Category Archives: country

I’ll Never Say “Never Trump” by Waverly Woods

Houston, “we have an umpire problem,” all right. It’s from top to bottom and everywhere in between.

By Waverly Woods

Even though I am a Cruz supporter and candidate for delegate to the RNC Convention in Ohio, I would support Donald Trump if he should become our nominee. As someone who has been a Tea Party leader for 5 years, I know how grassroots activists feel and why so many are divided between the Cruz and Trump campaigns.

All are disgusted with how the Republican Party is run and the representation from elected officials with an R following their names. Both sides want our country restored. Both feel their voices have not been heard. They want to know where the accountability is.

The Republican Party just doesn’t get it.

We all believe the system is rigged and what “We The People” choose is being ignored. We continue to vote for those candidates we think represent our principles and values, but when the candidate gets in office and start drinking the Kool-Aid, they do the exact opposite of what they campaigned on.

Everyone should be aware of their representatives’ voting histories. Why send the same legislators back to do the same job? People have had enough! They are now ready to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.

Trump supporters see him as a disrupter; someone who doesn’t need the Party Elite and can’t be controlled. Trumpsters want him to burn it to the ground, taking down all the RINOs at once.  Cruz supporters see him standing up to people like McConnell and Reid (one and the same). Yet Cruz may salvage what’s left of our Constitution without all the destruction.

So how did we get here? How did we become so deceived?

It’s about the process. People don’t understand the process: how candidates are selected. In Virginia we only had conventions until 2000. That process hasn’t changed, but the addition of the primary confused everyone. This presidential race is a perfect example of how useless primaries are and how they are a total waste of the taxpayers’ dollars. The nomination will be decided not by primary votes, but at the Republican National Convention, just like it always has been.

What the “Party” really doesn’t want you to know… is how to work the same system in your favor.

Oh, they’ll post the Official Calls and the Party Plan, but you are left to figure it out from there. It’s more than just showing up. It’s anticipating how the rules and Party Plan are manipulated.   The “keep it small and control it all” group are banking on you staying home, being too lazy to get involved, and not wanting the confrontation.

Now, more than ever, is the time to engage in how your country is being run. It’s time to take our country back by starting with our Party. How can we “Stop the Washington Cartel” or “Make America Great Again” if we can’t even restore the integrity of our own Republican Party? Do we actually believe in the Creed?

We Believe,

That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice,

That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice, and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society,

That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government,

That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing Constitutional limitations,

That peace is best preserved through a strong national defense, That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers is essential to the moral fiber of the Nation.

This isn’t just an idea or a passing thought, it’s our creed. Do we want to hold the “R’s” accountable to it or not? When we see a Party Chairman conducting himself like some out-of-control narcissistic tyrant, should we sweep it under the rug?

I say, HELL NO! The ugly fact of the matter is that this behavior is so common that it’s perceived as business as usual.

Houston, “we have an ‘umpire’ problem,” all right. It’s from top to bottom and everywhere in between.

The shenanigans are rampant throughout Virginia. It is pathetic to watch elected officials combine forces against the very people they serve in an attempt to control everything. This is either “slating” you out of your vote, or abusing the power of their office to control election outcomes in their favor. Then they come back and ask for you to vote for them again. Huh?! That’s a lot of nerve and arrogance. Moreover, it’s a lot of disrespect to the people who should matter the most.

Don’t be a part of the problem by staying home. Be a part of the solution by engaging. That’ll really tick them off! Watch and the Federal Election Commission to see where the money comes from for each incumbent (and who really owns them). Engage in the convention process and watch how many politicians call you on the phone and want to meet with you. You won’t get that in a primary. This is the absolute best way to force the will of the people and hold our elected officials accountable to everyone they serve.

Article written by: Tom White

A Trump Presidency will be like Formatting and Reloading America’s Hard Drive

I admit it. I am a geek. I work (among other things) as a full time IT Manager.

I was also an early supporter of Donald Trump as soon as he began to lay out his plan and vision for the nation. And while some of my friends swooned for Ted Cruz, I am still a die hard Trump supporter. And I have been hit with all of the insults, the questions, the “Trump is this or he is not that” lines over and over. I have blocked friends on Facebook and they have blocked me.

But the question I get the most is “Why?” Why do I support Donald Trump?

He isn’t Conservative, they say. He gave money to Hillary. He is anti-gun (only he isn’t).

And I have written several blog posts including Trump Doesn’t Have to be Conservative, Humble or Polite to Fix America that has been read almost 70,000 times since I wrote it a couple of months ago. And all of that is still true. Trump supporters are scolded over and over that Trump isn’t “presidential”. And one truth comes through and frustrates those who are hounding us over and over. We don’t care. (And you know the worst of the worst are the Cruz supporters.)

But it is more than “we don’t care”. It is precisely because he is nothing like the other candidates that appeals to us.

We were subjected to one of the, if not the, largest field of candidates in the history of the nation. You would think that out of all of those people – 17 in all I think – that everyone would find at least a few to their liking. For me, it came down to just two. Cruz and Trump.

And as I listened to both candidates and read gobs of stories and polls about these two, I watched my Conservative friends form a “Y” and it seems half went to Trump and half went to Cruz. And the aggressive interactions, particularly on Facebook, have been legend. In a bad way for Conservative grassroots unity. The Grand Canyon is just a ditch compared to the chasms between the Trump and the Cruz supporters.

And I have talked to a lot of Trump supporters and others that are supporting someone else – or no one at all yet. And the ones that can’t get with the Cruz camp all seem to have a gut feeling about Cruz. There is something fake that I can’t exactly put my finger on about the guy. I am both a Conservative and a Christian and mt Conservative Christian friends that support Cruz demand that I dump Trump because of his infidelities, his Democrat support, or whatever. But to me, Ted Cruz is more Jesus Freak than Conservative. And worse, I don’t get the feeling he is sincere. Same feeling I always had with the TV Evangelists like Jimmy Swaggart. I am not writing this to offend, just to explain what many of us feel.

