEC. 2215. INELIGIBILITY FOR MEANS-BASED BENEFITS OF ALIENS ENTERING OR REMAINING IN UNITED STATES WHILE NOT IN LAWFUL STATUS.

Notwithstanding any provision of this Act or any other provision of law, any alien who, after entering or remaining in the United States while not in lawful status under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), was granted legal status under section 245B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by section 2101, including aliens described in section 245D(b)(1) of such Act, or blue card status under section 2211, regardless of the alien’s legal status at the time the alien applies for a benefit described in paragraph (1) or (2), shall not be eligible for–

(1) any Federal, State, or local government means-tested benefit; or

(2) any benefit under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148).

SEC. 2216. IMMIGRANT CATEGORIES INELIGIBLE FOR UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, aliens granted registered provisional immigrant status under section 245B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by section 2101, including aliens described in section 245D(b)(1) of such Act, and aliens granted blue card status under section 2211 are permanently ineligible to become naturalized citizens of the United States, except for aliens granted asylum pursuant to section 208 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1158).

It is difficult to be completely sure but I read this Cruz amendment as being anti-citizenship and not a positive authority for legalization of illegal status.  This amendment says if the illegal immigrants get legal status, they cannot be a citizen.  Ever.  And illegals cannot get welfare benefits or benefits under Obamacare.

Cruz also said Senators Mike Lee and Jeff Sessions agree with him on this question. Cruz accused the press of trying to start a “cage match” and the Establishment wants to divide the conservative voters so they win. But the conservatives are beginning to unite behind his campaign.

Can you win the general election, one reporter asked and Cruz said that millions of disaffected conservatives, Christians, and Reagan Democrats will return to the polls to vote for Cruz. He promised to stand for the ordinary lunch pail worker in places like Ohio and Michigan.

The senior pastor at Life Church made a short but fiery statement supporting the question: Why in a church? Because churches have been used since the beginning of American history for the cause of liberty.

The pastor then introduced former AG Ken Cuccinelli and Cuccinelli indicated his support for the candidate right here in Mechanicsville.

Cuccinelli introduced the senator and told some stories about him, one of whom was the sovereignty case (I cheered and others in the press around me did not like it) and I wrote about that here and another article here.  I got the blog to endorse Cruz for Senate from Texas [Ron Paul was not running!] way back then!

Cuccinelli also indicated he gave the maximum personal contribution to the Cruz campaign.

They are showing a video about the senator.  There is certainly some excitement in the hall for Cruz coming forward to speak. I do not think I will get to meet him. (Of course I met Governor Jindal and Mitt Romney and they lost so maybe I better not try! Cruz was on the other side and I can’t shake his hand anyway!)  [Blogger’s note: I DID meet Senator Cruz – did not shake his hand but got his autograph and spoke with him for a minute.  I also said hello to Cong. Brat, too!)

It took several minutes for Cruz to work his way through the crowd and now he is at the stage

He thanked Ken Cuccinelli for his support. Said he would have made a great governor. The people are still standing and Cruz just introduced Cong. Dave Brat who got a huge ovation (me too! The press corps may be hating me right now!) “Dave and I spent all morning in Washington, D.C., and we’re glad to be back in America!” Great laughter and applause.

Cruz started in on the Democrats: We have a wild-eyed socialist and we have Bernie Sanders!

The venue for the next Democratic debate: They’re holding it at Leavenworth – so Hillary will know it well! Tremendous applause and laughter for that line that I did not join – well I chuckled a bit!

Look forward to January 2017 – the first day of a Cruz Presidency – he promised a recession of every illegal, unconstitutional executive order from the Obama years

The second thing is to ask Justice to investigate Planned Parenthood and the horrible videos and to prosecute “any and all criminal conduct” found. Department of Justice should be beyond political reproach. Tremendous ovation!

