Back to Top

Tea Party Tribune

Subscribe to Tea Party Tribune feed
Tea Party and Political News Reporting
Updated: 13 min 42 sec ago

Expert: Mandatory E-Verify ‘Is Coming’

Tue, 05/23/2017 - 10:03pm

Nationwide mandatory E-Verify, which would weed out the vast majority of American businesses hiring illegal aliens, may be coming sooner than expected.

President of the E-Verify Employer Agent Alliance David Fowler told GCN that E-Verify “is coming” because of expansion efforts by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and President Donald Trump.

“Mandatory E-Verify appears to be something that is coming,” Fowler told GCN. “With the new administration in, I think they’re going to push for this.”

E-Verify is a hiring tool where employers must fill out I-9 forms for each employee they hire in order to ensure that the employee is legally allowed to work in the U.S. Illegal immigrants are not permitted to work in the country.

In states which mandate E-Verify already, a study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) found that there were fewer jobless Americans, as they did not have to compete for work against cheaper, illegal immigrant job-seekers.

“Millions of American citizens would find gainful employment if they did not have to compete against unauthorized workers who undercut local wage rates,” the study stated. “E-Verify plays a critical role in alleviating unfair competition against unauthorized workers; and states utilizing the program are experiencing positive job growth that outpaces national averages in the majority of cases.”

Every year, about four million young Americans enter the U.S. job market. At the same time, the U.S. admits more than one million legal immigrants, not including the estimated 11 to 30 million illegal immigrants already living in the country. Additionally, the U.S. admits almost one million temporary foreign guest workers a year through various visa programs. The combination of a need for jobs for native-born Americans and mass immigration has led to often times high unemployment and stagnant industry wages.

Fowler’s statement comes as USCIS Chief Information Officer Mark Schwartz said last month that his agency is “streamlining the [E-Verify] process and making it capable of scaling if we bring more employers,” hinting at the idea that soon, all employers across the U.S. would be subject to E-Verify.

Trump has promised to enforce E-Verify, with his original budget released in March asking for $15 million to “begin implementation” and make the anti-illegal immigration hiring tool a mandate for employers, as Breitbart News reported.

Source: John Binder @Breitbart.com

The post Expert: Mandatory E-Verify ‘Is Coming’ appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

THE CASE FOR AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

Tue, 05/23/2017 - 8:46pm
Empirical Evidence for the vindication of Manifest Destiny?

The Globalist philosophy, especially favored, in the Silicon Valley high tech immigrant community and among trendy San Francisco Bay Area liberal civil servants is that nationalism is an archaic posture of the historical past and that globalism-a world without States, boundaries and national or religious identity are the future for this planet. The main world view, of this arrogant high tech community creates a push for more Visa’s, less border control, greater borderless States and free international concourse, without restrictions. Clearly, this vision of the United States and Europe benefits high tech corporations and their international pool of workers, but does such a philosophy of international globalism, benefit working class America or Europe?

The inquiry put forth differently asks does a stateless, borderless, nationless, migratory civilization, benefit humankind and create a climate beneficial to freedom and economy?

It is exactly, one’s answer to the aforementioned inquiries and each individual’s response to their understanding of the empirical evidence, which leads to a political position.

For example, the more radical membership of La Raza, Black Lives Matter, and Muslim’s, which embrace and endorse,  Islamification and Sharia law are diametrically opposite in philosophy to “American Exceptionalism” and the companion tenet of “ Manifest Destiny”. Hence, a reasonable inquiry should arise, do such immigrants embracing these anti-American and opposite philosophical doctrines really deserved or are sufficiently worthy to be embraced and endorsed by America? The follow-up inquiry should be does the United States government and American citizens have a legitimate interest in denying access to immigrants who embrace the overthrow of American institutions, Government, and Civilization?

Most Americans will resolve the matter by placing reasonable limitations on immigration. However, those who have adopted a variation of “ Àztlan”, “ Reconquista”, “ Sharia Law and Islamification”, “Anti-Western, White-Genocide” will view massive immigration of untoward, Anti-Western, anti-American migrants as a way to dramatically transform the demographic dynamics of America.

John Locke

Ponder the following assertions of the philosopher, John Locke, who promulgates the idea that when law ends, tyranny begins.
“Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another’s harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another. This is acknowledged in subordinate magistrates. He that hath authority to seize my person in the street, may be opposed as a thief and a robber, if he endeavors to break into my house to execute a writ, notwithstanding that I know he has such a warrant, and such a legal authority, as will empower him to arrest me abroad. And why this should not hold in the highest, as well as in the most inferior magistrate, I would gladly be informed. Is it reasonable, that the eldest brother, because he has the greatest part of his father’s estate, should thereby have a right to take away any of his younger brother’s portions? or that a rich man, who possessed a whole country, should from thence have a right to seize, when he pleased, the cottage and garden of his poor neighbor? The being rightfully possessed of great power and riches, exceedingly beyond the greatest part of the sons of Adam, is so far from being an excuse, much less a reason, for rapine and oppression, which the endamaging another without authority is, that it is a great aggravation of it: for the exceeding the bounds of authority is no more a right in a great, than in a petty officer; no more justifiable in a king than a constable; but is so much the worse for him, in that he has more trust put in him, has already a much greater share than the rest of his brethren, and is supposed, from the advantages of his education, employment, and counsellors, to be more knowing in the measures of right and wrong.” (see:“Of Tyranny” in Book II of the Two Treatises of Government “John Locke”– that even magistrates must abide by the law)

Kevin De Leon

The advocates, such as Kevin De Leon, (D-LA) in the California Legislature, who aggressively assert a borderless, Stateless society allowing for free migration and an abdication of American sovereignty, ignore the solemn pronouncements of lawlessness that philosopher John Locke alludes in his seminal work, “Two Treatises of Government”.  The end result, of California Legislator, Kevin De Leon’s and his compatriot’s political agenda will be subversive lawlessness and rejection of the government of the United States.

In the American Republic, many pundits, immigration advocates, liberal college professors and pampered civil servants focus on the potential “tyranny” of the Executive Branch, but Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, argued that a disorderly, mob-driven, Kevin De Leon can inject disorder, chaos, confusion and lawlessness into a republics system, if not, appropriately checked, by the Chief Executive. Consider the following statements, by Montesquieu, from his well-respected work, “Spirit of the Laws”.

“Were the executive power not to have a right of putting a stop to the encroachments of the legislative body, the latter would become despotic; for as it might arrogate to itself what authority it pleased, it would soon destroy all the other powers. …

But it is not proper, on the other hand, that the legislative power should have a right to stop the executive. For as the execution has its natural limits, it is useless to confine it; besides, the executive power is generally employed in momentary operations. The power therefore of the Roman tribunes was faulty, as it put a stop not only to the legislation, but likewise to the execution itself; which was attended with infinite mischiefs. As all human things have an end, the state we are speaking of will lose its liberty, it will perish. Have not Rome, Sparta, and Carthage perished? It will perish when the legislative power shall be more corrupted than the executive…

It is not my business to examine whether the English actually enjoy this liberty, or not. It is sufficient for my purpose to observe, that it is established by their laws; and I inquire no further… 

Neither do I pretend by this to undervalue other governments, not to say that this extreme political liberty ought to give uneasiness to those who have only a moderate share of it. How should I have any such design, I who think that even the excess of reason is not always desirable, and that mankind generally find their account better in mediums than in extremes? “(see: Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, vol. 1, )

Baron Montesquieu pointed out that the British system was effective, because of the inherent checks and balances, incorporated, into the British form of government, creates the balance necessary to effectively govern. Of course, this was the form of government inherited from the English, by the American Republic. In times of national security, such as controlling the nation-states sovereign borders the executive branch of government should be given precedence, lest the legislative branch become tyrannical and chaotic. Montesquieu adopted the philosophy that a strong nation state with a deliberative legislative body and a strong executive would produce the greatest happiness for the polis or the people subject to national governments. This design of the “social contract” between governments and people are in opposition to the stateless and borderless globalist ideology adopted by many Silicon Valley immigrants connected to the high-tech industry and accepted by numerous California civil servants.

Rousseau postulates that people are most happy between and betwixt the primitive tribal Amazonian-type state and the international globalist status. That is, the state of sovereignty, as found in the nation-state. Consider Rousseau’s reflection on the matter as follows:

“Hence although men had become less forebearing, and although natural pity had already undergone some alteration, this period of the development of human faculties, maintaining a middle position between the indolence of our primitive state and the petulant activity of our egocentrism, must have been the happiest and most durable epoch. The more one reflects on it, the more one finds that this state was the least subject to upheavals and the best for man, and that he must have left it only by virtue of some fatal chance happening that, for the common good, ought never to have happened. The example of savages, almost all of whom have been found in this state, seems to confirm that the human race had been made to remain in it always; that this state is the veritable youth of the world; and that all the subsequent progress has been in appearance so many steps toward the perfection of the individual, and in fact toward the decay of the species.”  (see:“Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, part two”, The Basic Political Writings Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1754)

 

Rousseau suggests, that moderate civil constraint is in the greatest benefit for the happiness of the governed. Two much so-called progressiveness towards a stateless, borderless, globalist society leads only to decay and destruction.  The siren song of the globalists and immigration advocates may lead to the disintegration, dismantling, and dismemberment of the American Republic.

One of the infusing beliefs of the American Republic is the idea of “American Exceptionalism”, a corollary belief from “Manifest Destiny” Consider this statement from Wikipedia regarding, American Exceptionalism:

“American exceptionalism is one of three related ideas. The first is that the history of the United States is inherently different from that of other nations. [2] In this view, American exceptionalism stems from the American Revolution, becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called “the first new nation”[3] and developing the uniquely American ideology of “Americanism”, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, democracy, and laissez-faire economics. This ideology itself is often referred to as “American exceptionalism.”[4] Second is the idea that the U.S. has a unique mission to transform the world. Abraham Lincoln stated in the Gettysburg address (1863) that Americans have a duty to ensure that “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Third is the sense that the United States’ history and mission give it a superiority over other nations.

The term exceptionalism entails superiority, neoconservative and other American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense. To them, the U.S. is like the biblical “City upon a Hill”, a phrase used by British colonists to North America as early as 1630…”
(see: American Exceptionalism, Wikipedia)

The notion of “American Exceptionalism” is much more than a feeling of “superiority”, but rather, a belief of a God-given, “Manifest Destiny”, which as Rousseau, Locke and Montesquieu assert will provide the greatest happiness to the governed or the people, respectively. To view, the idea of “American Exceptionalism” as simply an idea of superiority fails to give ultimate credence to the founding father’s vision of America. “Manifest Destiny is a nineteenth-century belief that the United States had a mission to expand westward across the North American continent, spreading its form of democracy, freedom, and culture.
(see Manifest Destiny – New World Encyclopedia.)

Oft times, the only way to empirically test a hypothesis, such as “Manifest Destiny”, is to review the historical and factual evidence. In this case, is the American Southwest better off under United States sovereignty than it would have been under Mexican sovereignty?  This will elucidate the correctness of the competing theorem of “Manifest destiny versus “Reconquista”, by Mexico or the creation of “Aztlan”. Empirical evidence will often resolve conflicts between competing ideology or theories.

