Are most Democrat politicians trying to destroy the Electoral College? It’s all the rage among the Democrat presidential wannabes – almost a required litmus test for candidacy. The Framers had good reasons to devise this system: it’s a linchpin in our “representative republic” government which prevents “mob rule” and protects the rights of all citizens, not just the majority; it’s an “extra set of eyes” on the presidential election process; and it gives assurance that a handful of states won’t select our President. I look at this as 51 (including D.C.) separate popular vote elections, the results of each indicate for which candidate the state will cast its electoral votes. It encourages coalitions and national campaigning.
Those are important topics, but my goal here is to increase the visibility of initiatives intended to subvert the electoral process without amending our U.S. Constitution. The most prominent one is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). This initiative intends to guarantee the candidate winning the national popular vote is elected. To achieve success, NPVIC must get states to enact legislation whereby states pledge all their electors to the national popular vote winner.
There are 538 electors so they must have the compact/agreement signed by states representing 270 electors. Only 14 states have agreed so far, but they already have 189 electors committed. If they tried to eliminate the Electoral College by Constitutional Amendment, it would require three-fourths of the states, or 38. So NPVIC seems much easier.
What if the plateau of 270 electors is reached? Are there any defensive measures to be taken? Here’s what Article 1 of our Constitution provides: “No state shall, without the consent of Congress……enter into any agreement or compact with another state or with a foreign power……” That seems clear that they can’t do anything like NPVIC without the consent of Congress, but there’s significant disagreement about that among legal scholars. There’s sure to be a bitter and divisive Constitutional challenge if the 270-elector threshold is achieved.
And there’s a new challenge developing. Imagine a situation in which an important “swing state” decides to “go it alone” for pledging their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. This could be the case if there is sentiment among enough voters to join the “compact,” but they can’t depend on achieving that through successful legislation. Such is the case in Ohio. Opponents of the electoral process stand a good chance of having a voter initiative on the ballot in November which would amend the Ohio constitution to pledge Ohio electors to the national popular vote winner.
This Ohio initiative is distinct from NPVIC, and might be successful. And considering the broad latitude states have in allocating electors, it may be Constitutional. Toss in similar success in a few more “swing states” and the complexion of our presidential election process is changed forever. The Electoral College would be destroyed. Is this a bigger threat than NPVIC?
Discuss the Electoral College with your friends on the “left,” and ask them questions like: Do you reject the institution of the U.S. Senate since it does not proportionately represent the population? Since the Senate structure was set up to promote parity between the states rather than proportionate representation, do you minimize this original purpose of parity? Does your disdain for the Electoral College reflect your broader feelings about the representative form of government gifted us by our Founders? And, dear progressive friend, reflect back on 2004. George W. Bush received the most popular votes. Under NPVIC, California would have had to cast all their electoral votes for Bush, even though he lost the state to Kerry by a huge margin. Imagine the outrage that would have come from California Democrats.
That’s where we stand with these attacks on the electoral process. I’ve concluded destruction of the Electoral College is less than likely, but is seriously plausible. The Democrats’ goal isn’t about improving our election procedures or governance. It’s all about Democrats improving their chance of winning. Whatever the outcome of these attacks on our form of government, the finish-line is probably a long way off. Yet it feels like it’s right in front of us, looming dangerously. We must work against it.
Steve Bakke, Fort Myers
In the new Democratic Party, where women and people of color are to lead, and the white men are to stand back, the presidential field has begun to sort itself out somewhat problematically.
According to a Real Clear Politics average of five polls between mid-March and April 1, four white men -- Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, "Beto" O'Rourke and Pete Buttigieg -- have corralled 62 percent of all Democratic voters.
The three white women running -- Senators Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand -- have, together, a piddling 8 percent.
The lone Hispanic candidate, Julian Castro, is at 1 percent.
African American candidates Kamala Harris and Cory Booker fare better, with Harris at 10 and Booker at 3.
Who has raised the most money from the most contributors?
Sanders is first with $18 million; Harris is next with $12 million; Beto is third with $9 million in 18 days; and "Mayor Pete" is fourth with $7 million.
Warren, Klobuchar and Gillibrand have yet to file reports.