Third: End religious discrimination in the US – specifying the military and the case against the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Fourth: Rip up the Iran nuclear deal! Huge applause for this. “Under NO circumstances will Iran ever acquire a nuclear weapon!”

Fifth: The US Embassy will be moved to Jerusalem. Tremendous applause – I joined in!

That’s Day One!

There are 365 days in a year, four years in a Presidential term and foru more years in another Cruz term.

We will repeal “every word” of Obamacare (I am for that but I am too busy writing!) and also instruct the Department of Education that “Common Core ends today!” And we will secure our borders and end sanctuary cities. 360 jurisdictions that are sanctuary cities will lose “every penny” of Federal aid, pass Kate’s Law and no more welfare for illegals.

We will rebuild our military and keep our promises ot every solder, sailor and Marines. Including the right to keep and bear arms by our military so the jihadists will get “the business end” of a firearm from a dozen Marines. The President will say the words: Radical Islamic Jihad and we will “utterly and completely destroy ISIS”

Will work to reform the EPA, the Consumer Protection agency and the “alphabet soup” of regulatory agencies so they do not kill jobs.

Will pass fundamental tax reform – a simple flat tax – “every American can fill out your taxes on a post card” and abolish the IRS! Convert the IRS employees to border patrol.

This is “basic common sense” – live within your means, don’t bankrupt your kids, a

It is 1979 all over again! Exact same countries – Russia and Iran – are threats again. No wonder Jimmy Carter likes what President Obama is doing! (A fair amount of ironic applause here) But Reagan came in and there was a renaissance of American opportunity.

I am optimistic! A wave of revival and renewal is sweeping this nation.

NYTimes says – Cruz cannot win – the DC elites despise Cruz! That is why I ran! Take back our nation! Cruz is wrapping up. Closed with this: Freedom is not an abstract concept – Cruz talks about his father – fought in the Cuban Revolution and was jailed by Batista and tortured. He was released and came to USA with $100 and started working for fifty cents a hour as a dishwasher. Today he is a pastor and tours the USA preaching the Gospel. This is a story – commonplace – some it is us, some is our parents and others long long ago but we all came from someone who gave up what he had for freedom and opportunity. Rafael Cruz said, “I had a place to go to (the USA) but we dare not lose our freedoms here! Nowhere else to go! Establish that shining city of a hill that is America! God bless America!

Some observations:  Yes I agreed with just about all of it; I am still of course for Jim Gilmore as long as he is in the race (he will very likely be on the Virginia ballot according to this report!) but I am very interested in Cruz.

 


Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Trump Bashing Cruz Supporters Can Dish It Out, but They Can’t Take It

While Ted Cruz has been mostly silent on criticism of Donald Trump, the same cannot be said about his supporters. There are a lot of people bashing Trump these days but none more vociferous than the Cruzers. And for the record, I am not blaming Cruz for the actions of his supporters.

And the Trump bashers seem to fall into 3 categories.

  • Ted Cruz supporters who are politically knowledgeable, conservative and, unfortunately far too willing to use spin and outright falsehoods to knock Trump down in order to build Cruz up. Many of these are people with whom I share a basic conservative political philosophy and usually find we are on the same team, supporting the same candidate. And I have no doubt that we shall align behind a candidate in the near future. So some of these attacks on my blog, Twitter and Facebook have been rather vicious and vitriolic, and most fail to mention Cruz at all. It takes some effort to draw them out and know their motive for the bashing. And I have been on the receiving end of this behavior for months. It is disappointing to see many of my friends take this tactic to build up their candidate by tearing down another with false information. It is reminiscent of the tactic Eric Cantor used to paint Dave Brat as a Liberal College Professor. And those spreading that lie refused to listen to reason and truth.
  • The RINO Establishment GOP, the Mainstream Media, RINO Blogs and Democrats. This is also a knowledgeable group who are willing to spread lies and make stuff up in a desperate effort to hold onto power. And Trump threatens this power because he will not play by their rules. And they know that. These are people who really do not care about America, just power.
  • The last category are the low information voters. Unlike the first two groups, these people are not trying to manipulate opinion, they are just reacting to what they hear and accept it without question.