And then there is Trump. His blustery speeches, his attack, attack, attack persona, his larger than life personality all draw people to him. People like me that are so tired of the “Presidents” that act what we now accept as “presidential”. And the “spirit of bipartisanship” that has bankrupted America. And in Washington, the two party system has essentially merged into one. I believe by design.

One would think that the far left wing Democrat Charlie Rangle would be only too happy to see the Republican Party collapse and disband leaving the Nation with only Progressive Democrats to run the nation into the ground. But Rangle said something the other day that floored me. And it confirmed everything I believe about the people running the country.

He said:

“My concern is the destruction or the imploding of the Republican Party,” he said, Breitbart reported. “They’re so torn apart and as partisan as I am, I really think the salvation of this republic is the two-party system. Democrats need another party in order for people like me to see what we think is best.”
Wow! Charlie Rangle fears America losing the two party system. You know why? The parties take turns raping an pillaging the country. And when the voters have had enough, they throw out the party in power and elect the other party. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Over and over again.
And that’s how we get to $19 trillion in debt.
If we only had a Conservative. Which is what they said “W” was. Or in Virginia, Bob McDonnell. We have been electing Conservatives who suddenly find their Progressive mojo as soon as the election is over. The problem is, we always elect insiders. Cruz likes to call himself an outsider, but both he and his wife have been big time insiders most of their adult lives. Not so much in an elected capacity, but in the back rooms where the real deals happen.
So the past couple of days I have been working on a server to allow access behind out corporate firewall. Not to get too geeky on you here, but I have tried a couple of flavors of Linux and finally settled on Centos. Then the question was, which version. I have loaded, configured and tested about a half dozen versions and releases of Linux and pulled my hair out trying to get it working the way I want. And I’m still not there yet, but I have the platform figured out. Only I think I will have to format and reload Centos again tomorrow.
One of the things I do often is eradicate viruses and malware from my user’s machines. And I pride myself in being able to clean them without the need to reformat and reload the system from scratch. But every once in a while, it simply becomes futile trying to fix the computer when it reaches the point of no return. Adware or malware can do damage and it eventually becomes irreparable.
Isn’t that what we have done with the government, over and over? Cleaned it, took out the bad malware and tried to continue. And you never really seem to get the bad stuff out. At best, you get it limping along until it crashes again. You don’t throw out the computer. The memory, hard drive and motherboard is fine. You just need to reload the thing and start over.
And that is what we need in America. Remember when you first got your computer? Remember when Americans took pride in their country? We have reached the point that America is all gummed up with special interests, money and life long establishment bureaucrats who pretend things are humming along, but we all know better.
We don’t need to throw out the Constitution and our core values. We just need to format the drive and reload the operating system.
Now that is not going to happen with Ted Cruz and it sure as hell won’t happen with John Kasich. The only one talking about reloading America is Donald Trump.
So if you ask me why I support Trump with all his warts and moles, that’s why. We need to format and reload to fix America. Tinkering will not work at this point. We are too far gone.
Control. Alt. Delete.

Article written by: Tom White

My Answer to the Thoughtful Post on the Magnitsky Act

Anonymous wrote this as a comment to my recent post on Trump and the original Magnitsky Act and I think it deserves a thorough response:

I don’t think there is any due process burden on statements of condemnation. Saying the Magnitsky Act is an unconstitutional bill of attainder I think is wrong. Firstly, the implicated are foreign nationals, it does not pass guilt nor does it create any sort of mechanism for actually trying or sentencing these individuals. It is the United States Congress formally condemning individuals of suspected crimes. The only punishment it does provide is excluding these individuals from entering the U.S. or using U.S. banks. Sandy, do you think foreign nationals have any kind of meaningful right to enter the country or use banks under the Constitution (why I also think the statements that the visa-waiver restrictions we’re implementing or limitations of immigration from certain nations being unconstitutional are inaccurate).

Do you think we need to charge Kim Jong Un for being a brutal despot in a U.S. federal court in order to continue sanctions against the North Koreans?

I think it’s pretty evident that Putin has a history of illiberal rigging of democracy within his own country. The argument that “we’ve manipulated in other countries” doesn’t seem particularly persuasive to me. I don’t think its unreasonable to say what you do to your own citizens and your own people is a reflection of the type of principles you hold. We don’t – as much as our Left-wing “comrades” might believe – an overriding obligation to people who are not citizens or do not live in this country. But we do have one to Americans. If the government were assassinating Americans or rigging American elections, that would be a problem. And further if people in charge of that rigging called a foreign election candidate “strong” or “trustworthy”, I would rightly be suspicious if I was a citizen of that country of this candidate.

Anonymous says the Magnitsky Act is not a bill of attainder.  It only says you can’t visit the US and use our banks.  And even if it is a Bill of Attainder, this constitutional protection does not (and neither do most other provisions) apply to foreigners.

A bill of attainder was a act of the British Parliament that tried and punished officials for dereliction of duty and other crimes.  Let’s go the the Heritage Guide to the US Constitution (That’s right: Heritage as in the Heritage Foundation) for a more detailed treatment of this clause:

In common law, bills of attainder were legislative acts that, without trial, condemned specifically designated persons or groups to death. Bills of attainder also required the “corruption of blood”; that is, they denied to the condemned’s heirs the right to inherit his estate. Bills of pains and penalties, in contrast, singled out designated persons or groups for punishment less than death, such as banishment or disenfranchisement. Many states had enacted both kinds of statutes after the Revolution.