But the big takeaway from recent weeks is the sudden stunning vulnerability of the front-runner. Seven women have come forward to berate Biden for unwanted and offensive touching and crowding. Joe is on the defensive. Some in the #MeToo movement want him gone.
He is also being slammed for decisions across his 36-year Senate career -- opposing busing for integration, deserting Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas hearings, supporting a racially discriminatory crime bill, voting to authorize George W. Bush to take us into war in Iraq.
And unkindest cut of all: Barack Obama's stony silence about Joe's candidacy.
The most compelling case for the 76-year-old ex-vice president is that he can win back Trump's white working-class voters, and return Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to the Democratic fold.
Thus a major drop in Biden's polls could be terminal to his candidacy.
If Biden can't guarantee a victory over Trump, why go with Joe?
Yet, if he fades away as a candidate, as he has done twice before, who emerges as front-runner? The 77-year-old Socialist Bernie Sanders. If Joe fades, Bernie and the comrades will have removed the last large roadblock to a socialist takeover of the national Democratic Party.
And what would then happen if the Democrats simply held the House, added three Senate seats and defeated Trump in 2020?
An all-out effort to abolish the Electoral College that is integral to the historic compromise that created our federal Union. Puerto Rico and D.C. would become states, giving Democrats four more Senators and making America a bilingual nation.
A drive would be on to give 16-year-olds and convicted felons the right to vote in federal elections, freezing Republicans out of power forever. A packing of the Supreme Court would begin by raising by six the number of justices and elevating liberal activists to the new seats.
On the southern border, where 100,000 illegal migrants were apprehended in March, Trump's wall would come down, all peoples fleeing repression in Central America would be welcomed into the U.S., sanctuary cities would become the norm, and ICE would be abolished.
Open borders would be a reality, along with amnesty for the 12 million-20 million people here illegally, with a path to citizenship for all.
It is impossible to see how the U.S. border would ever be secured.
The Green New Deal would be enacted. Medicare for all. Free tuition for college students. Millennial college debts paid off by the government. Free pre-K schooling and day care. Guaranteed jobs for all. A guaranteed living wage. Repeal of the Reagan and Trump tax cuts. A re-raising of the corporate rate and a return of the top rate for individuals to 70 percent. New wealth taxes on the rich.
With climate change seen as an existential planetary peril, fossil fuel-powered energy plants -- coal, oil, natural gas -- would be phased out and a new national reliance on solar and wind begun.
There would be reparations for slavery. Abortion on demand right up to birth for all women.
Marijuana would be legalized.
Harris has urged that prostitution, sex work, be legalized.
How would the Green New Deal be paid for?
Under "modern monetary theory," currency is a public monopoly for the government, and unemployment is evidence that the monopoly is choking off the needed supply. So print the money necessary to get to rising wages, full employment and a booming economy.
To achieve Bernie Sanders' Socialist America, the filibuster would have to be abolished, easily done, and the Constitution altered, requiring the support of three-fourths of the states, not so easy.
Yet, as of today, the unannounced front-runner Joe Biden, who is taking fire from many quarters, appears to be the last man standing between Sanders Socialism and the Democratic nomination.
Should Joe falter and fall, Trump would be the nation's last line of defense against the coming of a Socialist America. For never-Trump conservatives, the day of reckoning may be just ahead.
Patrick J. Buchanan
Dear Doctor: How does prostate cancer happen? And what are the symptoms? I'm only 43, but I worry that I wouldn't recognize the signs if I had it.
Dear Reader: Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers among men in the United States. It occurs in the prostate gland, a male reproductive organ that sits between the penis and the rectum, just beneath the bladder. The prostate, which is about the size of a golf ball, wraps around the urethra, which is the duct through which urine and semen exit the body. One of the roles of the prostate is to produce fluids that nurture and support sperm, and to propel these fluids into the urethra when needed.
When normal cell division goes awry, the chaotic and uncontrolled growth that results is what we know as cancer. In prostate cancer, the rogue cells use hormones known as androgens, which include testosterone, to fuel their growth. Although prostate cancers begin within the gland, they can spread to nearby regions of the body, including the lymph nodes. Some prostate cancers are slow to grow and can take years to be detected. When slow-growing cancers are identified, the risk they pose may be low enough that physicians recommend careful monitoring, often referred to as "watchful waiting." Other prostate cancers are more aggressive and require swift treatment.