“Manifest Destiny”, John Gast (painter)
In 1872 artist John Gast painted a popular scene of people moving west that captured the view of Americans at the time. Called “Spirit of the Frontier” and widely distributed as an engraving portrayed settlers moving west, guided and protected by Columbia

Hence, the idea of American” Manifest Destiny” rooted in “American Exceptionalism” has at the core principles, and the infused precepts, the spirit that the American system has the potential to provide the greatest happiness to the people. This means a profound respect for American sovereign boundaries as opposed to lawlessness and chaos brought about by a borderless and stateless condition.

By Jeffrey E. Elliott, Esq.

The post THE CASE FOR AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

WHO IS THE REAL THREAT TO AMERICA?

Tue, 05/23/2017 - 2:06pm
Putin or the liberal Democrats?

Why is the liberal left so afraid of Russian President Vladimir Putin and the potentiality of closer United States and Russian communication? Without question, Russia is the second greatest power upon the face of the earth. Historically, Russian military might, prowess and national determination and fortitude defeated Napoleon and his Grand Old Guard in 1812 and Hitler’s formidable war machine beginning in 1941) Perhaps, the obsession and chatter regarding the enormity of Russian interference has more to do with American partisan politics than the genuine threat of a substantial and meaningful Russian interference.

For example, President Putin publicly expressed admiration for President Trump’s talents and disdain for Hillary Clinton. Consider the following documented quotes by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“He is a very flamboyant man, very talented, no doubt about that… He is an absolute leader of the presidential race, as we see it today. He says that he wants to move to another level of relations, to a deeper level of relations with Russia. How can we not welcome that? Of course, we welcome it.”
(Seven Quotes that reveal the Mind of Vladimir Putin-Telegraph.co.uk)

“At the very least, a head of state should have a head.” (Как минимум государственный деятель должен иметь голову.) – Putin’s response to Hillary Clinton’s claim that Putin has no soul. He also recommended that international relations be built without emotion and instead on the basis of the fundamental interests of the states involved.”( Public image of Vladimir Putin, Putinism, Wikipedia, citing, высказываний Путина, ставших афоризмам footnote 83)

Hence, the bitter political rivalry between the embittered Democratic Party Clintonites and conservative support for President Trump begins. The Clintonites looking for any reason to blame her lost the presidential bid on anyone but herself clings to the Russian tampering narrative. After all, it is well-known that referring to Hillary Clinton, President Putin said,
“At the very least, a head of state should have a head” (Public image of Vladimir Putin, Putinism, Wikipedia, citing, высказываний Путина, ставших афоризмам footnote 83).

Of course, Putin’s remark was in response to Hillary Clinton’s claim Putin had no soul. Many Americans would say Hillary Clinton has no soul.  In fact, many of those American’s adverse to Clinton, also, happen to be Trump’s populist storm troopers. Hence, the likes of liberals such as the dumbfounded Pelosi, Waters, Warren, Schiff and the continuously exaggerating Schumer attempt to discredit President Trump by discrediting Russian President Putin. This is attempted by these liberal democrats to be accomplished through a war of innuendo, exaggerations, deceptions, false narratives and presumptuous but unproven implications.

Another point of fundamental disagreement between the Liberal Democrats and Russian President Vladimir Putin is the Russian President’s hard line against Islamification and Islamic jihadism and terrorism. Russian President Putin remains a tough opponent against Islamification and jihadism, Islamic terrorism. Obama, Clinton, Waters, Pelosi and other liberal Democrats accepted the Benghazi massacre and tried to turn attention away from Islamic terrorism. On the other hand, Putin has a zero-tolerance policy regarding jihadism and terrorism. The Obama-Clinton worldview is diametrically opposite of conservative Putin’s worldview and philosophy. No wonder the propaganda war against Russia and specifically Putin by the Clintonites. Ponder the following quote against the return to Ottoman Islamification by Turkey. (Ataturk began the moderation and Westernization of Turkey. Erdogan wants to restore the glory of the Ottomans)

“I’m not saying it’s good or bad, but I think the current leadership of Turkey need to show the Americans and Europeans that they’re Islamizing the country but that we’re nice Islamists. To paraphrase Reagan, we’re Islamists but we’re your Islamists. “There’s a process of Islamization [going on in Turkey] that would make Ataturk turn in his grave.”
(Seven Quotes that reveal the Mind of Vladimir Putin-Telegraph.co.uk)

Hence, the Liberal Democrats are inversely opposed to Putin’s tough stance against Turkey’s restoration of Ottoman Islamification. The Ottoman Islamic empire had a client-state Caliphate in the Crimea, established after the collapse of Constantinople in 1453 and the Christian Byzantine empire. Consider the following citation:
“Khanate of Crimea, one of the successor states to the Mongol empire. Founded in 1443 and centered at Bakhchisaray, the Crimean khanate staged occasional raids on emergent Muscovy but was no longer the threat to Russian independence that its parent state, the Golden Horde, had been even after becoming a Turkish vassal in 1475.” (see britannica.com/place/khanate-of-Crimea)

The Islamic Khanate of Crimea conducted numerous raids against Christian Russia as permitted by Sharia law. These Muslim raids threatened both Christian Muscovy and Kiev. Eventually, Catherine the Great sent Russian armies against the Muslim Khanate as the following citation alludes, “The Crimean Khanate became a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire in the 15th century, but also a power claiming territory in what is today Russia’s Caspian-Volga region. Crimea was conquered by the Russian Empire in 1783.”
(see: A Brief History of Crimea, VOA News)

As the foregoing citations reveal, Russian President Putin’s policy towards Islamic extremism is based upon hundreds of years of historical reference and experience of the Russian people with Islamification. The defiant and undermining anti-Russian and Anti-Putin liberals have no such common historical experience or knowledge. These hypocritical liberals are devoid of Christian Russian experience with the horrors of Muslim jihadism and expansion.

This was amplified in Vladimir Putin, because, despite liberal allegation, Putin is simply not only the product of Soviet-era Russia but rather, his mother, introduced him to the older Russian Orthodox Christian culture, which predated Bolshevism. Consider the following:

“Putin’s mother was a devoted Christian believer who attended the Russian Orthodox Church, and his father was an atheist. Though his mother kept no icons at home, she attended church regularly, despite government persecution of her religion at that time. His mother secretly baptized him as a baby, and she regularly took him to services.According to Putin, his religious awakening began after a serious car crash involving his wife in 1993, and a life-threatening fire that burned down their dacha in August 1996. Shortly before an official visit to Israel, Putin’s mother gave him his baptismal cross, telling him to get it blessed. Putin states, “I did as she said and then put the cross around my neck. I have never taken it off since.” When asked in 2007 whether he believes in God, he responded, “… There are things I believe, which should not in my position, at least, be shared with the public at large for everybody’s consumption because that would look like self-advertising or a political striptease.” Putin’s rumored confessor is Russian Orthodox Bishop Tikhon Shevkunov.” (Vladimir Putin: Wikipedia)

Could it be, that the liberal American Democratic thugs are screaming loud, long and obnoxiously, in order, to orchestrate a false narrative, concerning Vladimir Putin? These two-faced, scam-infested liberal Democrats, attempt to develop a false narrative of Putin the KGB operative, during the cloak and dagger Soviet-era. A Natasha and Boris character from the Rocky and Bullwinkle show. Nice stereotypes for the 1950’s and 60’s, during the “Cold War” years, but, although entertaining, a shallow, one-dimensional Kindergartner portrayal.

This is the post-Cold War, Post Soviet-era world. It is not the 1950’s, but the 21 st Century. The Natasha and Boris stereotype should retire in the public’s minds-eye, just like the Rocky and Bullwinkle show has long since retired. One difference, the Rocky and Bullwinkle show is nice and nostalgic, the Natasha and Boris stereotypes are damaging. A notice, to liberal Democrats, should be sent forthwith, grow-up, mature from your Kindergarten portrayal of Russia and Putin and move on. This author acknowledges for those in the “dumb, dumber and even dumber” crowd, such a more sophisticated thought process may be a mental challenge and thus extremely difficult!

A side of President Putin’s personality and character that does not fit with the one-dimensional narrative the cry-baby liberal Democrats attempt to hoist as a scam on America is Vladimir Putin as thoughtful, traditional and respectful Christian. Taught by his mother at an early age. Consider the following, regarding Putin’s views and acts as a devout Christian.

“Putin regularly attends the most important services of the Russian Orthodox Church on the main Orthodox Christian holidays. He established a good relationship with Patriarchs of the Russian Church, the late Alexy II of Moscow and the current Kirill of Moscow. As President, he took an active personal part in promoting the Act of Canonical Communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, signed 17 May 2007 that restored relations between the Moscow-based Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia after the 80-year schism.”
(Vladimir Putin: Wikipedia)

The liberal American democrats, unlike conservatives, are not endorsing of Russian President Putin’s embrace of Russian Christianity because such a Christianity is not consistent with liberalism’s anti-western, anti-Christian message. Thus, Putin’s return to old Russian values offends liberal America. No doubt, America’s liberal democrats have more in common with Stalinism and Maoism than modern Russia and President Putin. Putin has been engaged in the work of a Restoration of Imperial and Christian Russia. This includes the leadership Muscovy initiated in Eastern Europe upon the decline and fall of Constantinople in 1453.
As the sun set upon the once great Byzantine power, it was Christian Muscovy (and Kiev) that stepped-up to fill the power vacuum and protect Europe from many expansionist dangers. Historically, Russia was the buffer State, which protected Christian Europe from advancing hordes, such as the Golden Horde and various Islamic incursions. Now, from a Russian perspective, what did Russia receive, in exchange, from Western Europe, for her troubles as a European border and buffer state? The answer, two unprovoked invasions, by Western European powers, Napoleon and German. In the present day, America has nasty little two-faced liberals in an feign uproar and panic regarding Muscovy influence. This feigns indignation to gain political power, which has also been a tremendous obstacle to talks regarding Russian and American cooperation in the fight against Islamic terrorism.
Terrorism relatively new to the United States and centuries old to Russia. A historical truth that these dense and apparent brain-damaged liberal Democrats are clueless.

The liberals have set up the “Russians” as a boogeyman, responsible for Democratic failure in this last presidential election, which centered in Hillary Clinton’s failed attempt to connect with the European-descendent American working class. Liberal Democrats have reached “hysteria” proportion, in regards, to Russia. This hysterical attitude has reached more feverish levels than most of the Cold War era. No doubt, the Russian boogeyman drama is a scapegoat ideal, in order, to take the American public’s attention away from Benghazi, immigration issues, Jihad terrorism, Clinton classified email leaks, Bill Clinton meeting with the U.S. Attorney, while an active investigation into his wife was being conducted and the story goes on. In the interim, opportunities to have constructive talks with the Russians are being missed. Hopefully, the appointment of independent investigator Robert Mueller will quell the liberal chicken-little cry, “The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!”

Therefore, any thinking person must posit the question, is Russian President Vladimir Putin the bad character or in reality liberal American politics the substantive undermining and evil influence?