The United States Supreme Court seems to have had a more expansive view of the Clause (starting in the middle of a paragraph for that first one):

Beginning with Chief Justice John Marshall, however, the Supreme Court has insisted that “a Bill of Attainder may affect the life of an individual, or may confiscate his property, or may do both.” Fletcher v. Peck (1810).

Marshall and his successors saw the Bill of Attainder Clause as an element of the separation of powers. As the decisions of the Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803) and United States v. Klein (1871) made clear, only a court can hold a trial, evaluate the evidence, and determine the merits of the claim or accusation. The Constitution forbade the Congress from “exercis[ing] the power and office of judge.” Cummings v. Missouri (1867). In United States v. Brown (1965), the Court specifically rejected a “narrow historical approach” to the clauses and characterized the Framers’ purpose as to prohibit “legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or groups.”

Those cases, although they do not admittedly apply to foreigners, do sound absolute to me in practice.  Congress cannot try a person (except for impeachment or contempt of Congress) and then punish that person.  The Magnitsky Act does exactly that:  First accusing individual Russians of involvement in torture and murder and then human rights violations in general.  That is a serious charge to make.

And there is no trial.  None of the accused Russians were allowed to try to prove their innocence or to present any evidence at all.  No court or jury decided they helped torture or kill Magnitsky – or other human rights violations.  Congress (or actually the President, under Congressional authority) decides they are guilty.

There is punishment:  These persons cannot visit the USA and any property or money they may have can be confiscated.

This cite [Here] is the entire text of the Magnitsky Act.  [Blogger’s note:  The act is Title or portion four of a larger bill]

The act reads at first like an indictment:


    (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
            (1) The United States aspires to a mutually beneficial 
        relationship with the Russian Federation based on respect for 
        human rights and the rule of law, and supports the people of the 
        Russian Federation in their efforts to realize their full 
        economic potential and to advance democracy, human rights, and 
        the rule of law.
            (2) The Russian Federation--
                    (A) is a member of the United Nations, the 
                Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, 
                the Council of Europe, and the International Monetary 
                    (B) has ratified the Convention against Torture and 
                Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 
                Punishment, the International Covenant on Civil and 
                Political Rights, and the United Nations Convention 
                against Corruption; and
                    (C) is bound by the legal obligations set forth in 
                the European Convention on Human Rights.
            (3) States voluntarily commit themselves to respect 
        obligations and responsibilities through the adoption of 
        international agreements and treaties, which must be observed in 
        good faith in order to maintain the stability of the 
        international order. Human rights are an integral part of 
        international law, and lie at the foundation of the 
        international order. The protection of human rights, therefore, 
        particularly in the case of a country that has incurred 
        obligations to protect human rights under an international 
        agreement to which it is a party, is not left exclusively to the 
        internal affairs of that country.
            (4) Good governance and anti-corruption measures are 
        instrumental in the protection of human rights and in achieving

[[Page 126 STAT. 1503]]

        sustainable economic growth, which benefits both the people of 
        the Russian Federation and the international community through 
        the creation of open and transparent markets.
            (5) Systemic corruption erodes trust and confidence in 
        democratic institutions, the rule of law, and human rights 
        protections. This is the case when public officials are allowed 
        to abuse their authority with impunity for political or 
        financial gains in collusion with private entities.
            (6) The Russian nongovernmental organization INDEM has 
        estimated that bribes by individuals and businesses in the 
        Russian Federation amount to hundreds of billions of dollars a 
        year, an increasing share of the country's gross domestic 
            (7) Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky died on November 16, 2009, 
        at the age of 37, in Matrosskaya Tishina Prison in Moscow, 
        Russia, and is survived by a mother, a wife, and 2 sons.
            (8) On July 6, 2011, Russian President Dimitry Medvedev's 
        Human Rights Council announced the results of its independent 
        investigation into the death of Sergei Magnitsky. The Human 
        Rights Council concluded that Sergei Magnitsky's arrest and 
        detention was illegal; he was denied access to justice by the 
        courts and prosecutors of the Russian Federation; he was 
        investigated by the same law enforcement officers whom he had 
        accused of stealing Hermitage Fund companies and illegally 
        obtaining a fraudulent $230,000,000 tax refund; he was denied 
        necessary medical care in custody; he was beaten by 8 guards 
        with rubber batons on the last day of his life; and the 
        ambulance crew that was called to treat him as he was dying was 
        deliberately kept outside of his cell for one hour and 18 
        minutes until he was dead. The report of the Human Rights 
        Council also states the officials falsified their accounts of 
        what happened to Sergei Magnitsky and, 18 months after his 
        death, no officials had been brought to trial for his false 
        arrest or the crime he uncovered. The impunity continued in 
        April 2012, when Russian authorities dropped criminal charges 
        against Larisa Litvinova, the head doctor at the prison where 
        Magnitsky died.
            (9) The systematic abuse of Sergei Magnitsky, including his 
        repressive arrest and torture in custody by officers of the 
        Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation that Mr. 
        Magnitsky had implicated in the embezzlement of funds from the 
        Russian Treasury and the misappropriation of 3 companies from 
        his client, Hermitage Capital Management, reflects how deeply 
        the protection of human rights is affected by corruption.
            (10) The politically motivated nature of the persecution of 
        Mr. Magnitsky is demonstrated by--
                    (A) the denial by all state bodies of the Russian 
                Federation of any justice or legal remedies to Mr. 
                Magnitsky during the nearly 12 full months he was kept 
                without trial in detention; and
                    (B) the impunity since his death of state officials 
                he testified against for their involvement in corruption 
                and the carrying out of his repressive persecution.
            (11) The Public Oversight Commission of the City of Moscow 
        for the Control of the Observance of Human Rights in Places of 
        Forced Detention, an organization empowered by