The American Cancer Society estimates that more than 174,650 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed this year, and the disease will claim more than 31,000 lives. As you allude to when mentioning your age, the majority of prostate cancers -- about 60 percent -- are diagnosed in men 65 and older. But race plays a role as well. Prostate cancer affects black men at two to three times the rate of white men and at an earlier age. They are also more likely to die from the disease.
Although a screening tool known as a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test is effective at detecting certain hormonal changes associated with prostate cancer, it has been overused in the past and led to unnecessary treatment. The U.S. Preventive Task Force recommends that for men between the ages of 55 to 69, prostate cancer screening should be a decision made by patients and doctors working together on a case-by-case basis. However, a survey of prostate cancer outcomes by several colleagues at UCLA determined that, due to their elevated risk, black men would benefit from prostate cancer screening guidelines tailored to their unique and specific needs.
When it comes to symptoms, unfortunately prostate cancer is often largely silent in the early stages. As the cancer becomes more advanced and affects the size and shape of the prostate, the gland's position in the body may lead to symptoms that include:
-- Difficulty urinating.
-- Frequent urination.
-- A diminished stream of urine.
-- Pelvic discomfort.
-- Signs of blood in the semen.
-- Onset of difficulty achieving or maintaining an erection.
-- Discomfort when sitting.
If you develop these symptoms, please talk to your doctor. It doesn't mean that you have cancer, but you will be taking the first step to finding out what, if anything, may be wrong.
Eve Glazier, M.D., MBA, and Elizabeth Ko, M.D
There are many good reasons to create a living trust. The most common reason is to shield your assets from the probate process. In other words, assets you place into a trust do not pass under your will. The Florida probate process–i.e. the part of your estate subject to your will–is a matter of public record. But trusts are generally private, so for the most part nobody outside of your family or any beneficiaries designated in the trust need to know anything about it.
But one thing that you need to keep in mind is that revocable living trusts, the type of trust most commonly used in estate planning, are not a magic shield that will protect your assets from creditors. Since assets in a living trust still remain effectively under your control–as you can revoke the trust at any point during your lifetime–your creditors can go after them. And you cannot use a trust to “hide” assets in the hopes they will not be discovered.
Florida Woman Faces Racketeering Claim After Allegedly Using Trust to Hide Assets from Husband's Creditor
A recent decision by a federal appeals court offers an example of what can go wrong when you do try to hide assets via estate planning. This particular case, Al-Rayes v. Willingham, involves a Florida couple who owe one of their creditors nearly $26 million. The original lawsuit, filed in 2006, alleged the husband of the couple defrauded the creditor “over the course of many real estate transactions,” according to court records. The creditor eventually obtained a $25.7 million judgment, of which he has only managed to collect roughly $40,000 in the intervening years.
The creditor filed the present lawsuit solely against the wife. He maintains the wife “conspired” with her husband to hide their assets in violation of federal racketeering laws. Among other acts, the creditor alleged that when the couple filed for bankruptcy–presumably, to obtain a discharge of the creditor's judgment–they failed to inform the court that the wife created a living trust and transferred their condo into it “while reserving a life estate in the condo for herself–and for her husband.”
The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing a trial judge's earlier ruling, said the creditor could proceed with his racketeering claims. Racketeering (or RICO) charges require proof of an “association-in-fact enterprise,” which the U.S. Supreme Court defines as a “group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct.” The appeals court said that even though the couple in this case had a preexisting personal relationship–their marriage–that did not prevent a finding that they formed an association-in-fact enterprise for purposes of defrauding the creditor out of his judgment.
This is admittedly an unusual case of someone allegedly going to great lengths to hide assets from a creditor. But the underlying message is still important. Trusts are not a tool for breaking the law or avoiding legitimate obligations. If you need further advice or guidance from a Fort Myers estate planning attorney on how to properly create and use trusts, contact the Kuhn Law Firm, P.A., at 239-333-4529 today.
The next advancement in cellular technology, 5G, is expected to be so fast that it’s able to surpass the speed of wired internet now provided by cable companies.