Certainly, Russian President Putin is not an American politician, but he is uniquely a Russian statesman springing from a Russian heritage, sense of Russian nationalism and an acute understanding of the pre-soviet era, Russian history. The fact that American liberals do not have any dialogue or communication with Russia is so far beyond the realm of reason, that one must conclude partisan politics are at play among liberal democrats. Unfortunately, these liberals immature and outrageous resistance to the Trump’s administration’s willingness to engage in constructive discourse with the Russians makes the world less safe and thus works against American and Russian common interests.
Thus, who is America’s real substantive enemy Putin or the liberal democrats, such as Pelosi, Waters, Warren, Schumer, and Schiff?
Who is the real threat to America?

By Jeffrey E Elliott

The post WHO IS THE REAL THREAT TO AMERICA? appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

ANTIFA PROTESTERS DEMAND FCC BAN DRUDGE, BREITBART & MORE UNDER NET NEUTRALITY RULES

Mon, 05/22/2017 - 5:45pm

Alt-left advocates for net neutrality, who say they want a “free and open internet,” want to ban the Drudge Report.

Members of the alt-left who have been tied to violent protests in the past picketed outside the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday in protest of Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposal to reverse net neutrality rules. The FCC will vote to undo the Obama era Title II rule that classified Internet service providers as utilities, subjecting them to more federal regulation.

Protesters covering their faces held signs that read “Ban Drudge,” with a no symbol over the Drudge Report, the highly trafficked news website run by Matt Drudge. Other protesters held signs to ban other news websites, including Breitbart and InfoWars.

Organizers of the campaign “Protect Our Internet” are connected to PopularResistance.org, which features several members of the antifascist (antifa) campaign.

Then there’s these “antifa” guys. Pro-net neutrality folks not happy — @mattfwood tells me they’re fighting for opposite principles. pic.twitter.com/z8z2Sg7Z60

— Brendan Bordelon (@BrendanBordelon) May 18, 2017

Then there’s these “antifa” guys. Pro-net neutrality folks not happy — @mattfwood tells me they’re fighting for opposite principles. pic.twitter.com/z8z2Sg7Z60

— Brendan Bordelon (@BrendanBordelon) May 18, 2017

Protect Our Internet claims its mission is to “keep the internet vibrant, free and equal.”

The campaign also claims net neutrality rules are “protecting our freedom to use the internet!”

A report released this week found that net neutrality regulations lead to higher internet prices for consumers and less innovation.

Source: Overpasses For America

The post ANTIFA PROTESTERS DEMAND FCC BAN DRUDGE, BREITBART & MORE UNDER NET NEUTRALITY RULES appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Why Expecting Subway Passengers to Pay Is Racist

Mon, 05/22/2017 - 10:40am

A select group of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) passengers discovered what happens when government ignores the “Broken Windows” theory of policing in favor of the left’s “Let It All Hang Out” philosophy.

“Broken Windows,” introduced by James Wilson and George Kelling, held that a community starts to deteriorate when political leadership de–emphasizes enforcement of “quality of life” ordinances.

Wilson and Kelling used the example of a building with a couple of broken windows. If the windows aren’t repaired, vandals will continue to break windows until there is no glass at all. Failure to repair the first few signals that there won’t be any consequences for breaking more in the future.

Deterioration continues until vandals break into the building and destroy the inside, too.

The social scientists contended the same thing happens in cities. If law enforcement ignores “quality of life” crimes like public urination, drinking in public, littering, graffiti and vandalism then disorder spreads and escalates.

By 1990 William Bratton, chief of New York City’s Transit Police, was tired of supervising the transit equivalent of Subway from Hell so he ordered his troops to crackdown on quality of life offenders. Plainclothes cops started arresting fare jumpers, aggressive panhandlers and vandals. Crime plummeted as a result of enhanced enforcement.

New York’s subway system became safe enough for politicians to ride.

In 2017 BART discovered it, too, has a problem with fare jumpers. The San Francisco Chronicle reports “22,000 people a day may be illegally riding BART for free — and depriving the transit system of as much as $25 million a year.”

For most of us that’s a lot of money, but for some BART board members it was a small price to pay if it kept BART cops from harassing minorities.

BART board member Lateefah Simon — a former fare–jumper herself— is convinced there are just as many upper–income seniors jumping fares as there are minority leapers, but BART cops will someone concentrate their enforcement on “teens, minorities and the homeless.”

“We don’t want to create more problems than we solve,” she explained.

So while the board was dithering a problem created itself.

Five days after Simon pooh–poohed a plan for fare enforcement, a mob hijacked a BART train. As reported by SFGate, “A mob of 40­60 young people streamed onto a BART train in Oakland Saturday night, robbing multiple riders of bags and cell phones and injuring at least two people.

“Juveniles jumped the fare gates and rushed aboard at least two cars of a Dublin-bound train at Coliseum Station shortly before 9:30 p.m. Some members of the group held doors open, stalling the train, while others ran through cars and some robbed and assaulted passengers.”

BART management was contrite: “Before all else, our hearts go out to the passengers who were victims of Saturday’s robbery.”

Once the sympathy was out of the way, BART reverted to best practices for leftists that put a higher priority on political correctness than keeping the peace. It lied.

“Overall, crime has been on the decline, and we want to stress that this robbery is neither reflective of the safety of our system nor of public transportation generally. We strive to provide a safe place for our passengers….”

Only crime isn’t down. Crime is up 22 percent in the first quarter of 2017. In fact crime is so obvious and out of control that acting chief Jeffery Jennings has declared a state of emergency.

Sympathy after the fact would not have been necessary if BART management practiced competence before the incident. Ignoring an obvious and expensive problem like rampant fare jumping only encourages the practitioners to push the limits and escalate their law breaking.

A sensible solution would be to let the data determine where to enforce. I think the term for that is science and the left claims to be the party of science.

The system has cameras in the stations and it can determine which stations are hotspots and at what time incidents occur. This common sense research might have prevented the taking of the BART train, since it occurred right after a juvenile–heavy event ended.

There is no indication the board will even try to mine the data. Adopting a “Broken Windows” policy might result in too many minority arrests, so the board is willing to risk a few broken heads.

I’m not so sure passengers on the Dublin–bound train agree with that choice.

Quality of life laws aren’t designed to inflict discrimination; they’re designed to establish a baseline for public behavior. These laws protect the elderly, the infirm, the young, the female and the wimpy, while restraining the unruly.

Regardless of whether government tolerates broken windows or broken turnstiles, it always leads to broken heads in the end.

The post Why Expecting Subway Passengers to Pay Is Racist appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

The Heart of Liberalism An open discussion of the views that divide us

Mon, 05/22/2017 - 9:17am


Although it’s nowhere near the heart of liberalism, I’d like to say that it isn’t true what most people think, that we have to live the lives we are given. That’s simply an untruth, that becomes a bit of self-limitation that serves as an excuse for not changing something about your life that you know to be wrong. We blame what’s wrong with us on other people, or the times. Sometimes on God!

 
Anyways, I’m so tired of the endless anti-liberal graffiti, I thought I ought to write about why I am one. I mean, it’s got to be like being gay, right? It’s a choice, after all. If I don’t like the anti-liberal atmosphere, just become a conservative. It would, sadly, be easier; and even more sadly, I would do it just to avoid getting spit on. But I don’t. Why? Because what lies at the very heart of the liberal cause is the cause which drives my own heart to beat: the Tribe. The Tribe, and it’s security, its productivity, the welfare of its members, its union.

 
We may as well get it out in the open. At the core of liberalism is the idea that people who live closely enough to affect each other’s lives must be governed by a common set of laws, and that all persons living in such proximity are subject to living accordingly. In other words, people must, in some cases be made to behave in ways that they are not inclined naturally, to behave. For instance, let’s say you and the sixteen year old baby sitter take a shine to each other, and she takes to skipping school and going to a motel with you. I mean, I know that the heart wants what the heart wants, but liberalism says that persons in a position to do so may make laws prohibiting this kind of behavior in order to insure some amount of parental discretion in the timeline of their own children’s sexual development. Similarly, lawmakers may prohibit certain kinds of commerce like, say, allowing trading companies to merge with banks, allowing the trading houses latitude to use depositors savings as collateral with which to buy stocks and bonds, on the intuition that a persons savings should be safe in the bank, and that the Tribe should not have to underwrite gambles made by trading houses either, so you get a law that gives you two for one. Recently, a law like that, a dike built by the 2nd Roosevelt got removed, and as a result of that, economically speaking, we Americans are living in Dresden after the bombing. So that’s about it. Liberalism is formed around the notion that people living in close contact, such as in a city, a county, or a nation, must be ruled by law, and that law applies equally to all. But, wait! Wait up there Brother Theo! What about abortion, or welfare, or transgender bathrooms for Gods sake? Well, liberalism doesn’t say what kind of laws communities get to make in order to control or guide their members. What is just hopefully.

 
O.K., I have to answer this one though, because it is a law that lies at the heart of resistance to liberalism. As I said, the law applies equally to all men. That means that if the law grants the privilege of an activity to any of those whom it governs, then that privilege must be granted to all who it governs.
Only once, at the time of the civil war has the notion of union been challenged outright. The proud sons and daughters of the south still protest that outcome, and refuse to fully submit to the idea of a common union. In the south, Nixon found a way to win. And just like that, the corporations found a way to divide the Tribe once more, finding fertile ground for stirring up dissatisfaction, and hate. Not many people who will admit to being a liberal in the south since President Reagan introduced us so theatrically to the”L” word. Since then, liberals have become associated with child molestation, and I don’t mean the good kind either. Liberals are all gay in the south, and generally lots of people think liberals are responsible for America’s falling upon hard times, and landing hard. But who can argue with common standards and laws? I could not tell you under what heading the immigration controversy falls, but it ain’t liberal conservative. If it were, folks would stop thinking that liberals want to let in the immigrants in out of pity. Not so! True liberalism demands that the laws be satisfied, and we are far from that. What about the fact that under the law corporations have personhood? That plans that they have the legal status as American citizens. Liberals believe that as such, corporations must obey in equal measure, the same laws as you or me. My friend Billy is writing a similar piece called the heart of conservatism, and I for one am looking forward to reading what motivates him to follow that cause. Remember how I started this Billy, we don’t have to accept our lives as they are given.

 

Brother Theo

The post The Heart of Liberalism An open discussion of the views that divide us appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Dr. Ahmed on the reaction to Ivanka, Melania in Saudi Arabia

Sun, 05/21/2017 - 4:13pm

‘In the Land of Invisible Women’ author and Muslim scholar Dr. Qanta Ahmed provides insight

Source: YouTube.com

The post Dr. Ahmed on the reaction to Ivanka, Melania in Saudi Arabia appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Underreported: How This Nonprofit Is Solving Homelessness Without Government Funding

Sun, 05/21/2017 - 4:04pm

VISTA, CALIF.—Growing up, Teena Faison never imagined she’d find herself a single mom and homeless.

“We didn’t wake up one day and go, ‘Hey, I just want to be homeless with my kids,’” she told The Daily Signal “No. There’s many, many contributing factors to that—lack of education, lack of resources, addiction.”

At 34 years old, Faison decided to change her ways and come to Solutions for Change, a family homeless nonprofit located in Visa, Calif., 45 minutes outside San Diego. Instead of simply providing residents a place to sleep, Solutions for Change takes a holistic approach to solving homelessness, requiring residents to go through counseling, take courses in financial literacy, parenting, leadership, and anger management, and eventually, get a job.