[[Page 126 STAT. 1504]]

        Russian law to independently monitor prison conditions, 
        concluded on December 29, 2009, ``A man who is kept in custody 
        and is being detained is not capable of using all the necessary 
        means to protect either his life or his health. This is a 
        responsibility of a state which holds him captive. Therefore, 
        the case of Sergei Magnitsky can be described as a breach of the 
        right to life. The members of the civic supervisory commission 
        have reached the conclusion that Magnitsky had been experiencing 
        both psychological and physical pressure in custody, and the 
        conditions in some of the wards of Butyrka can be justifiably 
        called torturous. The people responsible for this must be 
            (12) Sergei Magnitsky's experience, while particularly 
        illustrative of the negative effects of official corruption on 
        the rights of an individual citizen, appears to be emblematic of 
        a broader pattern of disregard for the numerous domestic and 
        international human rights commitments of the Russian Federation 
        and impunity for those who violate basic human rights and 
            (13) The second trial, verdict, and sentence against former 
        Yukos executives Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev evoke 
        serious concerns about the right to a fair trial and the 
        independence of the judiciary in the Russian Federation. The 
        lack of credible charges, intimidation of witnesses, violations 
        of due process and procedural norms, falsification or 
        withholding of documents, denial of attorney-client privilege, 
        and illegal detention in the Yukos case are highly troubling. 
        The Council of Europe, Freedom House, and Amnesty International, 
        among others, have concluded that they were charged and 
        imprisoned in a process that did not follow the rule of law and 
        was politically influenced. Furthermore, senior officials of the 
        Government of the Russian Federation, including First Deputy 
        Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov, have acknowledged that the arrest 
        and imprisonment of Khodorkovsky were politically motivated.
            (14) According to Freedom House's 2011 report entitled ``The 
        Perpetual Battle: Corruption in the Former Soviet Union and the 
        New EU Members'', ``[t]he highly publicized cases of Sergei 
        Magnitsky, a 37-year-old lawyer who died in pretrial detention 
        in November 2009 after exposing a multimillion-dollar fraud 
        against the Russian taxpayer, and Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the 
        jailed business magnate and regime critic who was sentenced at 
        the end of 2010 to remain in prison through 2017, put an 
        international spotlight on the Russian state's contempt for the 
        rule of law * * *. By silencing influential and accomplished 
        figures such as Khodorkovsky and Magnitsky, the Russian 
        authorities have made it abundantly clear that anyone in Russia 
        can be silenced.''.
            (15) The tragic and unresolved murders of Nustap 
        Abdurakhmanov, Maksharip Aushev, Natalya Estemirova, Akhmed 
        Hadjimagomedov, Umar Israilov, Paul Klebnikov, Anna 
        Politkovskaya, Saihadji Saihadjiev, and Magomed Y. Yevloyev, the 
        death in custody of Vera Trifonova, the disappearances of 
        Mokhmadsalakh Masaev and Said-Saleh Ibragimov, the torture of 
        Ali Israilov and Islam Umarpashaev, the near-fatal beatings of 
        Mikhail Beketov, Oleg Kashin, Arkadiy Lander, and Mikhail 
        Vinyukov, and the harsh and ongoing

[[Page 126 STAT. 1505]]

        imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Alexei Kozlov, Platon 
        Lebedev, and Fyodor Mikheev further illustrate the grave danger 
        of exposing the wrongdoing of officials of the Government of the 
        Russian Federation, including Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, or 
        of seeking to obtain, exercise, defend, or promote 
        internationally recognized human rights and freedoms.

    (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that the United 
States should continue to strongly support, and provide assistance to, 
the efforts of the Russian people to establish a vibrant democratic 
political system that respects individual liberties and human rights, 
including by enhancing the provision of objective information through 
all relevant media, such as Radio Liberty and the internet. The Russian 
Government's suppression of dissent and political opposition, the 
limitations it has imposed on civil society and independent media, and 
the deterioration of economic and political freedom inside Russia are of 
profound concern to the United States Government and to the American 

Then this act authorizes the President to submit a last of names of all those involved in the alleged torture and murder of Sergei Magnitsky.  Those named can only appeal to him or the Secretary of State to be removed from the list.  And they are punished with more than just “cannot visit the US” – they can have US-held property seized and frozen:

(a) <<NOTE: President.>>  Freezing of Assets.--
            (1) In general.--The President shall exercise all powers 
        granted by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 
        U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (except that the requirements of section 
        202 of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1701) shall not apply) to the extent 
        necessary to freeze and prohibit all transactions in all 
        property and interests in property of a person who is on the 
        list required by section 404(a) of this Act 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.
            (2) <<NOTE: Determination.>>  Exception.--Paragraph (1) 
        shall not apply to persons included on the classified annex 
        under section 404(c)(2) if the President determines that such an 
        exception is vital for the national security interests of the 
        United States.

This is trial and punishment authorized by Congress and implemented by the Executive Branch.  I contend it is immoral, violates due process, is unconstitutional and may violate international law.

And US banks MUST comply:

        Requirements <<NOTE: Deadline. Regulations. Certification.>>  
        for financial institutions.--Not later than 120 days after the 
        date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury 
        shall prescribe or amend regulations as needed to require each 
        financial institution that is a United States person and has 
        within its possession or control assets that are property or 
        interests in property of a person who is on the list required by 
        section 404(a) if such property and interests in property are in 
        the United States to certify to the Secretary that, to the best 
        of the knowledge of the financial institution, the financial 
        institution has frozen all

[[Page 126 STAT. 1509]]

        assets within the possession or control of the financial 
        institution that are required to be frozen pursuant to 
        subsection (a).