Current 4G technology provides download speeds of about 1 gigabit per second. With 5G technology, download speeds are expected to increase to 20 gigabits per second, said Ellen M. Lord, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment.
Lord spoke yesterday at the Atlantic Council here to discuss the Defense Department’s efforts to advance 5G technology in the United States and to ensure that when 5G does make its debut, it’s secure enough to transmit information between U.S. military personnel and its allies without being intercepted by potential adversaries.
U.S. and Allies Must Take Lead
That means the U.S. and its allies will need to take the lead in developing this next generation of telecommunications technology, she said.
“When we talk about 5G, everything is going to be moving over it, eventually,” Lord said. “What we need to do is make sure how that information is moving, and how you can get at it, and how you can keep it secure.”
Lord likened development of the 5G infrastructure and technology to that of a new home. She said new home owners certainly would want to know that whoever built their home, wired it for electricity, installed the communications systems, or installed the doors and windows hadn’t also built in a way for them to sneak back into that house undetected after the new owners had moved in.
“That’s where we are with 5G,” Lord said. “If we are going to run our entire warfighting ecosystem though communications -- which is where we are today -- we need to make sure that when we send a critical message that others aren’t hearing it. We need to be able to test that.”
On the modern battlefield, and on the battlefield of the foreseeable future, communications is going to play a critical role, Lord said. Information must flow between mounted and dismounted soldiers, from ships at sea and from those under the sea, as well as to space and aircraft.
“In order to get relevant situational understanding, we are trading information back and forth all the time,” she said. “What will happen is, if we do not embrace 5G, and we are just getting going in 4G in a lot of areas, we are going to have a latency or a delay in those conversations that could render everything we have as ineffective.”
U.S. Industry and Partners Must Provide Advancements
Advancements in 5G must come from U.S. industry and U.S. partners to be trustworthy and reliable, Lord said.
“Right now there is quite an intensive dialogue going on to understand where in Europe we might partner,” Lord said. “And there has been an enormous amount of discussion about the threat that we see by the Chinese -- theft of intellectual property -- coming into our networks. We have to collectively decide how we are technically going to secure our networks — how we legislatively have to have protection.”
Lord said a whole-of-government approach is needed to get a handle on 5G. The State, Treasury and Commerce departments and the National Security Council should be involved along with DOD, she said.
“I think you are going to see a huge call to action this year to come together with really what is almost a national industrial policy for 5G, because the stakes are high,” Lord added. “5G from a technology point of view is a huge opportunity, but it’s a huge threat.
“If we don’t embrace it and apply it towards our goals, we could be overcome quickly with technical overmatch,” she continued. “And we can’t allow that to happen. ... We have a warfighting imperative. If we cannot communicate as quickly, or quicker than our adversaries, if we cannot have situational understanding as to what is happening on the battlefield, then we are going to be in a position where our national security is threatened.”
February’s “Black History Month” has come and gone and now the 51st anniversary of Martin Luther King’s tragic assassination is upon us once again.
For me and many who were “coming of age” when King was actually making a difference, every year on Kings birthday, and on the anniversary of his death, we remember, what a “big deal” he was.
Recalling King’s death on April 4, 1968 always reminds me of that watershed year with its assassinations of both he and Bobby Kennedy. It was the year I graduated from Luther College in Iowa, married Lois, and was drafted into the Army. And remember the riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago that year? I also passed the CPA exam that November which, at the time, seemed to fit right in with all my other worries and concerns.
What got me thinking anew this year was reading comments by a black Dickenson College (Pennsylvania) student in their student newspaper: “I cannot describe how frustrating it is to be forced to listen to a white boy explain his take on the Black experience……[in] honor of Black History Month……white boys” should be shut up.
These comments started me thinking once again. Some of King’s legacy seems to be struggling to survive in today’s world. As examples, I often site the ever-growing segregation/separation on college campuses – separate living, study areas, and courses – apparently encouraged by minority groups themselves. Whatever happened to King’s dream of condemning enforced separateness and judgements based on one’s skin color?
During the last few years, I’ve been publicly expressing my thoughts about Martin Luther King, my appreciative admiration for him, and what he meant to me and many other white citizens of my generation. This student clearly doesn’t want me commenting about King and his influence on me. Perhaps I should know better than to express my feelings so publicly because I almost always encounter criticism and opposition. I never come away unscathed.