Over the past 17 years, Solutions for Change has gotten 1,200 families off government assistance and back on their feet. But because their program requires residents to be drug-free, Solutions for Change is ineligible to receive government funding.

Watch the video to learn more about why, despite their high success rates at solving family homelessness, Solutions for Change chose to maintain their drug-free policy instead of accepting government funding.

Source: Kelsey Harknessdailysignal.com

The post Underreported: How This Nonprofit Is Solving Homelessness Without Government Funding appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Remember Clock Boy? Well, His Federal Lawsuit Just Got Tossed

Sun, 05/21/2017 - 3:26pm

Remember Ahmed Mohamed? He’s the high school student who made a crappy clock and then got arrested on the suspicion that it was a bomb. Political correctness debates started thereafter, with President Obama inviting Mohamed to the White House after the incident. The family then moved to Qatar in 2015, but returned the following year for the summer. In August of 2016, the family filed a lawsuit against the school, claiming they infringed on his civil rights (via WaPo):

Nearly one year after 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamed was arrested for bringing a “suspicious-looking” homemade clock to class, his family has filed suit against his former Texas school district, the principal of the high school and the city of Irving.

The lawsuit filed Monday claims that Ahmed’s civil rights were violated in the incident that made the 9th grader go viral last September.

Cool clock, Ahmed. Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It’s what makes America great.

— President Obama (@POTUS44) September 16, 2015

Now, a federal judge has dismissed the lawsuit. Mohamed’s lawyers have until June 1 to provide additional evidence that their client faced discrimination based on his religion (via Fox4News Dallas/Fort Worth):

A federal court has thrown out the civil rights lawsuit filed by the family of the Irving teenager known as “Clock Boy.”

The lawsuit alleged that the city of Irving and Irving school district discriminated against Ahmed Mohamed at Irving MacArthur High School in September of 2015.

[…]

The city and school district both denied violating Mohamed’s rights or discriminating against him because of his religion. On Friday, a judge granted their request to dismiss the suit.

“Plaintiff does not allege any facts from which this court can reasonably infer that any IISD employee intentionally discriminated against Ahmed Mohamed based on his race or religion,” the ruling states.

Mohamed’s attorneys now have until June 1 to submit additional facts that might help prove discrimination; otherwise, the case will be closed.

Source: Matt Vespa @TownHall.com

The post Remember Clock Boy? Well, His Federal Lawsuit Just Got Tossed appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

They Serve at the Pleasure of the President

Sun, 05/21/2017 - 1:02am

How does impeachment of a president work?  The House of Representatives acting as a super grand jury votes an indictment or impeachment.  The Senate acting as a jury decides whether or not the charges brought warrant conviction.  If the president is convicted by the Senate he is removed from office.  If two-thirds of the Senate fails to vote to convict the charges are dropped.  In that case, the president was still impeached but not convicted.

In 1868 the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Andrew Johnson.  This was the first time any president was impeached.  Contrary to popular belief President Nixon was never impeached.  He resigned while the Watergate debacle was still under investigation.  President Clinton was impeached but like Johnson, he was not convicted by the Senate so he remained in office until the end of his term.

Why is this history lesson appropriate for May 17, 2017?  Because I believe President Trump is going to be impeached.

Why was Andrew Johnson impeached?  Although there were eleven articles of impeachment the main reason and primary cause was that he fired Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary of the Department of War.  Congress had passed a law: the Tenure of Office Act.  This became law in 1867, over the veto of President Andrew Johnson. It denied the president the power to remove any executive officer who had been appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, unless the Senate approved the removal during the next full session of Congress. The act was significantly amended on April 5, 1869. Congress repealed the act in its entirety in 1887. In 1926, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional even though it had been repealed almost forty years before.

All appointees of the executive office serve at the pleasure of the president.  He hires them, and even though the major ones must be confirmed by the Senate, he can fire them.

Andrew Johnson missed being convicted by the Senate by one vote.

Why was Bill Clinton impeached?  In this case, there were only two articles of impeachment: lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice.  President Clinton was acquitted on both articles of impeachment. Needing a two-thirds majority to convict the prosecution failed to achieve even a majority. On the first charge of perjury, 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted “not guilty,” and on the second charge of obstruction of justice, the Senate was split 50-50.  However, others who were not as politically attuned were not so lenient.

In April 1999, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for giving false testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment trial and fined him more than $90,000.  Once he lost his presidential immunity he was disbarred from practicing law in Arkansas and was also disbarred from practicing law in front of the Supreme Court.  Additionally, he was fined $25,000 for his testimony in the Lewinsky incident.

Now the impeachment drums are beating again.  Democrats determined since November 8th to declare the Trump victory illicit by any means necessary are planning a coup.  The RESIST! Movement with its Antifa bully boys dressed in black hiding behind masks has no legs.  The American people will tire of their over-the-top antics and eventually, they will spawn their own backlash in a call for law and order.

However, the political hacks, the perpetually re-elected in Congress are a horse of different color.  They’re biding their time waiting for enough blood to stain the water.  They’re waiting for their stenographers in the ABCCBSNBCPBSCNNMSNBC Cartel to give them enough political cover.  Then they’ll pounce.

Andrew Johnson was a Democrat impeached by a Republican Congress after the Civil War when the Democrat Party was completely discredited. The Republicans had a super majority and still, they couldn’t convict.

In Bill Clinton’s case, Republicans voted with Democrats not to convict even though some on both sides of the aisle gave speeches saying they knew he was guilty and repudiating his actions.

In the case of President Trump, his political enemies have been field testing charges since day one.  They say Russians hacked the election, and even though Hillary won the popular vote these hypothetical Russians were trying to elect Trump.  They say President Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election.  Even though months of hearings and armies of investigative reporters have been chasing this mirage there is still no evidence.

Now he fired the Director of the FBI, and he supposedly gave classified information to the Russians.  Everyone admits he has every right to fire any of the political appointees in the executive branch, and President Putin is offering to give the official transcripts of the meeting between Mr. Trump and the Russian ambassador which prove no classified information was shared.  However, innocence may not be enough to avoid impeachment just as it might not be enough to avoid conviction.

Why?  Because the Ryan Rhinos control the house and the McCain/McConnell Never Trumpers control the Senate.

Donald Trump is the one thing none of the elites of the Washington Swamp can abide: a non-politician who beat them all at their own game.  They cannot afford to let anyone see behind the curtain and find out how the sausage is made.  They are dedicated to the proposition that government is too complicated for an average Joe to understand.  While Mr. Trump is far from an average Joe he is not one of them.  He didn’t go to the right schools, he didn’t pay his dues on the hustings, and he shines the light on the fact that they aren’t as special as they want us to think they are.

As I have said many times, I think the first 535 names out of any phone book would yield a Congress at least as good as what we have.  What we have now is the best Congress money can buy.  Under the Telephone Book Party, we would at least have a few regular people in there.

Watch the news.  Try to discern the fake from the real.  Tempests in teapots and phony scandals will continue to ruffle the waters until the Government Party is ready to overthrow the Country Party.  I believe impeachment will come.  What will be the reaction of those riding the Trump train?

Will it be despair and withdrawal or rage and confrontation?

Over the years I have offered one piece of advice repeatedly.  Keep the faith.  Keep the peace.  We shall overcome.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.  He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2017 Contact Dr. Owens [email protected]  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

The post They Serve at the Pleasure of the President appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

The Kevin Jackson Radio Show

Sun, 05/21/2017 - 12:20am

The Kevin Jackson Show started as The Black Sphere Radio Show, which began as a humble program on blogtalk radio in 2009. The show quickly garnered the notice of veteran radio man “Big Dave” Perkins, and Big Dave encouraged Kevin, telling him that he was “made” for radio,, good looks notwithstanding. In short time WGUL’s program director agreed and offered Kevin the weekend slot on the station.

A lot has happened since then, as Kevin is now a FOX News Contributor, and is waiting on the next big radio syndication opportunity. On the show Kevin Jackson serves up conservative talk with a fresh helping of sarcasm and humor: he challenges the politics of the left and a culture dominated by Progressives with fresh, funny, insightful common-sense commentary.

Source: Kevin Jackson Radio Show @TheBlackSphere.net/radio

The post The Kevin Jackson Radio Show appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Ambush At Berry Creek

Sat, 05/20/2017 - 3:27pm

The studio wasn’t a studio in any definition. It was actually a home office. Jackie took her seat at the desk. Before her was an eMac computer. To her left a PC desktop with a twenty-one-inch screen, behind her another PC with a more civilized monitor. As she sipped her coffee, she put the mini cassette into the camera sitting on its tripod. This was well before the days of palm-size camcorders with digital media. This camera was something to be understood.

Detaching the Canon camera from its mount, she turned it on and aimed it at a blank sheet of paper. She had to set the white balance if the colors were to be true. “You wanna do it here?” her father in law asked as he came into the room.

After a moment she said, “No. outside.” Filming outside gave the golf course as a backdrop. In the early days of the YouTube series, she always filmed inside, but the release of “Herb Superb” had shown the popularity of porch scenes. Her father in law carried the equipment out to the porch and she smoked a cigar, positioning herself for the shoot.
“Are you sure this shit is something I should even be talking about?” Jackie never discussed her personal life, and until recently, never smoked on camera. Even now, when she smoked, it was a cigarette, not letting her teen viewers know that she preferred Macanudo cigars. She rolled her own cigarettes, fueling the rumors that she was always rolling a joint. This was not true. She fashioned her cigarettes from Prince Albert pipe tobacco, saying if she were to be reduced to a cigarette it had to at least have flavor.
This was to be a wrap. The explanations and goodbyes. The conclusion of an effort that began three years before, when she strolled into the office while her father in law was toying around with a camera. She leaned over his shoulder, saw her image appear on the screen, and asked, “What do we have here?” That was the beginning of a series of short videos that garnered an audience of teen girls who hung on Jackie’s every word as she openly discussed life, sex, birth, and just about anything that popped into her head. It wasn’t until she noticed the little numbers under each video that she even began to take this new hobby seriously. The little numbers were views, and there were around thirty-five thousand a day! She was a phenomenon. The little wall flower from Austin had a following. YouTube was in its infancy, and if you had a computer and a camera, stardom was just one viral video away.
There had been five goodbyes this month. She had lost all of her children. Even the planning of this film was an emotional roller coaster for her. All her other films had been spontaneous. Jackie would rattle off for about a half hour and then retire to the “studio” to reduce the video to around two minutes and fifty-five seconds, the attention span of a fifteen-year-old girl. There had been some trailblazing moments such as a swimming pool scene once. With a crowd of teeny-boppers swimming around her at the country club, one adventurous young man asked, “Hey Jackie, you ever had sex in a pool?” She thought for a moment, looked at him, and returned, “Well, not with a guy!” On CAMERA, and many cell phones! That wisecracking YouTube star had been replaced by a weary, troubled young woman. She showed the mileage, and all the whiskey in Lynchburg, Tennessee just couldn’t hit the spot. What, just three years ago, had been a vibrant, jovial perpetual sixteen-year-old single mother was now a beaten woman, slumping on the bench, studying the twelfth green as if she’d never seen it before. She and her father in law were alone here now, in what she referred to as their “Pretty Prison.” A mansion on the twelfth green of an Arnold Palmer golf course, filled with empty chairs, where not long before there weren’t enough chairs to go around. She’d written a song, “Broken dreams, and empty chairs, we’ll all face the fire down there, and I hope yours burns cooler than mine.” The fired burned hot this afternoon because the chairs were high chairs.
She finished her smoke and waved her hand before the camera lens, her signal that she was ready. Her eyes were tired, and red. Sitting where she sat, she had to look past the chairs into the very rooms where just a few months ago her children played. “We’re standing at the gates of the Alamo, dad.”
“That the way you see it?” he returned, as he removed the lens cap.
Nodding, and wiping her eyes she said, Yeah. That’s the way I see it.”
She lowered her head a moment, took a breath, composed herself. Then she sat a bit higher. She rubbed her face, dried her eyes, and a beautiful sixteen-year-old girl suddenly appeared where a battered twenty-one-year-old had been just a moment before. The dull eyes became bright blue. An impish smile replaced the frown of a woman beaten down by a state government and then, taking a slight breath, she stared into the souls of her viewers, and in her best, sing-song voice said, “Hi! I’m iJackie . . .”