The definition of US bank is broad:

(4) United states person.--The term ``United States person'' 
                    (A) a United States citizen or an alien lawfully 
                admitted for permanent residence to the United States; 
                    (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.

So, Anonymous and my readers, is this accusation, conviction and punishment without trial or evidence taken?

Many Americans I am afraid adhere to the Lindsey Graham and Jethro Gibbs school of jurisprudence that contends that foreigners have few if any rights under US law.  But that is not true.  Foreigners have plenty of rights under US law.

Placing economic sanctions against an entire nation like North Korea is not the same as targeted sanctions against individuals and does not apply to this analysis.

I did not fully understand the final paragraph and I think Anonymous was saying be careful of a presidential candidate that a foreign leader praises with intent to influence an election.  He’s right.  But we do judge the efficacy of foreign elections and leaders regularly and publicly.  Some things ought to be left private for negotiations and discussions.  And we ought not condemn others without trial for human rights violations; if we intend to judge others in other nations, let’s make sure our own house is in order.

Some might say, but Sandy, targeted economic sanctions are more moral than blanket ones.  I agree.  BUT it has to be done right.  I would target as a sanction items that are directly relevant to the bad behavior (computer software to Iran for example) but not try to destroy economies and systems or encourage rebellion.  The United States is too eager to enact economic sanctions against a whole host of nations.  Now all lawful sanctions must be obeyed as the law of the land.  But we ought to curb most if not all of the sanction regimes we have.

The Magnitsky Act in particular ought to be repealed and replaced with an apology to Russia.  Our President is good at the apologizing game.  He would be perfect for the job.



Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

I Urge My Readers to Ponder This When Considering the Muslim Question

I hope all of us will try to find opportunities to reassure Muslims in this country that we are ashamed of and completely disavow the recent widely publicized statements proposing that Muslims should be treated differently from other people.

My friend who lives next door is from Bosnia. He was among the Bosnians who became encircled by the Serbian army in 1995 and fled for their lives. For six days, from Srebrenica to Tuzla the Serbian army tried to kill them by virtually all means available as they desperately tried to walk the 70 miles to a refugee camp in a safe area guarded by UN forces, including U.S. Marines. Of the 15,000 men who set off back then, only 3,500 made it through Serb lines

At times, with difficulty, my friend has talked with me some about that horrible ordeal. After recounting some of the horrors of their desperate flight, and the anguish of the people unavoidably left behind to face certain death, my friend, with a mixture of tears and joy on his face, looked up at me and said, “At last, when we saw a U.S. Marine, we knew we were safe.”

Earlier this year, my friend worked hard to pass the written test to become a U.S. citizen.

My friend loves this country passionately. He works hard. He is a wonderful friend and neighbor, a good man. He embraces and adheres to “American values” more fully than lots of folks I know who were born in this country.

My friend is a Muslim.

I keep hearing the anti-Muslim talk on the news, and every time I hear it I cringe, I wonder and worry, What do people like my friend think? How is this affecting them?

From time to time, I raise these questions with him.

Last night I stopped by, and my friend said for the most part, he ignores such talk and he knows that is not what most people in this country think.

At one point, though, he said, “The only thing, though, is when they talk about Islamic terrorists, that hurts me. Because these killers are not Islamic. That’s not Islam. That’s not my faith. These people are crazy killers. They are not Islam.”

Right after he said that, right after I decried and condemned the kinds of things that are being said by some folks and said how much I wish those things were not being said, I got a Lesson in Democracy and American Values.

My friend looked at me and said, “But Roger, you have to accept that people can say these things. This is America. We have freedom of speech here in our country.”

It was a wonderful and profound Lesson in Democracy and American Values.

Nevertheless, I am deeply saddened by the hurt and damage that is being caused by the recent comments and proposals that would single out Muslims for different treatment.

Not only do I regret the hurt and damage these anti-Muslim comments are causing, I worry that those comments and proposals actually serve the goals of the terrorists–which is to divide us and eliminate the “gray zone” in society. [This was recently discussed in a column in the W Post].

The gray zone is the area where all of us, including Muslims, can peacefully live together even though we are of different faiths, backgrounds, etc. The terrorists want to pit us against each other, and thereby eliminate the “middle ground” where we can peacefully live together, and instead force devout Muslims to choose between virtually giving up their faith and/or concealing it and their background, or increasingly sympathizing with the extremists and radicals.

One of the impacts of anti-Muslim talk is to make Muslims less able and less inclined to assimilate as part of the broader community of many faiths, many backgrounds, etc. There was an NPR story just yesterday on a study that confirmed this. And of course it is common sense.

My prayer is that all of us and each of us will try to find opportunities to reassure Muslims that we do not share the views being expressed that Muslims should be treated differently–we disavow and decry and reject those views.

My prayer is that all of us and each of us will ask Muslims in our communities to immediately call us and tell us if they experience any anti-Muslim treatment (vandalism of their mosques, threats, insults, etc.) so that we can join with them in addressing any such problems.

My prayer is that all of us and each of us will become and be good friends to Muslims in our communities. We have much to offer them. And I think we will find that they have as much, if not more, to offer us. Among other things, they can help us in our journey to a more complete understanding and embracing of the values and principles we hope this country will stand for.



Roger T. Creager

Blogger’s Note: Creager is an excellent trial and appellate lawyer, very thorough and capable and I am proud to know him as a good colleague.  We are fellow members of the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association.  This is reprinted here with his permission.

Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Our Weasel Of the Week!!

Yes, once again, It’s time to present this week’s statuette of shame, The Golden Weasel!!