Consider these examples of “pushback” against me personally:
• A letter writer in another newspaper suggested my attempts at “MLK-like racial de-emphasis” relieves me of “my obligation to address important racial differences and difficulties” and permits me to “engage in highly racialized practices.” Ouch!
• A social media reply pointed out that whether I “see color” or not, I’m racist either way. That reaction didn’t advance the debate very far.
• Another social media comment expressed the belief that I was missing the point because the segregation I see cropping up in America isn’t the type of thing King was fighting against.
That may be partially true, but I don’t believe King would be very happy with some of today’s progressive tactics of identity politics and enforced segregation.
• And another editorial letter stated that one of my columns “couldn’t have been more misguided.” As with some other of my newfound critics, I was accused of promoting “color-blindness” which they say is a form of micro aggression, among other things.
The dignity of King’s methods compelled me to respect him and listen. I suggest to these critics that minimizing and even denying ways in which King redirected the attitudes of white people, is to diminish him. While aggressively advocating for social justice, King spoke in a way that could both motivate his minority constituency, and help white America understand his peaceful methods and transformative goals. Social justice was his vision for the future. Making friends with white America wasn’t his objective – merely an important by-product.
King’s message to me personally was about “getting out of the way” in terms of segregation and opportunity. Hence my attempts at de-emphasizing, but not ignoring, racial and cultural differences. With those same words King spoke to the oppressed about social justice, began leading them in dealing with it, and gave them hope by proclaiming he had seen the “promised land.”
I believe King would be disappointed with the recent surge in identity politics, enforced separation, and the tendency to deemphasize immigrant assimilation. How could he be happy with the way political correctness has divided us and tied us in knots?
Challenges to my opinions encourage me to examine my original comments and ideas. Additional comments by me provide clarity, which hopefully strengthens mutual understanding with readers. I’m trying to remind people what Martin Luther King meant to white Americans, and how people of all races might be letting him down.
"The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia ... to influence the 2016 US presidential campaign."
So stated Attorney General William Barr in his Sunday letter to Congress summarizing the principal findings of the Mueller report.
On the charge of collusion with Russia, not guilty on all counts.
After two years of hearing from haters in politics and the media that President Donald Trump was "Putin's poodle," an agent of the Kremlin, guilty of treason, an illegitimate president who would leave the White House in handcuffs and end his days in prison, we learn the truth.
It was all a bright, shining lie.
Reeling from Trump's exoneration, big media are now scurrying to their fallback position: Mueller did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice.
But Mueller was not obstructed. No one impeded his labors.
As for Trump's rages against his investigation, they were the natural reaction of an innocent man falsely accused and facing disgrace and ruin for a crime he did not commit, indeed, a crime that had never been committed.
The House Judiciary Committee may try to replicate what Mueller did, and re-investigate obstruction. Fine. This would confirm what this whole rotten business has at root always been about: a scheme by the deep state and allied media to bring down another president.
The Mueller investigation employed 19 lawyers and 40 FBI agents. It took two years. It issued 2,800 subpoenas. It executed 500 search warrants. It interviewed 500 witnesses. And it failed to indict a single member of Trump's campaign for collusion with Russia to influence the 2016 election.
Which raises this question:
If Mueller could find no collusion, after an exhaustive two-year search, what was the compelling evidence that caused James Comey's FBI and Barack Obama's Department of Justice to believe that such collusion had occurred and to launch this investigation?
Sunday, after Barr's summary of the Mueller report became public, Trump aired his justified anger: "It's a shame that our country had to go through this. To be honest, it's a shame that your president has had to go through this. ... This was an illegal takedown that failed."
Is there not truth in this?
Millions of Americans still believe what is now a manifest falsehood -- that their president collaborated with Putin in cheating Hillary Clinton out of the presidency. The legal bills of Trump, his family, his campaign aides and his White House staff must be huge. Careers, reputations have been damaged.
The nation has been distracted and bitterly divided over this since Trump's first days in office. He has had a cloud over his presidency since he gave his inaugural address. Any ability the president had to fulfill his campaign pledge and negotiate with the largest country on earth, Russia, a superpower rival, has had to be put off.