The post Ambush At Berry Creek appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

SETUP: Is President Trump PUNKING DEMOCRATS with Russia?

Fri, 05/19/2017 - 5:25pm
Does President Trump act like a guy who’s scared?

The Democrats have tried to tie Trump or anybody who has used the word “trump” to the Russians. 

Despite their best efforts with Alinsky tactics, the ruse isn’t working. And much to the chagrin of the Left.

So now, to convince themselves they are on the right track, they will poll…themselves.

McClatchy reported Thursday that Democratic strategists plan to poll test the idea of calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump. I guess the incessant media coverage hasn’t given them enough feedback?

The idea was born when Hillary Clinton and other prominent Democrats figured out that Hillary Clinton wasn’t a certainty as President. In the “Be careful what you wish for” scenario, the Democrats begged for the GOP to select Trump. And the rest, as they say, is history.

The fallback plan for the Democrats was to connect Trump to the Russians. The abject irony of this strategy lies in the multiple connections the Democrats had to the Russians.

Recall Obama’s meeting with the Russian president, Medvedev where Obama promised to be more agreeable, once he was re-elected.

And what of the multiple connections between Clinton and her staffers with the Russians. Podesta received millions of kickbacks. Further, The Clinton Foundation benefited greatly as well.

If James Comey had any balls, the Clintons, Obama, and half of Obama’s administration would be in Leavenworth, serving out sentences from 10 to life. Yet, it is the Democrats who claim that Comey’s firing by Trump was to get the FBI off his back.

Firing one person wouldn’t get the FBI off one’s back.

However, the bigger farce is that most Democrats, including some of the most vocal against Trump’s firing of Comey, were the one’s asking for Comey to be fired.

Next, we get the obviously false New York Times report that Trump allegedly urged former FBI Director James Comey to discontinue an investigation of former national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn. There was an infamous “Comey memo” that is currently being debunked. Supposedly, the memo documents a meeting with President Trump where he is to have said to Comey of the Flynn investigation, “I hope you can let this go.”

If you believe that nonsense you have the intellect of a baboon, and deserve to have your ass kick. By ass, I mean the Democrat who obviously represents you, as Republicans are too smart to fall for this idiocy.

According to McClatchy, Democratic Party operatives claim to have been caught off guard by how fast impeachment became a relevant issue.

Now that’s funny, particularly in light of the next part of their revelation. Apparently, Democrats also “fear the political blow-back that could occur if it’s not handled correctly”.

Put more simply: the Democrats fear being found out.

These morons know they have let the genie out of the bottle. Secretly, they now wish they hadn’t. 

There is a theory circulating that President Trump may be leading the Democrats on their snipe hunt. When I first heard this, I thought the idea was absurd. Why would he create such a stink, when he has better things to do?

Well, it’s because he has better things to do!

Consider the energy the Left now spends on this nonsense. Yet, President Trump moves around the world without a care in the world. He acts like…an innocent man!

Moreover, Conservatives are not lying down. Many fight at the grassroots level, using tactics of the Left to go after their sacred cows and race pimps.

 (AP Photo/Tony Dejak)

Recently Maxine Waters was targeted at her $3 million mansion. It won’t look good for Maxine Waters to be seen as one of the “rich”. Further, the group of blacks and Hispanics who protested her called for her impeachment.

Impeachment polling began Jan 21, 2017, and it’s not going very well. Nancy Pelosi recently commented that Trump has done nothing that rises to the level of impeachment, so even she has her lunatic limit. Thus, Democrats rely on the real bottom feeders: the Congressional Black Circus.

One such clown Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) has actively called for Trump’s impeachment on the House floor. His impassioned plea sound more like Creflo Dollar trying to get parishioners to buy his wife a matching $60 million jet. The man used the word “perspicuous” to get his point across.

Rolling Stone reported that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif) declared that Democrats cannot be afraid to talk forcefully about impeachment. As if they have been?!

When blacks won’t do, the Left bring in their Mexicans.

Democratic Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes that if the reports about Comey’s memo are true, then Trump obstructed justice and impeachment would be warranted.

Nice try, Juan.

But what if the reports are not true? Then what?

Allow me to elaborate. They “then what” is the death of the Democrats. The boy who cried wolf once too many times.

President Trump may very well be the person orchestrating this travesty; playing a simple game against an all too eager bunch of nitwits.

Regardless of who’s pulling the strings, the outcome is clear: Democrats will lose.

Source:Kevin Jackson @ TheBlackSphere.net

The post SETUP: Is President Trump PUNKING DEMOCRATS with Russia? appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

The Trojan Horse and How It Destroys American Citizenship

Fri, 05/19/2017 - 11:13am

I
Leave it to the liberal. Some things around here get left to the liberal to say because sure as shooting as soon as they get said, the crows are going to fly. So, OK, fine, I’ll say them, but first, we’re going to get something out of the way. I must, in all humility offer insult to one of America’s Gods, and I’ll be damned if I will do so without first pointing out that I liked this guy. My dad edited speeches for him, and once I even attended a weekend private rodeo where he was present, and I liked him then, even as a very young boy. I worked ceaselessly on his first term candidacy, and won a position as republican precinct chair in my county in order to support him to the fullest extent of my abilities. And, I loved him, right up until he uttered the words “I am going to put the working man in his place”. Oh how little do we know when we are young, and how bitter is the fruit of our adoration of that which is made of flesh.

 
Now, I know America is a nation; a nation with a constitution, borders, and it is a sovereign nation, owing no allegiance to any other nations except by treaty. But America’s constitution is only as good as the oaths of those who swear to protect her, and nearly to a man (or woman, for that matter), our sworn protectors of the constitution are oath breakers. Why, President Trump broke article one, section one of the constitution within hours of taking the inaugural oath! As far as our sovereign borders are concerned, Meh. And I’m not sure, but, doesn’t our insufferable trade imbalance (read debt here), count as allegiance? But lt us not linger there, for this is a systemic problem. I like to think of Peter, who forswore Jesus just hours after declaring his undying loyalty when I think of our lawmakers, for what fate awaits him who turns on the real masters?
The constitution gives congress the full and indisputable right to define U.S. citizenship (also in article one of the constitution.) The 14th amendment to the constitution guarantees citizenship to persons born within the boundaries of the U.S., and some temporal modifications have been made since, including certain distinctions between U.S. Nationals, and U.S. citizens according to the political climate at the time of such rulings. The thing thing that sticks with me, is that since 1790 the congress has had full control of who and what an American citizen is, and, well….here we are, two hundred and twenty seven years later, in what my first wife liked to call “ a hot mess”.
The real buster though, was the Simpson Mazzoli act, or, the Immigration and control act of 1986. Yeah, one of President Reagan’s finer moments; if you were an illegal immigrant that is. This little stroke of the pen, why did he do it? Why did our hero sign into citizenship three and a half million Mexicans (OK, there must have been a few Guatemala, El Salvadorans, Nicaraguans, etc, but come on) who’s only bona fides were that they could show themselves to be of good character? I mean please! “Oh yes your honor, I sneaked into the country illegally, worked illegally, and lied on every document I’ve signed since I got here, but, other than that, my character is spotless . Got to have been a reason folks. I’ll give you a hint: he was putting the working man in his place ! I mean, in those days, we had unions. Most of you under the age of forty don’t know what a union is, except from your history books, that is; but those were organizations which protected workers from excessive abuse from employers ( or, the makers
as Mitt Romney called them). Rather than behave as earlier Presidents did, sending in thugs to kill, or maim strikers, or as was the case in 1921 during the Blair mountain uprising using U.S. military assets, the Reagan administration simply made “right to work” laws a priority, and supplied America’s businesses three and a half million hungry new workers. I want you to think about that for a moment. First, in almost every country not allied with the U.S., unions are illegal. Wow, we could be living in North Korea soon! Unions are one of the things that made America even possible . Secondly, after beginning the destruction of the only thing to stand between American workers and their benevolent employers, there began an influx of immediate family members, also covered by the act, there began a heavy toll on the infrastructure of America, like schools, roads, medical services, and such. Since there were fewer middle class taxpayers as a result of this sudden supply of legal, cheap labor, their kids, wives, siblings, aunts, and uncles, it fell to the remaining middle class to foot the bill for these items which have ever more been thought of as luxuries. You know, like hospitals. And let us not forget, that at the same time, President Reagan slashed the top income tax rate from 70% to 28%. Who was paying more for the shortfall funding for fire stations, police agencies, roads, etc.? Add to this the fact that the Reagan administration made a concentrated effort to convince Americans that we suffered under the yoke of a government conglomerate that, in addition to being too large, was lazy, indolent and mendacious. Viewed through a completely fabricated lens that the cause of all this bloat was the fault of liberal democrats, the stage was set to reignite the civil war at a time that the international money interests were beginning the task of separating the American government from its constitution.

 
It seems that Mike Lofgren used a pretty good analogy when he compared President Reagan to a Trojan horse. An empty work of art filled with America’s enemies, wheeled into the Oval Office, economic hit men peering through the eyeholes, awaiting only the departure of the cameras to emerge, and begin the devaluation of our citizenship. In the next article of this series we will compare the actual coin value of American citizenship over the last 230 years, and the forces which caused these fluctuations. There will be a full on examination of how both parties have affected these values, and even an article to be titled “confessions of a liberal”. I know how hard it is to give up a target. I used to think that it was conservative republicans who were the enemy. I was as wrong as any conservative who thought it was the liberals. In the next weeks, I will prove to our readers that we don’t have a political problem in this country, but a corporate problem instead. Now that the unions have all but disappeared, and the working man has retired; that’s right, retired, everyone who worked through that golden age before the hostile takeover of our government is retired! You drive your motor homes around looking for conservative rallies to attend, but they don’t need you anymore brother. You’ve done your job! Once you guys pulled the ladder up after yourselves, that pretty much completed the division of American labor. Pissed off to hear that? Well think about this for a minute: how many American jobs would have illegal immigrants working in them if there was a union overseeing that job?
Of course President Reagan did not conceive of, or execute these acts himself, any more than he thought up the idea to negotiate a deal with the Ayatollah to hold American hostages for months, or trade Hawk missiles to Iran in order to fund the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government. These were the conceptions and act of persons who worked in a shadowy cabal of banks, the CIA, and large international corporations. If this makes you angry, it should. It hurts to have been had by your own side. If it doesn’t make you angry, then, congrats man, the working man has certainly been put in his place!