Every Tuesday, the Council nominates some of the slimiest, most despicable characters in public life for some deed of evil, cowardice or corruption they’ve performed. Then we vote to single out one particular Weasel for special mention, to whom we award the statuette of shame, our special, 100% plastic Golden Weasel. This week’s nominees were particularly slimy and despicable, but the votes are in and we have our winner…the envelope please…
Democrat Front Runner Hillary Clinton!

Fausta’s Blog: Hillary, Weasel Queen par excellence. ‘Nuf said.

The Independent Sentinel : How do you beat Hillary -lied her butt off Thursday and did it so well!

Indeed, how could you beat Mrs. Clinton’s performance last week? It does indeed take a special kind of human being to knowingly lie to the entire country and to the grieving families of four dead Americans literally over their coffins. And all just to cover for Barack Obama and get him re-elected.

A number of Mrs. Clinton’s friends and minions in the media referred to her performance as a ‘triumph’ and a ‘win.’ In actuality, the fact that she’s unlikely to face any cost or punishment for her behavior or her illegal server and destruction of documents that were by law all supposed to be turned over when she left office is a major defeat..for the country. It always is, whenever a nation’s standard of justice, integrity and trust in public officials is compromised.

That includes the partisan Democrats on the Benghazi committee as well as the media.When ranking members of an investigating committee set up by congress contemptuously break House rules and openly leak what was supposed to be closed door testimony to the media in order to undermine it, there’s not much more to be said.

Well Mrs. Clinton, enjoy your Weasel. I had the names of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty engraved on it. Since, as you say, you already live with this every day and lose sleep over it, what difference does it make at this point?

All the perfumes of Araby don’t fix it. Just ask Lady Macbeth.


Well, there it is.

Check back next Tuesday to see who next week’s nominees for Weasel of the Week are!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum, and remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it…or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

View original post here:  

Our Weasel Of the Week!!

Article written by: Tom White

Our Weasel Of The Week!!

Yes,it’s time to present this week’s statuette of shame, The Golden Weasel!!

Every Tuesday, the Council nominates some of the slimiest, most despicable characters in public life for some deed of evil, cowardice or corruption they’ve performed. Then we vote to single out one particular Weasel for special mention, to whom we award the statuette of shame, our special, 100% plastic Golden Weasel. This week’s nominees were all particularly slimy and despicable, but the votes are in and we have our winner…the envelope please…

Disney’s New Anti-American Far Left ‘Captain America’

JoshuaPundit: If you remember the comic book heroes of your youth, you will be astounded by what’s become of them lately.

Like America’s movies, they used to be a part of America’s culture that nurtured heroic values and provided role models for America’s youth.

Nowadays, Superman has renounced his American citizenship in favor of working for the UN because “I’m tired of having my actions construed as instruments of U.S. policy.”

And Captain America? His enemies aren’t America’s any more either. Nowadays, Disney (who owns Marvel Comics)has him fighting – wait for it – evil Republicans and ‘right wingers’ who oppose amnesty for illegal aliens:

Like a lot of corporations who promote Leftist ideas, Disney loves illegal alien workers and abusing H1B visas on tech workers to keep wages on the plantation low and keep the servants from getting any ideas above their place.

They’ve even got the ‘right wingers’ in this comic wearing the hoods so beloved of Democrats in the not so Good Old Days. And of course, Captain Marvel’s race has changed, for obvious reasons.

I once heard Rush Limbaugh say some time ago that ‘Liberalism is like an acid that distorts and ruins everything it touches.” At the time I thought that was over the top, but I now concede he was largely correct..except, of course, I never use the word ‘liberalism’ to describe these prog fascists.

From the day they enter school, turn on a TV, or yes, read a comic book, America’s kids are subject to this kind of mind rape. That’s why a willful perversion like this is important.

“From small things, big things someday come.” – Nick Lowe

There’s not much else to say about something like this. Weasels like Disney who pervert American values and do their bit to sabotage its culture are going to get their just reward one day when one of two things happens. Either the country will simply revolt against this sort of thing and react harshly, or the time comes when it faces a major crisis but has been so undermined by weasels like this that it is simply unable to muster the courage and sacrifice necessary to defend itself.

Enjoy your well-deserved Golden Weasel. You’ll never understand until it’s too late, but it’s going to mean a lot more than some of the other awards you’ve gotten in the end.

Well, there it is.

Check back next Tuesday to see who next week’s nominees for Weasel of the Week are!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum, and remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it…or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Continue reading here:

Our Weasel Of The Week!!

Article written by: Tom White

If Joe Biden Wins in 2016 Who Would Be President?

If Joe Biden Wins in 2016 Who Would Be President?

A powerful point to ponder. Joe Biden is a completely empty suit with an even emptier head. (Grammar police go away!)

Good old Uncle Joe would be somebody’s puppet because there is no way he is intelligent enough to run a country. Or anything for that matter.

Who would that puppet master be?

Article written by: Tom White

What About Governor Gilmore, Sandy? He May Have Done Better Than Expected…

I watched the First GOP Debate and I must say:  I long for the old Ron Paul days.  I even watched some Ron Paul debate videos before the big event (I missed the event with my candidate, Jim Gilmore, in it)

I did do some looking up about Gilmore and found some info.

Yes, it appears former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina won the first debate as far as expectations were concerned.  And I must say I would like to see Fiorina against the ten that were in the first debate.  I would like to see her do better.  I could have supported her if Gilmore did not make the race.

But this neat Google search trend chart shows the Virginia governor in third place among most searched by 624 pm.  (hat tip to 538Live)  Only Fiorina and SC Senator Lindsay Graham did better.  And Graham (Lord willing!) isn’t going anywhere.

Here’s the transcript of the first debate courtesy of the Washington Post.  Here’s Gilmore’s remarks to start out:

From one side of the stage, the other — the other, Governor Jim Gilmore.