Is it unfair to ask: Who did this to us?
Who led the Justice Department into believing Trump conspired with the Russians? Why did it take two years to discover there was no collusion? Who gave Putin and the GRU this victory by helping to tear our own country apart?
Our establishment is forever demanding apologies. Where are the apologies for the outrageous accusations that Trump was guilty of something next to treason?
Sen. Joe McCarthy did not do a fraction of the damage to the reputations of Dean Acheson or George Marshall that the elite media have done, unjustly and maliciously, to the reputation of Donald Trump.
Years after French Artillery Capt. Alfred Dreyfus was convicted of colluding with the Germans in the late 19th century, and was sent to Devil's Island, evidence against another officer emerged.
Soon, it was Dreyfus' accusers who were in the dock of public opinion.
That needs to happen now. The instigators of this investigation, launched to bring down a president, have damaged and divided this nation, and they need to be exposed, as do their collaborators in the press.
The roots of Mueller's investigation go back to the Clinton campaign's hiring of the opposition research firm Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump. Fusion GPS hired ex-British spy Christopher Steele. He had sources in Russian intelligence who provided him with the contents of his infamous dossier. This was delivered to a grateful cabal at the FBI, which used it as the basis of a FISA court warrant to surveil the Trump campaign.
The dirt in the Steele dossier, much of it false, would be secretly shared with Trump-haters in the media to torpedo his candidacy; then, when Trump won, to destroy his presidency before it began.
Now that Trump has been exonerated, the story of how his accusers, using the power of the state, almost murdered a presidency with lies, propaganda and innuendo, needs to be brought out into the sunlight.
For democracy dies in darkness, and this can't happen again.
Patrick J. Buchanan
I think I’m going to run for Congress just so I can “Right” a wrong. There must be more Caucuses in the House or none at all!
First off, the Black Caucus is Racist as I heard some White Congressmen were denied a seat in the Black Caucus. What say you Mr. Cummings? Why is there a need for a Caucus anyway? I thought all Congressmen were created equal!
I will form a White Caucus and allow Black Congressmen in, as long as the Black Congressmen agree to appear in “white face”, so that way nobody is offended. Then I will form a Gay Caucus and in that one, to be fair, we will alternate every month …one month we’ll all dress as men then at the next meeting we’ll all dress as girls and the third we’ll do nude so we can see who the liars really are! Wait…did I say “we”? I meant “They”!!!
Did I miss any groups? Maybe we should have a Commie Caucus as there are enough Commie-Congress people to have a Forum of left wing, red, commie, pinko’s right now…but I’d bet none will show! They won’t come out of the closet until somebody like AOC has the rolling snow ball big enough…she’s not quite ready to acknowledge being a Commie, like Bernie, but she will!
I suppose the Muslims will eventually want one too…but I have to think about that first. I believe I would want to call Tommy “Ineedajob” and The Ayatollah to Congress and clarify what exactly they mean when they say they want to, “kill all Americans and Jews”… I mean, do they mean me too or could they modify that to say just Democrats…besides, don’t you think it’s only fair to see if the guy next to you really wants your head or is he just…kidding?
OMG I forgot Indians, wait that’s not politically correct, we’ll have to have a contest for that one …”Name That Caucus”! It could be the Red Skin Caucus, or the Native American Caucus, or the Losers of the Cowboy Wars but Winners of the Casino Wars Caucus…now I like the latter, it’s very accurate! Go Indians!
Our Congress is so hilarious it makes the British Parliament look smart!
What these law school graduates have shown us is that we should ban lawyers from Congress and Making our Laws. It shows us that there are consequences for paying Harvard and other elite (expensive) Colleges for letting unqualified kids into Law School on phony scholarships and phony football scholarships, when there are qualified people who don’t have a hook…or money!
I believe our lawmakers should be Business men and women with incomes UNDER $100,000 per year coming in and IQs at least equal to their age. No millionaires, no lawyers and Judges allowed. Term limits of 2 terms for the House and 1 term in the Senate! Every law they pass must apply to them, when the Budget is not passed and the country closes, their pay stops but they must remain in WDC while the Government is closed and report for work unless they have a note from a Doctor or their Mother! Their retirement, medical insurance and all other benefits should be the same as what they give us, Government employees and retirees!