The post The Trojan Horse and How It Destroys American Citizenship appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

From an Old Biker

Thu, 05/18/2017 - 10:09pm

From the Mind of a Dumb Ole Biker in Alvin, Texas. Chappy Gypsy
Written my a fellow brother in arms Steve Baglemann USMC, Brother and Friend and he doesn’t mix any words here.
Let’s get a few things straight.

First, there is only one party, the establishment. There are no longer Democrats or Republicans as they both disappeared a long time ago. They are both two heads of the same damned snake trying to get everyone to believe they are fighting for you, when in fact all they are doing is getting fat and sassy with money and power.

Second and a fact, over the last four election cycles the left have lost a total of near 1,000 seats in government including the presidency. This clearly indicates the frustration for a majority of the nation’s citizens that things weren’t running correctly as the people saw fit. There is no disputing this. Fact, period.

Third, Trump was elected President of the United States, not because of the political left’s desire for Hillary, but because the electorate selected Trump to win. The electorate is a more balanced way for every citizen’s voice to be heard, not just those in the major cities. This is what our fore-fathers wanted and this is what we got; a president was elected by the people for the people. I won’t debate anyone on this. If you don’t agree, push for an Amendment to change the constitutional way we elect a president and good luck with that.

Fourth, the Constitution is a document, a contract between the people and its elected officials. It limits power to the Federal Government and protects the rights of the citizens. The Constitution is not, nor was intended to be a living, breathing document whereby we make changes as we go along or read into any more than what is in plain black and white. The tool for changing the laws and rights within the Constitution are called Constitutional Amendments. If the masses gain enough support for a change, a Amendment can be made. Otherwise, the law and protections are outlined as written. Stop wordsmithing and attempting to put a square peg in a round hole, or maybe you missed that day in preschool.

Fifth, until and unless there is verifiable written or physical proof of something, it is only hearsay and is more less a fairy tale. Anonymous said so doesn’t make it fact. Several people saying the same story from an unverified source doesn’t make it a fact either. Get your panties in a bunch all you want, however there are no faults unless something is proven to be a fact with evidence. Investigate away and if something comes up to prove without a doubt, then we can have an adult conversation, otherwise stay in the nursery.

With all that said, you can keep your Washington Post, your NY Times, your rag after rag, as well as your alphabet news agencies, they’re all bought and paid for by the same clowns in the establishment. Executives at the highest levels of these agencies are directly related, or married to those same politicians who pretend to work in our government. And guess who supplies money to both the politicians and the media to keep their little games going? Corporations like FB, Walmart, Amazon, Apple, big pharma, big oil and power, etc. Lobbyists, plain and simple. How do you think everyone that serves in our government goes from only earning a couple hundred thousand a year to millionaires and billionaires while in office? Did you know that every last one of those serving fall into those two categories? Wouldn’t you like to work as little during a year and fly all over the country making that kind of cash!

Now I suspect the majority of those who voted for Trump did so to take back our government and move away from these criminals. What they’ve done is not capitalistic, it’s back-room robbery and deception. Capitalism has been largely hijacked by these folks. All the taxes collected and we still have inner-cities never getting out of poverty? All the money going to Chicago in some form and the local neighborhoods are still so poor, uneducated, still killing each other? Why??? Because those are votes for one party right there! Yes, they are easier to manipulate because their education was so poor. Tell them you’re working for them and throw them a bone or some free stuff once in awhile, especially around election time and you have yourself a captive audience of voters. The same with illegal immigrants and asylum seekers, give em stuff and you’ve bought votes for life. This is happening in every major city across the nation. You have those that have and you have those that have not.

Back in the 1860’s slavery was abolished and those enslaved were free. I’m not going to get into black slavery although it was the predominant, when in fact there were other types of slavery as well in other nationalities in this country as well during our history. The point is, slavery was abolished and the left’s ability to have and maintain slaves was eliminated, or was it?

Slavery over time was converted to enslavement. Think about those two words and the meanings of each.

Today, people aren’t slaves in the sense we know from a time in our history, they are enslaved. Enslaved in inner-cities, enslaved to be taxed more than actual take-home. The majority of people in this country are barely getting by and live paycheck to paycheck. It’s the establishment who causes this, the inner-cities are from the left, the back dealing corporatists are on the right, taxation games from both. There are so many more examples, but this gets the point across.

Trump was elected to take the trash out, drain the swamp, eliminate the good ol boys network, remove the dealers, whatever you want to call it, that’s his directive by the people. Remember the electoral college put him in power, not the major cities. The general masses have spoken and if questioned again in 2018, they will speak louder as necessary.

Like it or not, Donald Trump is the President of the United States. Enemies from all walks of political, media and corporate life want him taken down because he’s going to wreck their game. Politicians will pontificate, media will stretch or make up stories that are unverifiable, backed by corporate monies to do whatever it takes to remove this man from office.

Until and unless hard verifiable or physical proof is found about any accusations from any party, don’t fall into the temptation to believe the fairy tales. If you’ve read this far, maybe you agree with me. There are a lot of us out there and certainly more than the media will have you believe. We are by far the majority and we need to stick together and see this thru. We are a proud Republic and although we have been off-road a bit, we are getting a handle on things and getting our country back on track. Have faith and pray about it. Thanks for reading!

Written by,
Steve Balgemann

The post From an Old Biker appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

IRS officials say lives at risk in tea party bias case

Thu, 05/18/2017 - 4:43pm

CINCINNATI — Details about tea party bias claims against the IRS could remain secret because current and former agency officials say their lives are in danger if they publicly testify about the case.

Lois Lerner and Holly Paz both have argued in recent court filings that the threat to their lives outweighs the public’s right to hear their testimony about how IRS employees in Cincinnati and Washington, D.C., handled applications for tax-exempt status from tea party groups.

They recently filed evidence to support their claim under seal in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati. Though that evidence has not been made public, court records indicate it relates to death threats and other harassment the women say they endured after their names were connected to the bias claims against the IRS several years ago.

“This documentation, as the court will see, makes very personal references and contains graphic, profane and disturbing language that would lead to unnecessary intrusion and embarrassment if made public,” their attorneys argued in a recent court brief. “Public dissemination of their deposition testimony would put their lives in serious jeopardy.”

Attorneys for the tea party groups suing the IRS say the argument against full disclosure doesn’t hold up. They asked the court Wednesday to make the IRS officials’ testimony public and to also open a May 19 hearing to the public.

Their arguments, like most documents in the case, are not publicly available because U.S. District Judge Michael Barrett ordered them filed under seal. The hearing on May 19 will address those issues, but it, too, is closed to the public.

Edward Greim, an attorney for the tea party groups, said he’s not permitted to discuss the brief he filed under seal, but said the allegations against the IRS are serious and the public has a right to know what happened. The tea party groups expect Lerner and Paz to shed light on the issue when they testify in sworn depositions.

“Generally, our position is that this is a matter of great public interest and there is no legal basis for sealing the depositions or the arguments about whether the depositions should be sealed,” Greim said.

The lawsuit in Cincinnati is one of several filed against the IRS after agency officials acknowledged in 2013 they had singled out conservative-leaning “public interest” groups for extra attention while reviewing their applications for non-profit, tax-exempt status. Under the law, such groups are permitted to conduct some political activity as long as it is not the majority of their work.

A Senate subcommittee found in 2014 that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to judge the tea party groups, but it found no evidence of political bias in the selection of those groups for additional scrutiny. Applications from some liberal-leaning groups also were delayed, but about 80% of groups affected were conservative.

Lerner, the agency’s former Exempt Organization director, resigned over the scandal. Paz, who worked under her, was reassigned.

Paz has previously said the Cincinnati office, which is home to the IRS’ non-profit division, was overwhelmed by applications from conservative groups when the tea party movement began in 2009 and employees struggled with how to process so many applications.

In their written argument to Barrett, attorneys for Lerner and Paz said the threats against the women should take precedence over public disclosure, which they argued is not necessary.

“Although there is a compelling need for sealing, there is no countervailing need to make those details public,” they wrote. “Allowing public dissemination … would likely lead to media coverage that may then subject both individuals to the very harms they seek a protective order to avoid.”

Source:  @USAToday.com

The post IRS officials say lives at risk in tea party bias case appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Special Prosecutor

Thu, 05/18/2017 - 1:39pm

This is an experiment of mind to see if I can transcend  written articles with a news media kind of approach. Bear with me. Let’s see if this works.

The post Special Prosecutor appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Tea Party Activists: Media Attacks on President Trump ‘An All Out Assault on Our Republic’

Thu, 05/18/2017 - 12:00pm

Tea Party activists across the country tell Breitbart News the mainstream media, with help from “Deep State” bureaucrats, is doing the work of the Democratic Party in an effort to undermine the political agenda of Donald Trump, the duly elected President of the United States.

“This is an all out assault on our Republic by the media, ” Joe Dugan, Founder and Executive Producer of the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Convention, tells Breitbart News. He added:

What started as pathetic partisan pouting when the totally biased press, pundits and prognosticators failed, so miserably, to forecast the election results and comprehend how absolutely fed up the American voters truly are with corruption in the swamp. Now that they have taken it to an even higher level, affecting foreign opinions and possible dangerous violations of our national security by the media, criminal prosecution may be warranted.

“The whole liberal press and insider leaks thing with President Trump is absurd and disgusting. It is so obvious that the D.C. swamp rats are working overtime to tarnish this great man, ” long-time Montana Tea Party activist Eric Olsen tells Breitbart News.

“The constant drumbeat of leaks and innuendo by the press, including the supposed memo from Comey reported on by the New York Times, suggests a far more sinister problem in our government,” Mark Skoda, a long-time Tennessee Tea Party activist and Chairman and Founder of the America First Federation tells Breitbart News, adding:

First, had Comey indeed believed Trump was attempting to obstruct justice, he should have reported it and directly taken action through the Justice Department. Secondly, as he had not done so, as indicated by “colleagues” within the FBI who leaked the memo, Comey himself may have committed a crime. Third, the continued leaks out of the White House by existing and former staff reflect a real problem with the deep state. One that can only be dealt with by Trump terminating every political appointee and taking bold actions around his agenda.

On March 4, Skoda organized a rally in Nashville supporting President Trump, the largest among dozens of Spirit of America rallies held around the country that day.

Tom Zawistowski, Executive Director of Portage County TEA Party in Ohio tells Breitbart News:

The vast majority of working class Americans, on both sides of the political spectrum, thought Comey should have been fired long ago for not treating Hillary Clinton the way the FBI would have treated each of us. We’re not stupid. We understand that it is Comey who committed a crime if he did not report immediately if Trump asked him not to investigate Flynn.

“We understand that it is the media and the DC Insiders who committed a crime when they disclosed the name of the city where or ISIS informant is located when Trump didn’t even have that information,” Zawistoski said, adding:

This charade in Washington with demands for investigations, and even special prosecutors, with no evidence, while at the same time ignoring provable federal crimes like unmasking US citizens for political reasons and leaking classified information to the media only proves their lack of credibility. So why pay attention? No one believes a word of what the media says or what any Democrat says. It is simply all made up with one goal and that is to undermine our election process and bring down our federal government. Now that is the crime we would like to see Congress and the FBI investigating.

“These same media minions didn’t hyperventilate when Obama was caught promising flexibility on a hot mic. They ignored it,” one long-time Tea Party activist tells Breitbart News. He went on:

Comey is simply a disgruntled former government employee trying to be a hero for his Democrat buddies and most likely looking for a book deal. If he was so concerned about alleged POTUS pressure to stop the investigation he should have brought it to Congress after dinner. I guess he never shared this little tidbit with his Deputy, McCabe. He continues to prove to the American people he has no credibility.

Dan Schultz an attorney, Tea Party activist, and long-time Arizona Republican Party precinct committeeman tells Breitbart News:

I try not to waste my time on fake news peddled by fake American fake reporters. Conservative Republicans can better use their time and energy helping President Trump achieve his political goals by filling up, with their warm bodies, the approximately two hundred thousand vacant Republican Party precinct committeeman positions within the Party’s governing apparatus.

The Tea Party activists had a great deal more to tell Breitbart News about how the media, the Democratic party, and the “Deep State” bureaucrats are trying to bring down the duly elected President of the United States through means that are clearly undemocratic.

“The shock of President Trump’s election victory by everyday Americans so blindsided the press that they threw any loyalty to truth and long lost standards of journalism out the window. They then resorted to publishing any and all uncorroborated allegations that they deemed could cast the President in an unfavorable light,” South Carolina’s Dugan says, adding:

The lack of respect and even civility, towards the President of the United States might be excused if it were from a sworn enemy bent on the destruction of our nation, but is totally inexcusable, contemptible and unforgivable from a free press that has some obligation to veracity along with that freedom.

Journalism, for the most part has died in this country and I fail to see why, going forward, the President has any obligation to even speak to the propaganda machine that has replaced it. I believe President Trump should speak directly to the American people, on a regular basis and let them choose whether to believe their own ears or the agenda of someone who happens to voice personal opinions of what the President said.

As for myself, I shall turn on the media only to hear our duly elected Commander-In-Chief and then turn it off, to form my own opinions, when he is finished. Those authors who have the character and honesty to report the truth will continue to hold an audience while those who try to sell opinion as fact, will not.

The American press and it’s Progressive allies, that have participated in this charade of distortion and deception, have lost the trust and credibility of the voting public.

“As Founder of Montana Shrugged and Montana President of Phyllis Schlafly Eagles, I am worried for America and its Founding Principles given to us in our Constitution. Every day false news reports and leaks hound our duly elected President Trump. These distractions keep him from continuing his work on behalf to the citizens of the United States, ” Montana’s Olsen tells Breitbart News.

“This dangerous game by the media needs to end. The people of the United States deserve better,” Olsen concludes.

President Trump “needs to go to the people through Twitter and rallies as well as prime time addresses and ignore the press. The nation is split and the left has shown its propensity to use lies, violence, and anarchy to negate the will of the people through the 2016 election,” America First Federation’s Skoda says.

“I believe President Trump recognizes this and he should know we have his back. Comey’s firing was long overdue, the Russians didn’t hack the election and the main stream media is indeed the enemy of the people,” Skoda concludes.

Source:  MICHAEL PATRICK LEAHY @Breitbart.com

The post Tea Party Activists: Media Attacks on President Trump ‘An All Out Assault on Our Republic’ appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Voter Identification Laws Are Not the New Jim Crow

Thu, 05/18/2017 - 5:03am

Honest, fair elections are critical to the good health and well being of a representative democracy. A republic cannot flourish if its citizens feel that their voice has been cancelled out by fraudulent votes in a “fair” election. If indeed an ethical electoral process is the standard for a democracy’s clean bill of health, than sadly the United States of America is ill. The American electoral system is bleeding in many ways; yet, enforcing voter identification requirements at the precinct provides one sure way to repair serious wounds. Now is the time for state governments, if not the federal government at large, to pass voter identification laws in order to preserve the sanctity of U.S. elections.

The dispute that makes voter identification laws a divisive, partisan debate is the controversy of whether voter fraud truly exists in American elections. Whenever the topic surfaces, the mantra that is repeated almost uncontrollably by opponents of voter identification laws is that election fraud is an old wives tale, nonexistent, or at least not widespread enough to justify “draconian” measures. After all, asking voters to provide photo identification at the ballot box is quite draconian, right?

However, voter fraud does exist.

In fact, in April 2014, Kim Strach, Director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, discovered what voter identification proponents have feared all along: widespread fraud. In a report to the Joint Legislative Elections Oversight Committee by the North Carolina State Board of Elections on April 2, 2014, Strach revealed two shocking realities. First, the report included information from an audit of more than 50,000 new death records on file at the Department of Health and Human Services, of which 13,416 were identified on voter rosters as of October last year. The same audit revealed that eighty-one of the deceased voters have associated voting records in elections that exceed their date of death. Furthermore, the report disclosed findings from the 2014 Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program that showed 155,692 people with matching first names, last names, and date of birth remain registered to vote in both North Carolina and one of twenty-seven other states participating in the crosscheck. 756 of those also had matches for the last four digits of the voters’ Social Security number. Including those 756, records indicate that 35,750 voted in both states in the 2012 general election (Strach, Burris, and Degraffenreid).

Dick Morris, adviser to former President Bill Clinton, wrote about the report in an article published by The Hill newspaper titled “Investigate 2012 vote fraud.” Morris made the crucial distinction that “past allegations of fraud have all been based on voter registration data, indicating a vast potential for fraud, but without proof of actual double voting, there’s no hard evidence. But the North Carolina study focused only on those who actually cast ballots — far more important criteria” (Morris). Morris insisted “the projected number of actual double votes nationally could reach to 1 million,” since North Carolina accounts for only 2.5 percent of the U.S. population. The actual total number of double votes casted nationally in 2012 is speculative at this point, since only twenty-eight states participate in the crosscheck initiated by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach in 2005 (Morris). Among the twenty-two remaining states not participating in the crosscheck are California, New York, Texas, and Florida, all of which contribute the most votes in the Electoral College, and happen to be the most populous states in the Union.

In 2008, the Indiana State Legislature passed a strict voter identification law that was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008). Richard Posner, the judge presiding over the case in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, addressed the “voter fraud does not exist” argument in his decision. Posner argued that the U.S. faces

“…the form of voting fraud in which a person shows up at the polls claiming to be someone else — someone who has left the district, or died, too recently to have been removed from the list of registered voters, or someone who has not voted yet on election day. Without requiring a photo ID, there is little if any chance of preventing this kind of fraud because busy poll workers are unlikely to scrutinize signatures carefully and argue with people who deny having forged someone else’s signature” (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board).

Posner continued,

“…the absence of prosecutions is explained by the endemic underenforcement of minor criminal laws (minor as they appear to the public and prosecutors, at all events) and by the extreme difficulty of apprehending a voter impersonator. He enters the polling place, gives a name that is not his own, votes, and leaves. If later it is discovered that the name he gave is that of a dead person, no one at the polling place will remember the face of the person who gave that name, and if someone did remember it, what would he do with the information?” (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board).

Opponents of voter identification laws will press the assertion that voter fraud is a myth. In a way, they are correct, but not because voter fraud is nonexistent. As the Honorable Richard Posner pointed out, voter fraud is a myth because identifying fraud offenders at the poll is nearly impossible, let alone apprehending them. There are simply not enough safeguards in place to ascertain the truth about a person’s identity before they vote. It is even more difficult to prosecute them with poor evidence that fails to disclose their real identity, but (as Dick Morris commented in his piece) these new statistics coming out of North Carolina deliver concrete evidence. Morris ended his article stating that the next step should be “an interstate effort by local prosecutors to coordinate investigations of double voters. Let district attorneys in two states confront the double voters themselves and ask how it is that they voted twice, who helped to facilitate their fraud, did anyone help pay for their travel, did they get compensation for voting twice and so forth” (Morris).

The reality that voter fraud exists has left several searching for solutions of how to reconcile the integrity of the American electoral process. “One response [to voting fraud], which has a parallel to littering, another crime the perpetrators of which are almost impossible to catch, would be to impose a very severe criminal penalty for voting fraud. Another, however, is to take preventive action…by requiring a photo ID,” concluded Judge Posner (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board). He’s completely right; passing legislation that would require voters to provide photo identification at the polls is a simple, preventive measure that would eliminate a whole host of errors related to fraudulent elections.

At the federal level, photo identification legislation is stagnant. With Congress in gridlock with the White House, there is no way that legislation of this nature would even make it to the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. Even if the Republican supermajority in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate passed such a bill (which would be a miracle since they are otherwise useless), President Barack Obama would likely veto the bill and send it back for an override or to table the bill altogether.

Interestingly enough though, there is a movement brewing to circumvent this type of gridlock. Constitutional lawyer and nationally syndicated talk radio host Mark R. Levin delineates in his book, The Liberty Amendments, a process imbedded in Article V of the U.S. Constitution that grants power to the fifty state legislatures to amend the Constitution. Levin, Chief of Staff to former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese, describes at great length how a runaway federal government that was intended to be innocuous has become ubiquitous in almost every respect. The Liberty Amendments is an explanation of the role of state legislatures in the Article V amendment process, which states that “the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments…when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof” (US Const. art. V).

The former Reagan Administration official proposes eleven amendments that he believes would correct the trajectory of the federal government and protect the freedoms of Americans. The last amendment that he proposes addresses American elections, ensuring that they are secure for all citizens. He breaks the amendment down into five sections that, in summary, suggest voters be required to produce official photo identification (Levin 183). The amendment also curtails the early voting period to less than thirty calendar days, and reins in the use of electronic consoles (Levin 184).

Levin’s amendment proposal is exactly the type of proactive solution that the American public must hear about. In fact, now is the right time since recent polls show overwhelming majorities of Americans feel that providing photo identification at the ballot box is not cumbersome, but a great idea. In 2013, McClatchyDC, a news bureau based out of Washington, D.C., released a poll that found eighty-three percent of respondents in favor of requiring voters to “show identification in order to vote” as a “good thing” (McClatchyDC).

This sentiment is not just a recent ground swell. In August of 2012, a poll conducted by the Washington Post found a similar discovery. The Post asked correspondents, “In your view, should voters in the United States be required to show official, government-issued photo identification — such as a driver’s license — when they cast ballots on Election Day, or shouldn’t they have to do this?” (The Washington Post). Seventy-four percent of those polled answered yes.

A month later, the Pew Research Center released results from a survey they conducted, asking, “Should voters be required to show official photo identification before they vote on Election Day?” (Pew Research Center). Seventy-seven percent answered yes. It would seem that requiring a person to provide photo identification is a popular view among the majority of Americans.

As state legislatures look towards a solution at the federal level via the Article V provision, many are working effortlessly and proactively in their own states to secure fair elections statewide. Thirty-five of fifty states have already passed legislation enforcing new or reformed requirements for voters to show photo identification at the polls. Some of these laws are not in full effect, as many are being challenged in court (Jost 172).

In 2013, former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder filed a lawsuit against the State of Texas over a voter identification law passed by its state legislature. Holder argued, “We will not allow the Supreme Court’s recent decision to be interpreted as open season for states to pursue measures that suppress voting rights” (Dinan). The Attorney General was referring to a decision that the U.S. Supreme Court made in June of that year to strike down provisions in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that required certain states with a history of voter discrimination to ascertain preclearance from Congress before altering any laws pertaining to voting rights or electoral procedure (Voting Rights Act of 1965). In 1965, Texas met the criteria for restriction, but — as of last summer — the Lone Star State was one of several that can now pass election laws without federal preclearance; hence, the lawsuit.

Texas is one of many states (including Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, North and South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and others) that are embattled in court against special interest groups like the NAACP, or against the Department of Justice; but why the struggle? (Fuller) If asking to show photo identification is a proven way to verify one’s identity, why is there such dramatic opposition to these laws? In other words, is it not logical that in order to deter fraudulent voting, asking voters to produce identification should be a given in order to determine that they are exactly who they claim to be?

Don’t forget that citizens have affirmative responsibilities in this country. As mature adults, American voters should be required to take the most minimal, nominal steps to acquire information that they can provide on Election Day to prove their identity. After all, is it not a requirement to forfeit official photo identification when purchasing alcohol from the local convenience store or restaurant? Photo identification is certainly necessary to buy a plane ticket and board a plane. Renting a house or leasing an apartment requires valid photo identification; entering a 21-years-or-older club, buying a pack of cigarettes, obtaining a loan, and opening a bank account all demand photo identification. Why is it then that when it comes to voting, all of a sudden photo identification is not a requirement? “We the People” loses its ring the moment one unlawful vote is cast, because even one fraudulent vote is one too many.

Nonetheless, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, Bernie Sanders, Loretta Lynch, and others are intent on disrupting a solution that would protect the future of the voting franchise in this nation. They insist that asking someone to provide legal photo identification at the voting precinct is racist, an effort to disenfranchise minorities and the poor, a poll tax, a literacy test, or any other number of outrageous comparisons. If photo identification is necessary to do all these other daily activities, it should be even more necessary to vote.

When all is said and done, voter identification laws are straightforward. If a man or woman wants to vote, all they have to do is demonstrate they are who they say they are. Once they have done that, they are not banned from voting. There is no poll tax, there is no literacy test, and there are no property requirements. No person is disenfranchised or racially discriminated against; all that man or woman needs to do is to simply show photo identification. If racial discrimination does occur after identification has been provided, then that person can bring a fully justified lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Voting Rights Act of 1965). When signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson that was its purpose: to protect all citizens from racial discrimination at the polls. The act is an enforcement of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, prohibiting any type of racial discrimination in the electoral process (Voting Rights Act of 1965). The VRA was renewed, extended, and expanded by Richard Nixon in 1970, Gerald Ford in 1975, Ronald Reagan in 1982, and George W. Bush in 2006 — all Republican presidents, by the way (Levin 195). Yet, ironically, opponents insist that by supporting voter identification laws, Republicans are bent on committing racial injustice.

Why is it, then, that opponents keep bringing the issue up as if these state legislatures — Republican-controlled for the most part — are pushing a Ku Klux Klan effort? After all, if requiring a photo ID is such an effort, the federal government is participating in a huge way, since photo identification is required to enter a government building (like the Department of Justice or the White House), pay a traffic ticket, attend speeches given by politicians (like President Obama, Secretary Clinton, Senator Sanders, or Mr. Trump), or participate in a plethora of other government related activities. If the act of asking someone to produce photo identification to verify their identity is truly a racist endeavor, then by that same logic Mr. Obama and Mrs. Lynch should direct their security staff immediately to stop checking photo ID at the entrances to the White House and the Department of Justice, lest they themselves be deemed as “racist.”

The question that’s left, then, is this: are state legislatures racist because they are requiring you to have photo identification — that is, a photo with your pigmentation on it? On its face, this whole “racist” argument is racist itself, as it elicits soft bigotry towards minorities. Former President George W. Bush said it best in 1999 when he was the Governor of Texas: “Some say it is unfair to hold disadvantaged children to rigorous standards. I say it is discrimination to require anything less — the soft bigotry of low expectations” (qtd. in Paslay). Although talking about education at the time, President Bush’s words cut to the heart of the argument waged by opponents. By asserting that asking for a photo ID is racist, opponents imply that the very minorities they wish to protect from “racism” are incapable (i.e. not intelligent enough) of acquiring basic photo identification, revealing their low expectations of them.

Other arguments posed by opponents of voter identification laws claim disenfranchisement. In his column, “Challenge to Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Challenged,” published by Human Events, John Hayward discusses a report titled “Citizens Without Proof.” Hayward explains that the report, published by the Brennan Center, “purports to chart the disproportionate effect of such laws on segments of the population most likely to be without driver’s licenses and other suitable forms of identification,” and asserts that voter identification laws perpetuate disenfranchisement (Hayward).

What many voter ID proponents want to know is this: if it’s such a burden to get a free, government-issued photo identification card, how can these same people be expected to fill out tax forms, which are more complicated than photo identification applications? How are they expected to go on a computer if they’re too poor or illiterate, and sign up for Obamacare? The government is becoming increasingly more complex, and yet the American people are told that the basic effort of getting a photo identification card for free from the government is burdensome. When in fact, the real situation is that some states are trying to clean up their voter rolls, because people move out of state and remain on the roster. These movers end up registered to vote in multiple states, as discovered in North Carolina, exposing elections to a variety of opportunities for fraud (Strach, Burris, and Degraffenreid).

Hayward also takes into consideration the accusation that the National Center for Public Policy Research made against the Brennan Center, which is funded by George Soros, describing their work as “shoddy.” The author goes on to say that “’shoddy work’ is the very heart of the crusade against voter ID” (Hayward). He concluded, “It’s all very loose, impressionistic, and emotional. Of course sympathetic individuals are brought forth to make manipulative arguments from anecdote”; and he’s right. Each state that has passed legislation to make voting more secure has been inundated with emotionally driven news stories that offer “disenfranchised” victims.

There is no way for proponents of these laws to compete; they are left stranded with logic and basic common sense, with no personal tragedies to exploit. The only disenfranchisement that exists is that of American citizens who vote legitimately under federal and state constitutional law, but have their votes cancelled out by fraudulent ones. Maybe proponents should isolate their stories, and invite them to share their woes on national news outlets.

The bottom line is this: if somebody votes who does not have the legitimate authority to vote under our legal system, they are in effect canceling somebody else’s vote. Is it not crucial that we stand behind the integrity of the electoral process? It’s been fought over for so long by civil rights movements, not to mention that the U.S. Constitution has been amended four times over it — particularly to guard against disenfranchisement as a matter of constitutional and statutory law. Why wouldn’t the government require people to show photo identification to demonstrate who they are? One would think that even minorities would be appalled over finding out that their legitimate vote was subverted by fraud after an election.

Simple logic extinguishes the claims that voter identification laws propagate disenfranchisement and racism. Voter identification laws are racially neutral and not cumbersome; otherwise, the judicial system would have to sift through law books, and strike down every law that “burdens” citizens with the necessity of proving their identity. These laws have worked well in states already using them. Tennessee Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey said that voter identification laws in place in Tennessee lowered voter fraud suspicions in the 2012 general election (Hayward). Even the Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter, issued a report in 2005 titled “Building Confidence in U.S. Elections” that made the recommendation to require voters to provide photo identification at the polling precinct (Paslay). All in all, voter identification laws are a positive, well-vetted solution that the majority of Americans agree should be passed and enforced.

Voter fraud is either a crime or it’s not. If it’s not, then unfortunately our republic is no longer democratic. If it is, then all measures should be taken to prevent it and prosecute it aggressively, just like any other crime. Voter identification laws will not only help catch transgressors, but they will safeguard future elections by deterring others from committing such acts. A strong signal must be sent, and enforcement of these laws will do just that. Until then, election fraud will continue to occur, just as all crimes that provide criminals with great benefits at low consequences do.

References

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 472 F.3d 949, 953 (6th Cir. 2007), aff’d, 553 U.S. 181 (2008).

Dinan, Stephen. “Holder sues Texas to stop voter ID law, congressional maps.” The Washington Times [Washington, D.C.] 22 Aug. 2013: 1. Web. 17 May 2014.

Fuller, Jaime. “Wisconsin threw out voter ID Tuesday. It’s a fight still playing out in 12 other states.” The Washington Post [Washington, D.C.] 29 Apr. 2014: 1. Web. 17 May 2014.

Hayward, John. “Challenge to Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Challenged.” Human Events [Washington, D.C.] 27 July 2012: 1. Web. 17 May 2014.

Hayward, John. “Voter ID Works Like A Charm In Tennessee.” Human Events [Washington, D.C.] 15 Nov. 2012: 1. Web. 17 May 2014.

Jost, Kenneth. “Voting Controversies.” CQ Researcher 21 Feb. 2014: 169–92. Web. 20 May 2014.

Levin, Mark R. The Liberty Amendments. New York City, NY: Threshold Editions, 2013. Print.

McClatchyDC. “Marist Poll for McClatchy on Voting Rights Act.” McClatchyDC [Washington, D.C.] 25 July 2013: 1–8. Web. 17 May 2014.

Morris, Dick. “Investigate 2012 voter fraud.” The Hill [Washington, D.C.] 8 Apr. 2014: 1. Web. 17 May 2014.

Paslay, Christopher. “Voter ID and the Bigotry of Low Expectations.” American Thinker [El Cerrito, CA] 4 Oct. 2012: 1. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.

Pew Research Center. “Broad Support for Photo ID Voting Requirments.” Pew Research Center for the People & the Press [Washington, D.C.] 11 Oct. 2012: 1–2. Web. 17 May 2014.

Strach, Kim, Marc Burris, and Veronica Degraffenreid. “Presentation to Joint Legislative Elections Oversight Committee.” North Carolina State Board of Elections [Raleigh, NC] 2 Apr. 2014: n. pag. Print. 17 May 2014.

The Washington Post. “Fear of voter suppression high, fear of voter fraud higher.” The Washington Post [Washington, D.C.] 13 Aug. 2012: 1. Web. 17 May 2014.

U.S. Constitution. Art. V.

Voting Rights Act of 1965. August 6, 1965. Print.

The post Voter Identification Laws Are Not the New Jim Crow appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Pages

Follow us on social media

Upcoming Events

About

If you have Constitutional values, believe in fiscal restraint, limited government, and a free market economy - then join us or just come and listen to one of our excellent speakers. We meet every Tuesday from 6-8 pm at Mixon Fruit Farms in the Honeybell Hall, 2525 27th St. East, Bradenton, Florida. Map it

Tea Party Manatee welcomes all like-minded Americans.

Our core values are:

  • Defend the Constitution
  • Fiscal Responsibility
  • Limited Government
  • Free Markets
  • God and Country

Read more