You were the last person on stage to declare your candidacy. You ran for the White House once and lost. You ran for the Senate one time and lost. You haven’t held public office in 13 years.

Similar question, is it time for new blood?

GILMORE: I think the times are different now. I think the times are much more serious.

Because Obama and Clinton policies, the United States is moving further and further into a decline. I want to reverse that decline. That’s why I’ve entered this race, and I think I have the experience to do it.

Former elected prosecutor, attorney general, governor, I was elected to all of those offices.

A person who, in fact, has a long experience in foreign-policy issues, which is different from many of the other governors and prospective governors who are running. I was an Army intelligence agent and a veteran during the Cold War, assigned to West Germany.

I was the chairman of the National Commission on Homeland Security and Terrorism for the United States for five years. I was a person who has dealt extensively with these homeland security issues. I was a governor during the 9/11 attack.

I understand both of these issues, how to build the economy and doing that as a governor who’d built jobs, had cut taxes and also a governor who understands foreign-policy, and that’s why I entered this race.

Not a bad start.  I might have played up more the elected offices.  Maybe this tack:

“Let me start with introducing myself to the American people.  I was elected first a Commonwealth’s Attorney – most of you would say District Attorney – in suburban Richmond, Virginia.  Then I was elected statewide in Virginia twice – first Attorney General and then Governor.  I then served on two key commissions [state their names] that dealt with the taxation of Internet commerce and national security/fighting terrorism.”

“We need a President who can deal with the Three T’s:  Taxation, fighting Terrorism, and Technology.  Maybe people should look for experienced leadership that has not been part of what is wrong with DC today.”

“I was the first state governor to propose a state cabinet-level Secretary of Technology.  Now I do not think we need a Secretary of Technology at the Federal level but we do need a President who can and will embrace what is right about new technology and also knows it’s dangers – especially to liberty.”

“People might not know me very well.  Some laugh at my campaign.  But I graduated from the University of Virginia Law School – the law school from Jefferson’s college – and I was not accepted initially.  I was accepted to the University of Richmond – fine school by the way – but I was not in class the first day – I was in the dean’s office at UVA and they had an unexpected vacancy – and that is how I got into UVA.  You need a President who will have determination until victory is won – on the great issues of the day.”

I would have mentioned how my commission on Internet taxation recommended the successful moratorium on sales taxation and any benefits of the terrorism commission.

I also thought the paragraph about the need to warn the American people about the very real possibility of a long war with ISIS and Islamic terrorism sounded very Presidential:

And I’m going to tell you this, we need to use the benefit of our law enforcement people across this country, combined with our intelligence people across this country. We need to use our technological advantages, because what we’ve warned of is an international guerrilla movement that threatens this country. It’s going to happen in this country, there are going to be further attacks.

We have to be prepared to defend the American people, prepare them for a long war, stand up for the defense of this country, and stand up for the values of this country…

Done very well.  Now I would also add – we do not have to fight ISIS like we did in Iraq.  Get a coalition together.  Provide support.  As the governor did here:

Our job has to be to recognize the conflict between the two. I have proposed there be a Middle East NATO so that we can combine our allies there to stand up to Iranian expansion, and at the same time join together to begin to stop and this ISIL thing before it becomes an actual state.

I might have said it differently but this is exactly right.  Consider a call for some sort of war crimes trials (yes I know it’s a concession but maybe we can do it using the existing legal systems of the nations where the crimes occurred) for the terrible acts by ISIS.  I would also consider discussing the issue of technology and liberty.  How to balance security against 1984.

The next thing was taxation, growth and regulations and the governor nailed it:

I’ve had the growth code (ph) there for about five years, and it’s this specific program. We’re going to do a tax cut for all Americans. We’re going to have a three-bracket tax code, 10, 15 and 25 percent. We’re going to combine all commercial activity in business into one place in the tax code and charge it 15 percent, which is going to suddenly make us competitive with the rest of the world. And we’re going to eliminate the death tax.

GILMORE: With a couple of additional tweaks, we know what this will do. It will cause the economy to grow, to explode, to create more jobs. And first of all, we’ve got to recognize that there is problem that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have caused. And that problem is too big regulations like the EPA, too much new taxes on business that we have seen and “Obamacare.” These are drags on the economy, it’s a deliberate drag. I propose to reverse that and get this economy moving again.

A President can control the regulatory apparatus to a great extent. This President showed that.  Governor Gilmore can do it.

I also thought the Virginia Governor nailed it again here on the appointment of judges:

GILMORE: Well, as you know, I’m a former elected prosecutor, a former elected attorney general, trained at the University of Virginia in constitutional law, and I don’t believe in litmus tests except this.

I believe we should be appointing Supreme Court justices who will follow the law and not try to make the law. Now, the challenge we’re seeing today is that the Supreme Court is being converted into some type of political body.

They have to have some legal basis and precedence for being able to follow the law instead of making the law up, and my goal is — in appointing Supreme Court justices, would be to point — to appoint justices who would follow the law.

Gilmore was not done yet:  He said he’d examine every executive order of the past (especially this President) “…because the president shouldn’t be legislating: not through that vehicle or any other. We should be relying upon the leadership of the Congress to pass the laws.”  Exactly right.

His conclusion is solid:

GILMORE: Well, I was a conservative governor of Virginia, I governed that way, and that’s my track record. But the key thing that we’re seeing now is serious challenges to this country that must change, the direction of this nation must change. And that’s why I’ve offered a specific program to the people of America tonight to address the fundamental problem of getting our country growing again, getting our economy growing, wages up, opportunities for people.

And second, the international crisis we are facing is most dreadful and most dangerous. I have the experience as a prosecutor, attorney general, governor, United States Army intelligence veteran, governor during the 9/11 attack, chairman of the Terrorism Commission for this country. It’s time for real substance and real experience.