America …created by geniuses and run by morons!!
First …the “Congressional investigations”…the Agency that prosecutes crimes in this country is the Department of Justice. Those who make the laws, control funding and oversee the spending and ensure that the intelligence Agencies are doing their jobs is Congress.
So if the DOJ says they will not prosecute the President for Conspiracy or anything else related to Obstructing Investigations or Conspiring with Russia or anybody else, to effect the last election…where that leaves you is… NO PLACE! Congress cannot prosecute anything, you have no power to enforce any laws…why because that’s NOT your job and you are not in the Justice Department , you have no arrest authority, no Grand Jury Power, no Indictment power and you don’t even have full time investigators. You have FBI Agents on loan! You couldn’t do anything to Bryan Pagliano who ignored your subpoena , thumbed his nose at you when HE set up the Hillary’s server and didn’t respond to your subpoena. There’s your power! You brought in Mike Cohen ,the smoking gun and all he and you smoked was maybe pot. He has nothing ,just like what you have…nothing…so stop harassing this President . Leave Law Enforcement to those whose job it really is!
Watch and see what happens to the Hillary and her Band of Thieves now that we have a real AG!
Turn your attention to doing your freaking jobs and Secure our Southern Border, bring manufacturing jobs back, pass Naturalization and Immigration laws and keep America safe and leave Law Enforcement to the Law Enforcement Agencies and DOJ !
IT’S NOT YOUR JOB and it shows! You couldn’t find your own ass with your own two hands!
The SDNY cases…I have no idea what they think they can do…but consider this…first; the entire Mueller Special Counsel was based on an illegal FISA wiretap based upon a phony Dossier produced with the Hillary’s money. I believe anything that came from the Carter Page FISA warrant which was used as the basis along with corrupt actions by FBI Strzok, Director Comey and FBI McCabe for leads by Mueller to any other cases would be throw out IF challenged in a suppression hearing! So anything that Mueller passed on to SDNY regarding Russians , Conspiracy, Illegal Business loans would be Fruits of the Poison tree.
If their big case is Stormy Daniels…it’s not even worth my time to comment…they have nothing illegal, maybe a sin but not illegal and I am glad to see the good old Southern District is still run by arsholes ( sorry Rudy…not you!)!! Funny how things just never seem to change!
J. Gary DiLaura
It was a Very Good Year" is a Multi-media tribute to Frank Sinatra starring Tony Sands as "The Voice."
Sands first recognized his knack for emulating Ol' Blue Eyes when he was a teenager. “I never tried to change my vocals to imitate or impersonate Frank. It just came out naturally,” he says.
The Show is a musical journey of the life and times of the late Frank Sinatra. From the early days with Tommy Dorsey, to the bright lights of New York City, the silver screen of Hollywood, and the "Main Event" comeback, Tony sings all Sinatra’s best-loved songs. “It’s not just somebody going out there and doing his music - we tell a narrated story, with multimedia projections at six different points in Sinatra’s career,” Sands said. “We start out with the big band era and we end up at Madison Square Garden 1974, when Sinatra came out of retirement.
Lifelong Sinatra fans are startled when they hear Tony Sands start to croon. For more than 20 years, Tony Sands has been perfecting his act and wooing audiences throughout the United States with his silky, mesmerizing and tantalizing renditions of the “Chairman of the Board’s” song stylings.People love the show,” says Sands.
“They really don’t expect what they’re going to be seeing. It really is like a one man musical.”If you don’t feel the song, it won’t get across to the audience. And every song Frank Sinatra sang, he projected that feeling...and that’s the same way Sands performs Sinatra’s song book, Sands closes his show with Sinatra’s trademark sendoff, “Put Your Dreams Away,” as made famous in his ABC television program.
And on Sunday April 7th at 7:30 pm, Tony Sands will be performing his show at the Moose Lodge -964 -19090 San Carlos Blvd Ft Myers Beach doors open at 6:30 tickets are $40.that includes hors-d’ouvers. for tickets call Tony at 267-408-1615 or Jerry at 239-810-4587 you also can go on line at bpt.me/4096885
Ed. Note: I had the opportunity to see Tony as “Frank” a few times over the past years, his show is fantastic.