And I get the appeal of Ted Cruz. If Donald Trump were not in the race, Cruz is the only other candidate I would consider supporting. Now I will vote for the Republican Candidate, whomever that may be, perhaps holding my nose again, but I wouldn’t waste my time campaigning for or working for any of the others outside of Trump or Cruz.

And one of the hardest things to do in politics is to back a different candidate than some of the allies you have found on other campaigns. It has happened to me many times over the years and I always intend to “reset” things after an election. We all find different things in different candidates and need to respect one another’s decisions when backing a candidate and make sure we don’t totally burn bridges. We will need each other in the future.

My disdain, contempt and distrust of the Establishment GOP, the big money fat cats that own the establishment politicians and the ruling class elitists is complete and eternal. These people are indistinguishable from the Socialists and Communists in the Democrat party and Ryan’s omnibus bill is absolute proof that the establishment Republicans are no more trustworthy than the Democrats. We worked hard to give these bastards a majority in the House and the Senate and, as usual, our efforts are rewarded with betrayal. And every time we have been betrayed my distrust and ire grows and the American people feel the same, judging by the rise of the outsiders in the polls. Trump, Cruz, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina are all manifestations of the traitorous nature of the Republican Establishment’s failure to live up to their promises. It also shows that the GOPe has lost the consent of the governed.

So when it comes down to picking a presidential candidate, I would say in addition to the 4 mentioned above, I would have to add Rand Paul as a possibility. So there were 5 possible candidates for someone looking for a non establishment “outsider” to pick from. Paul has been a horrible candidate and has never picked up steam. Carson and Fiorina have had their 15 minutes and were unable to get past the scrutiny.

Which leaves Trump and Cruz.

As I looked at these two candidates, Cruz has a very short history in the Senate, not unlike our current president. He has no executive experience and as I documented in a post yesterday Cruz offered an amendment to Rubio’s Gang of 8 Bill that would not grant a path to citizenship for illegals, but would provide them “green cards” so they could “come out of the shadows”. He claimed at the time that this was a good faith effort and a compromise that gave the Democrats what they publicly stated that they wanted. And now Cruz calls it a “poison pill” that was designed to show the hypocrisy of the Democrats. So either that is a lie, or he was not being truthful in 2013 about the amendment being a good faith effort. Not a lot was said about this until Donald Trump had the courage to be open and honest about the illegal alien problem. The American public has found Trump’s Politically Incorrect statements on illegal immigration to be what they were all thinking, but afraid to say.

Cruz supported TPA, the trade authority that gives Obama the authority to bypass the Senate on what are essentially treaties. Global Warming, Gun Control, who knows what else? Cruz was for this until public sentiment turned against it.

Cruz wife is a VP at Goldman Sachs. Big money corporations are the difference between big money RINO’s and Conservatives. Very scary money connection.

And I believe Cruz will face many, many legal challenges to be placed on the ballot, as I discussed in yesterday’s post linked above.

These are not B.S. claims, they are facts. We have very little to go on with the first term Senator, but I find these issues to be a pattern. And that is why I could not support Cruz.

And then there is Donald Trump.

I tell most people to disregard most of what you hear about Trump. It is spin, half truths and outright lies. Most of my friends write on Facebook or blog comments “How can you support Donald Trump because he supports …”. Fill in the blanks. And these type of statements are always taken completely out of context, mixed with other things Trump said, culled from 20 year old interviews and spun as if Donald Trump was a politician all his life. And it has been my experience that the Cruz supporters are the most prolific Trump bashers, at least with my statements and comments.

Just a few “for instances”. There are so many lies and distortions I could fill volumes.

Trump is Pro Choice. FALSE. Trump is pro life.

Trump is a Democrat. A Democrat plant. Best friends with Hillary. FALSE. Trump is a Republican. Where the confusion and half truths come in is that Trump was a businessman doing work in the deep blue Northeast. You donate to the people in charge. You mingle with the people in charge. You go to parties with those in charge and invite them to your parties. Schmoozing is the name of the game when you are a businessman. If Trump was a Republican Politician these things would be dis-qualifiers for me. But he did what he had to do to run a very successful business.

Trump is a bully. Trump is brash. Trump is outspoken. TRUE! Trump is a New Yorker. I spent a lot of time in New York in my life and I will admit the facade a lot of people living in The City adopt can be a put off. Loud. Braggadocios. Conceited. But if you think about it, all of these things are the opposite of Political Correctness. An acquired taste for sure. But I believe we need bold and loud to be heard above the spin, lies and deception. And does it work? Damn straight it does. The press hangs on every crude and outrageous statement. And all of these crude and outrageous statements are exactly what needs to be said and exactly what people are looking for. The normal flow for whatever “outrageous” statement Trump makes is:

  • The media reports the latest outrageous statement.
  • The media and the GOP sit around and talk about how this will be the one that finally sinks Trump
  • The people love the statement and cheer Trump for saying it.
  • Trump goes up in the polls.
  • His detractors sink because they are siding with political correctness.
  • His opponents finally adopt the same idea.

How many times we gotta do this before you get it?

Trump wants to shut down the internet. FALSE. Trump wants to control the Terrorists ability to use the internet to communicate and recruit.

Trump hates Muslims and wants to round them up and kill them and their families like Hitler. FALSE. These are two statements made at different times. Trump said let’s “pause” immigration from Muslim countries until we can get a handle on this. Pretty much an intelligent thing to do. Trump also said we need to stop worrying about collateral damage with airstrikes. These people use human shields, even their own family. The terrorists need to know if they kill us and our families, we will hunt them down, those that helped them and kill them. Right now, Obama is not giving the green light – often even buzzing ISIS convoys of oil carrying vehicles so the people will get out and run. They are selling oil for ISIS to fund terrorism. Blow them to Allah. Trump never proposed rounding up and indiscriminately killing Muslims here.

Trump will send blacks back to Africa. FALSE. And yes, I even heard this. I have no idea where this came from but I suspect it is something circulating on black radio. I would NEVER support someone with such a notion.

Trump is not a Conservative. Maybe. But then Eric Cantor always said he was a Conservative. He spoke eloquently of conservative principles and values. And the need for smaller government, lower taxes, bla, bla, bla.  So did John Boehner. And Mitch McConnell. In fact, pretty much all Republicans say this. And then they do the opposite. There are few exceptions to the fact that pretty much every Republican lies about being conservative. Dave Brat is one of those exceptions. And I do not know enough about Ted Cruz in his short time in the Senate to say he is not going to be the next Paul Ryan.

And I love the people that demand to know how Trump will build a wall, bring back jobs, kill ISIS and Make America Great Again.

Funny. No one asks Trump for his specific plans and details when he says he is going to build a great golden tower that will be the envy of the world. Or a hotel. Or golf course. They don’t ask. He lays down the vision and puts the right people in charge and it happens. No one doubts him. It happens.

So why doubt him on the wall, jobs, economy, etc.?

Many people try to look at things Trump said and did as a businessman and hang it around Trump’s neck as his current political policy. Trump could have eschewed any business dealings that were not 100% conservative, refused to use eminent domain and told Bill and Hillary to go to hell. But then he wouldn’t have a successful company. Someone else would have profited from the business he gave up. And he would probably be living an obscure life in a tri-level 4 bedroom in Hoboken.

So when you say Trump is not conservative, I don’t care. Neither are the rest of the Republicans once they get to DC.

When you say Trump supports this or does not support that, I don’t care.

We have been betrayed by the Republican Party time after time. I have reached the point that I do not believe most of them and don’t trust them either. So Trump supporters like me don’t worry about the minutia and litmus tests and playing those “gotcha” games of Trump said.

If Trump builds the wall and stops illegal immigration, brings back jobs that were sent overseas by our overly intrusive government rules and regulations, actually takes the fight to ISIS and other terrorist groups and understands that war is hell, then I will know America is turning around. When we make political correctness incorrect, I will know America is turning around.

I don’t give a rat’s butt at this point about eminent domain, 20 year old health care statements, donations to Democrats, spitting on the sidewalk or anything else. We are being over run by Terrorists and Illegals who likk us and take our jobs. They flaunt our laws and spit in our faves because we are weak. America is an exploited country. So to my Conservative friends who want to know why I support Trump and could care less about the minor stuff, it is the big stuff that is killing us.

Trump has brought up more major issues than all of the rest of the candidates combines.

Trump will be anything but business as usual. So while my conservative friends focus on their conservative checklist that will be tossed in the trash bin as soon as the swearing in is over, I am perfectly fine with Trump accomplishing the major tasks that has him sop far ahead of the pack. Once the country is safe and secure and prosperous, we can turn our attention to the Conservative Checklist.

And that is why Trump supporters are unwavering. We understand that while the rest of the candidates are fighting over insignificant issues and who supported amnesty and who didn’t, and counting angels on the head of a pin or pining for George Bush and apologizing to the Muslims who are killing us, Trump has his finger on the pulse of America. Jobs. Security. Prosperity.

So don’t believe most of what you hear about Trump. Look at the big picture.


Article written by: Tom White

Ted Cruz 2013 Pro Amnesty Support Amendment, Flip Flops, Comes Back to Bite Him!

This is huge, folks. It seems that “Conservative” Ted Cruz, the Canadian born presidential candidate billing himself as conservative has a history of being anything but a Conservative.

In fact, there really isn’t a dime’s difference between Cruz and RINO flavor du jour Marco Rubio when it comes to allowing millions of illegal immigrants. Both favor allowing the law breakers to not only remain in the United States, but Ted Cruz proposed an amendment in 2013 to grant the illegal aliens RPI Status and LPR status.

Registered Provisional Immigrant Status (RPI) is:

Under the comprehensive immigration reform legislation passed by the U.S. Senate in June 2013, Registered Provisional Immigrant status would allow immigrants living in the country illegally to remain here without fear of deportation or removal.

Immigrants who are in deportation or removal proceedings and are eligible to receive RPI must be given the opportunity to get it, according to the Senate’s bill.

And LPR is a lawful permanent resident (LPR) or “green card” recipient.

So, sneak across the borders and Ted Cruz has your back. You need not fear deportation under the Cruz Amendment.

One of my favorite excuses Cruz and his supporters are now claiming is that the amendment was a “poison pill”. However, in 2013 Cruz told The Washington Examiner’s Byron York one week after his amendment was voted down “My objective was not to kill immigration reform”.

Watch this 2013 video of Ted Cruz selling legal status for millions of immigrants:

 

We have become so accustomed to believing these Republicans who claim to be Conservatives only to go DC and stab us in the back with amnesty and support of the far left ideology. The Spending Bill that Paul Ryan is cramming through the House is a perfect example. Barack Obama gets everything he wants fully funded, foreigners will be ushered in freely and the debt will skyrocket.

Eric Cantor made the same “Conservative” claims on the campaign trail and was 100% for amnesty. Try as I might, hearing what Ted Cruz said in 2013 and then what he is trying to say now brings back the whole Cantor lie fest in my mind.

So we can say that Ted Cruz was for legalizing illegal immigrants before he was against it.

And in April of this year, Ted Cruz joined Paul Ryan (a real conservative, right?) in urging America to give Barack Obama expanded Trade Authority with the Trade Promotional Authority bill – also called Obama Trade.

Right Wisconsin wrote in April 2015:

“Fast Track” is on the congressional fast track.

With a deal between Congress and the White House complete, and the mark-up on a bill re-establishing presidential trade promotional authority (TPA) about to begin, Wisconsin’s own Congressman Paul Ryan and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz appear this morning in the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal to explain why this policy is so vital to the American economy.

The United States is making headway on two historic trade agreements, one with 11 countries on the Pacific Rim and another with America’s friends in Europe. These two agreements alone would mean greater access to a billion customers for American manufacturers, farmers and ranchers.

But before the U.S. can complete the agreements, Congress needs to strengthen the country’s bargaining position by establishing trade-promotion authority, also known as TPA, which is an arrangement between Congress and the president for negotiating and considering trade agreements. In short, TPA is what U.S. negotiators need to win a fair deal for the American worker.

And two months later, after his presidential campaign was in full swing, Cruz changed his mind and voted against the TPA.

So again, Ted Cruz was for TPA before he was against it.

So what happened in the two months between his Op Ed extolling the wondrous virtues of TPA and June when he turned against it?

I’ll tell you. The grassroots mobilized against a horrible bill. Pretty much the same thing that happened on Amnesty. Ted Cruz put his finger in the air and saw that the grassroots conservatives were against it. And on Amnesty and legalization, Donald Trump’s straight talk on the subject resonated with Americans – and Conservatives in particular. And Cruz saw the Conservative writing on the wall.

Folks, these flip flops concern me a great deal. Ted Cruz talks the talk, just like Cantor. And he has made a few good speeches. I love the one he call Mitch McConnell a liar on the Senate floor. Good stuff. But Cruz just blows with the wind. I see him as more of a follower than a leader. Leading from behind. He will jump on whichever side the popular Conservative opinion lands on.

He is a smart guy and talks the talk. But he hasn’t walked the walk.

And one of the most disturbing things I find in politics today is the fact that so many, most in fact, politicians are owned by the big money of Wall Street and the US Chamber of Commerce. And even if they get elected and are full of good intentions, the big money soon buys their votes and rewards them with campaign money so they can take it easy, knowing the money will be there when they need it.

And remember when Ted Cruz was trying to force Senators and Congressmen to buy health insurance without government subsidies? He shut down the government over that. Then it turned out that Cruz himself is not on Obamacare at all. He is on a Cadillac plan with Goldman Sachs, his wife’s employer where she works as a Vice President. Obamacare is good for thee, but not for me.

And speaking of big money buying politics, Cruz Senate campaign counts Goldman Sachs as one of their top contributors.

But the most troubling aspect of a Ted Cruz nomination is the fact that he was born in Canada. And yes, I have seen all of the opinions that he meets the legal definition of Natural Born Citizen. And I have also seen legal scholars who have come to the exact opposite conclusion. But the legal arguments have never been to the US Supreme Court which has made some pretty earth shattering far out decisions as the left wing ideology seems to permeate that body.

So the issue may have merit one way or the other, but there is no definitive answer to the question “Is Ted Cruz eligible for the presidency?”.  And the answer is, we simply don’t know yet.

But that is likely to make no difference as there is a great likelihood that a significant number of states and localities may simply decide Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen. And they will refuse to put him on the ballot should he be the nominee. And many on the left will look at that as payback for the “Birther” movement that is still going on. And one thing I learned is that there is no Constitutional entity other than the states that can remove a sitting president if it was found that he was not a Natural Born Citizen. The Constitution does not specifically give the duty and the authority of making that determination to SCOTUS. Congress, perhaps. But we are in uncharted territory here.

So let’s say Florida, with their wacky State Supreme Court that brought hanging chads and “voter intent” into the ballot box said no to Cruz. And Pennsylvania. And perhaps even Virginia.

Ahhh. A true Conservative dilemma. Do states have the right to decide who is a Natural Born Citizen as far as their state is concerned? The Constitution does not specifically grand the authority to the federal government. So would this be one of those powers granted to the states?

And who has standing to bring the suit? Like we saw with Obamacare, there is a possibility that the Supreme Court may not actually have any jurisdiction until actual harm can be proven. Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli made that argument over Obamacare and lost because no harm had been done until things went into effect.

So what if several states leave Cruz off the ballot? And SCOTUS refuses to hear the case, or rules it not “ripe” until after the election. What is the harm? Hillary won? SCOTUS cannot remove a duly elected President. Congress can impeach, but what would Hillary have done wrong in this? Nothing. So impeachment would have no cause.

I like what Cruz says. I have enough evidence to believe that he is no different from Cantor, Boehner, McConnell and Ryan. We don’t know what we don’t know about Cruz. I understand the appeal, I do not blame my friends and anyone who supports Cruz. But there are so many warning signs and potential ugly scenarios that are beyond the control of the voters that I simply cannot, in good conscience support this man.

And now that the media and Marco Rubio (Marco the RINO was a Jolly Happy soul) and others are going full bore against Cruz, can he withstand the scrutiny? I really don’t see Cruz supporters having a lot of options here. They wouldn’t go to Rubio or any of the RINO’s. Ben Carson is done, a smoking (coughing) pile of media rubble and Carly Fiorina is in the same boat. So many of Cruz’ supporters have spent a lot of time bashing Trump with falsehoods (no, Trump does not want to shut down the internet, he does not want to round up Muslims and put then in Hitler type Concentration camps, he is not best friends nor a conspiracy to get Hillary elected, he is not a racist, xenophobe, nativist, hater, or most of the other lies) so it will be hard for the bashers, probably impossible, to support Trump.

But I have a lot of issues with a Cruz nomination.

 


Article written by: Tom White

La Raza Backs Jeb! Slams Trump for English Language Patriotism

Just posted at Breitbart:

In a Spanish-language address, Bush declared, “El hombre no es conservador,” which–in English–translates to, “The man [i.e. Trump] is not conservative.”

Trump replied by asserting that if Bush wants to be a leader, “he should really set the example by speaking English while in the United States.”

Technically, becoming a U.S. citizen requires one to achieve English language proficiency. As such, when Bush delivers his attack message in Spanish, he is undermining one of the core tenets of American citizenship– albeit one that is already in tatters as one in five U.S. residents now speaks a language other than English while at home, according to a 2014 report.

Trump’s call for language patriotism, however, received a stinging rebuke from the ethnic advocacy group La Raza. “Every time Donald Trump opens his mouth he widens the gulf between the Republican Party and Latino voters. Today is no exception,” said La Raza spokesperson Lisa Navarrette.

La Raza–which endorsed Rubio’s signature legislation, the Senate Gang of Eight immigration bill–has advocated for a trio of policies that includes permanent toleration for illegal immigration, citizenship for illegal immigrants already residing in country, as well as substantial increases to the annual levels of immigration established by the federal government through green card allotments.

While La Raza has advocated for these policies, the group has never explained why it believes it would be beneficial to America to admit large number of immigrants who have political, economic, and cultural traditions that are vastly different than those of Americans.

Read the rest here.


Article written by: Tom White

Loser Cantor to help Loser Bush Lose

So now we know which of the dozen or more RINO’s the RINO Blogs will be supporting. Pay for Play. Look for the checks to start drifting to the RINO Blogs that are for sale to the highest bidder.

(Hint: That ain’t Va Right!)

I thought Walker might be the Corporate Owned candidate that all the RINO’s got behind (the Koch Brothers and Americans for Prosperity expect massive repayment from Walker for helping him fight off the recall elections in Wisconsin. And if he is elected, they will get it.) but with disgraced loser Eric Cantor being appointed to Jeb Bush’s campaign to slither his way on the ballot in Virginia, smart money says that the RINO Blogs will begin cashing checks and writing stories favorable to (Oh God not another) Bush. And of course with the Bush/Cantor checks comes the mandatory posts against the other candidates. Expect Trump to receive the most venom from the RINO Class blogbots because he is currently mopping the floor with Bush and the rest of the field. And we can expect the nativist/racist insults to be liberally sprinkled within the digital ink stream because Corporate Owned Politicians are under mandates to bring in as many illegal aliens for profit and exploitation as they can. Many of these illegal aliens replace American workers and other illegals end up as sex slaves for the enjoyment of the Corporate Owned Politicians and their masters. Remember the Acorn undercover videos that pretended to bring in under age girls from South America, right? They didn’t make that up. These are one example of the exploited illegal aliens that the amnesty advocates are enabling.

But Cantor falls into familiar territory with the Bush campaign. The Jebitch has been tooling around calling Trump a Liberal. Seems that he has already been getting advice from Cantor. As I remember it, Cantor lost to a “Liberal” college professor in a stunning upset.

Oh, I’m sure it will work out this time. After all, nothing wrong with trying the same tactics over and over again expecting different results, right?

But for those who worry about Cantor rearing his ugly head again in Virginia, I don’t think you have to worry. We didn’t see him back when he was supposed to be working for us.

And for the Cantor Zombies – here’s a reminder of the contempt real Americans have for you blind followers of the Corporate Owned Politicians:

I’m and Eric Cantor Zombie!


Article written by: Tom White

Governor Jim Gilmore got SEVEN Minutes on MSNBC Tuesday!

It’s great to hear my candidate, former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, on the video list – he got seven minutes or so on MSNBC in prime time and here it is!

I am pleased with the general tone of the interview.  Gilmore played to his strengths:  Taxes and Foreign Policy (fighting Terrorism) and he sounded presidential.  He has a tax plan, and he will examine the Iran deal but he is skeptical about it.  The former Virginia governor also spoke to the Middle East NATO idea.  We do need a coalition of the willing to fight ISIS; the Middle Easterners should do most of the fighting and Israel needs to stay out to preserve the coalition.  Again, presidential.

I would say – maybe some libertarian leaning GOP voters might have to look at Gilmore due to his stance on birthright citizenship.  I think at the end of the day he’s right.  But I get there in a different way.  And for different reasons.

The actual Amendment provision (I wrote a published scholarly legal article on a related question:  Did the Fourteenth Amendment repeal by implication the native-born requirement for President?  My answer is maybe yes [although I am not sure I like the implications of my research]) is:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

There is a huge loophole in the All Persons clause:  subject to the jurisdiction thereof.  The Native Americans on reservations were not subject to the jurisdiction under an ancient Supreme Court case and it took a 1924 federal law to change that. Kids of diplomats in the US DO NOT become citizens, either, for the same reason.

Could Congress say all children of illegal aliens are not citizens?  It is conceivable.  BUT I think it sets a bad precedent to give the government power to strip American-born persons of citizenship.  So I would oppose a law to change the birthright citizenship rule.  Ireland has a rule (I am told) that if an immigrant has a child in Ireland, the family can be deported – even the baby born in Ireland – subject to the baby being able to come back and ally for citizenship/residency when he or she turns 18.

So Gilmore is right in effect.  And I think he states the key issue when he says it is dangerous to tamper with this issue right now.  Again he shows leadership to stand up to those who would pander to the flavor of the day.  The former governor is worthy to be considered.  Let us hope Jim Gilmore will be in that debate September 16.  The nation needs to hear him.

 


Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

7th Planned Parenthood Video Shocker: Brain Harvested From Living Aborted Baby

This makes me sick to my stomach. The ghouls at Planned Parenthood use scissors to cut the face of a living baby to harvest the brain.

Heart breaking. Even worse, my tax dollars are funding this illegal activity.

The story is here.

Watch the video below and then go here to SIGN THE PETITION TO DEFUND THESE MONSTERS


Article written by: Tom White