And that’s what I’ll offer to the people of the United States in this candidacy for the presidency.

Now if say, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker had said this in the later debate, it might have been a turning point.  I am encouraged that Gilmore got some serious Google search.  I am not on the Gilmore team and I am not sure I would be helpful.  But I would play the Three Ts and build a strong platform around it.  Use the UVA story.  Governor during 9/11.  (See if Giuliani would help or even endorse!)

Governor Jim Gilmore is a serious candidate and has serious ideas.  He is not tied to Bush or Obama.  I am for Jim Gilmore until and unless he either wins the election or drops out.




Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Why Are Republicans So Confused Over Immigration?

Bearing Drift just excoriated the Bull Elephant over immigration.

So let’s look at immigration.

The Republican Establishment continues to fund President Obama’s executive amnesty for a reason – they want the cheap labor. The Libertarian Party tends to support open borders, because we don’t believe in discrimination. However, we have a massive prison state and welfare state that seems to absorb our immigrant populations, and instead of benefiting from immigration to our country, we are subsidizing it.

I want free immigration to the United States for the best and the brightest; but we can’t have a “legal system” that ends up creating an immigration policy which invites people into our prison and welfare state.

We need immigrants, but we also need assimilation. We need decades of immigration and decades of assimilation.

blog_republican_splitIdeologically, our opinions on immigration are moot. The fact is that the Chamber of Commerce is bringing in poor, uneducated immigrant labor to drive down the cost of labor in America. Republicans and Democrats are fighting over the illegal immigrant population because both parties want their votes the second they are naturalized. Why haven’t they been naturalized, because neither party will support naturalization until they know for a fact that they’ll get their votes. In the meantime, they fight for their support. Citizen? Screw you. You’ve probably already made up your mind.

What conservatives and libertarians need to ask themselves, is that if immigrants are being brought into this country to lower wages and provide the Democrat Party with voters, then isn’t that a broken immigration system? Let’s scratch all the pro-Mexican and anti-Mexican claptrap. Race and nationality has nothing to do with this. We’re importing poverty and cheap labor. Yes, both Democrat and Republican politicians benefit, but do you? Does your family? Does your community?

I suggest reshaping our government and our society into something that can welcome self-reliant immigrants with open arms, with excitement, and with our full throated support!


Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker

Conservatives Have No Solutions!

“Conservatives have no solutions” – have you heard this? Maybe you’ve heard it phrased more like, “Well, if you cut Food Stamps, what’s your plan to feed the poor?” “If you don’t support the EPA, what’s your plan for saving the environment?” “Against Tax Increases? Well, what’s your plan for funding the government”?

For most Republicans and for almost all Democrats, the only “plans” and “solutions” that qualify as actual plans and solutions are those which utilize the federal government in a positive and pro-active way. When they hear you talk about “free markets”, they think, “you have no plan!”. The idea that poverty, health care, insurance, home ownership, the stock market, unemployment, and education are necessarily the governments’ problem is a premise that I don’t share, and so I find myself incapable of talking to Republicans and Democrats about the government, as we do not share any basic or fundamental premises.

never-sell-a-liberal-the-same-way-as-a-conservative-02-14-2012-road-signThe Big Government Virginia Republican Bloggers constantly tell you that regulation is not an affront to liberty and that centralized control is a fundamental component of societal efficiency, and not federal infringement on the society as a whole. So, obviously, those of us who do not believe that running the economy, redistributing wealth, and certifying all human activity is the job of the federal government have no language or capacity to compromise with the Republican or Democrat Parties.

I used to believe that the Libertarian Party was the solution, back when I believed that the Libertarian Party was a pro-constitutionalist enterprise. It is not – in fact, they are a counter-Utopian, reactionary, movement that exists as push back against the unconstitutional rule of Democrats and Republicans over the decades; but they themselves do not fully embrace free markets or our Constitutional Republic. They have their own ideals they would like to enforce without constitutional sanction. What we need is a Constitutionalist-Libertarian Party in this country.

I believe that the best thing we can do for the poor and the middle class is to slowly, but steadily, begin contracting the welfare state and the federal bureaucracy, creating a cheaper, less intrusive government, which requires only a small portion of our nations private capital relative to current levels. The federal government does a terrible job at running our country, because they are trying to run everything in our country. Nothing is off limits or out of bounds with our federal and state governments.

And that’s the problem. The solution to most of our nations problems is getting our governments out of the business of trying to solve problems in the first place. The American People are becoming a weaker, more dependent, and less ambitious population. The American People built this country, not the federal government. Our governments are there to protect our borders, police our streets, practice diplomacy with foreign nations, establish a currency, operate our courts and enforce objective constitutional law, to adjudicate between the States, and to operate our Armed Forces – oh, and fine, I’ll throw in our roads too, just because I know people will completely freak out if I don’t mention roads.

Everything else should be left to the States and to the sovereign citizen. I am saying nothing that is not peculiar to the United States Constitution, even it is baffling to the modern American citizen.

A free market is a relatively unregulated market. I want free markets, including free labor markets, and health care markets, and insurance markets, and retail markets. The federal government will have to write laws to prevent new and creative means of force and fraud within a free economy, but that does not mean regulating everything that’s made, sold, or provided.

Don’t any of you want to be free? Are we so insecure as a people that we actually need this government?

To Barack Obama, I say this, you didn’t build America. We did. You can’t take credit for the very thing you’re destroying. We don’t need you. At least, I don’t need him, I can’t really speak for anyone else. Less government is the solution. More government is the problem. If we can’t agree on this than there is nothing to be gained by having policy discussions because we are operating under entirely different fundamental premises.


Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker