Wednesday, April 17, 2019

Save April 24th Reception For US Congressman Dan Crenshaw

Arizona Republican Rep. David Schweikert Racking Up Big Legal Bills in House Ethics Probe

UPDATE:Arizona Rep. David Schweikert (R-CD6) has seen his campaign committee owe more money than it has on hand, as its legal expenses climbed to $583,000 as a result of a year-long ethics investigation. The apparent origin of the trouble - Oliver Schwab, his former Chief of Staff - is no longer under investigation. The investigation continues, and the Arizona Republic's Ronald Hansen reported on today's release of the initial referral by the Office of Congressional Ethics to the House Ethics Committee. Most of that information was already in the public sphere; however, it does indicate that the referral for the alleged infractions was unanimous.
Arizona Rep. David Schweikert is running up big legal bills as the House Ethics Committee investigates the Arizona Republican's dealings with his former top aide and other employees.

Schweikert owes more than $229,000 to law firms, according to his just-released campaign filings. And that's on top of the tens of thousands of dollars he has already paid his defense team during the ethics probe.
In fact, Schweikert's legal debts nearly equal the cash on hand his reelection committee reported as of March 30, according to his filing with the Federal Election Commission. Schweiker's legal debts were more than $229,000, while the reelection campaign had slightly less than $241,000 in the bank. Overall debt by Schweikert's reelection committee amounted to more than $251,000, meaning Schweikert's campaign owes more than it has on hand.

Most of Schweikert's legal debt is owed to the firm Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC, which specializes in campaign finance regulations, among other areas. Schweikert owes that firm more than $206,000, the FEC reports show.

Schweikert's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Schweikert reported raising just under $167,000 in 2019's first quarter, an anemic amount for a veteran lawmaker who holds a seat on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Roughly 40 percent of that total came from corporate PACs, according to the new FEC filing. Schweikert was first elected in 2010.

The House Ethics Committee — following an investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics, the independent ethics watchdog — launched a formal probe last year into allegations that Schweikert misspent official funds and received illegal campaign contributions from his former chief of staff, Oliver Schwab, and other employees, according to a statement from the panel. Read Article


DC Is rampant with rumors that the Pence staff is doing whatever they can to undermine Trump Administration including leaking vital information to the press.
It’s so bad Pence had to disavow his staff of having anything to do with his staff writing an anonymous article. However he does say when asked whether he had asked his staff about the op-ed, Pence said, “I don’t have to ask them because I know them. I know their character. I know their dedication and I am absolutely confident that no one on the vice president’s staff had anything to do with this.”
 WASHINGTON — Vice President Mike Pence says he’s “100 percent confident” that no one on his staff was involved with the anonymous New York Times column criticizing President Donald Trump’s leadership.
“I know them. I know their character,” Pence said in a taped interview aired Sunday by CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
Some pundits had speculated that Pence could be the “senior administration official” who wrote the opinion piece because it included language Pence has been known to use, like the unusual word “lodestar.” The op-ed writer claimed to be part of a “resistance” movement within the Trump administration that was working quietly behind the scenes to thwart the president’s most dangerous impulses.
Tis said they are working at getting Trump to be non-electable in 2020 in the hopes their boss can wrap up the Republican nomination.
Most of the nation had never heard of Mike Pence until Trump brought him to the nation’s attention.
True he is a good Christian conservative Republican, however if rumor is true his staff is operating in an illogical manner.
Pence staffers need to check the history of a Vice President challenging a sitting president, it’s only happened three times in history.
In modern times the only instance of an incumbent Vice President challenging an incumbent President occurred in 1940, when Vice President John Garner took on FDR as he sought an unprecedented third term. Ever hear of President Garner?
Pence staffer need to get on the MAGA agenda and do whatever it takes to get Trump/Pence team re-elected in 2020.


Image may contain: one or more people and text

IS MITT ROMNEY A CLOSET RACIST? The Reason He's Against Herman Cain on Federal Reserve Board

Is Mitt Romney a closet racist is that the reason he is against Herman Cain’s nomination to the Federal Reserve Board? Does his objection go back to his Mormon upbringing?
Image result for mitt romney herman cain
On June 8, 1978, the LDS Church's First Presidency released an official declaration which would allow "all worthy male members of the church [to] be ordained to the priesthood without regard to race or color.

It can’t be because Cain isn’t qualified, Cain was chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Omaha Branch from 1989 to 1991. He was deputy chairman, from 1992 to 1994, and then chairman until 1996, of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) was among one of the earliest Republicans to come out against Cain, saying he worries Cain’s presence would make the Fed a more partisan body, given the former executive’s longstanding political support for Trump. Romney argued last week that Cain would likely help Trump fulfill his plans to slash interest rates and harm the independence of the institution guiding America’s monetary policy.

What Romney is saying is that he’s for higher interest rates that stifle entrepreneurship and the middle class from home ownership.

Tuesday, April 16, 2019

Republican AZ Legislators Heather CARTER,Michelle UDALL,Kate Brophy McGee Vote To Give Illegals Tuition Break

American Post-Gazette
Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E in Arizona
April 15, 2019


Do you think all our elected officials really care about what the citizens of Arizona think and want? Of course, the answer is a resounding “NO!”

The latest case in point: State Sen Heather Carter (R-Dist 15) and State Rep Michelle Udall (R-Dist 25) and their attempts to do an end run around Proposition 300. (BTW: These two are Republicans; well, at least that’s what their registration says.). You remember Prop 300; it was passed by over 70% of Arizona voters. The pertinent language is this: “A person who is not a citizen of the United States, who is without lawful immigration status . . . in this state is not entitled to tuition waivers, fee waivers, grants, scholarship assistance, financial aid, tuition assistance or any other type of financial assistance that is subsidized or paid in whole or in part with state monies.”

Simply put, it means if you’re not here legally you don’t get any financial assistance of any kind, directly or indirectly, to attend higher education in our state. That includes illegal aliens known as DACA kids. That has been upheld unanimously by the Arizona Supreme Court.

Ms. Carter and Ms. Udall are saying that they know better than the rest of us. Ms. Carter, with the help of four other RINO Republicans (Paul Boyer, Kate Brophy McGee, Frank Pratt and Karen Fann) and all 13 Senate Democrats voted for SB1217. Ms. Carter’s bill would give illegal aliens and other non-citizens who graduate from an Arizona high school a tuition break to attend a state university or community college.

How does that square with Prop 300? It doesn’t. It’s in direct violation in the letter of the law, in the spirit of the law and the intent of the law. How it even got past the Senate Rules Committee is troubling; but wait, of course, Ms. Fann, the Senate President is Chair of the Rules Committee, so she made certain it passed, despite its obvious unconstitutionality. And just as bad, Ms. Carter and Ms. Udall and their comrades have decided that they would rather subsidize illegal aliens than they would American citizens. Their efforts would favor illegals over citizens. If an American citizen from Texas or California or New Mexico wants to attend one of our universities it would cost them more than it would for an illegal from Canada, Guatemala or Mexico. Only in the mind of a liberal is that fair, right, or moral.

Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers understood this and prevented SB1217 from being
heard in the House Education Committee, chaired by Ms. Udall, who was furious she wasn’t allowed to schedule the bill for a hearing. So, she and Ms. Carter concocted their little scheme to attempt their end run around the process by using a “strike everything” amendment to one of Ms. Udall’s education bills (HB2186) that already made it through the House and was sitting at the Senate.

What’s it gonna take to get through to these ingrates that they work for us? The citizens of Arizona have spoken loudly and clearly on more than one occasion (Prop 105, Prop 200, SB1070, and Prop 300) that we do not countenance using our taxes to support illegal aliens, nor do we countenance elected officials making end runs around our laws.

SB1217, now HB2186, must be stopped. If, by some chance it makes it to the governor’s desk, he needs to veto it. If not, there will plenty of folks to file a lawsuit against it and name each of the conspirators in that subterfuge.

Respectfully submitted,
James Madison

Disarm the people--that is the best way to enslave them.

Democrats Ignore Lowest Jobless Claims Since 1969-Continue War on Trump Administration

Jobless claims are now at the lowest they’ve been since 1969! This is all thanks to the efforts of President Trump and House Conservatives.Image result for jobless claims
  • April saw jobless claims drop to a historic low of 207,000.  
  • House Conservatives passed historic tax cuts and rolled back burdensome regulations.  
  • Our robust economy is a result of President Trump’s successful conservative agenda.   
The Democrats are ignoring the facts to continue their war on Donald Trump. Our country is flourishing under the President’s leadership and we want to show our support.
With President Trump at the charge, we will take back the House and continue the economic policies that are seeing so much success! Source

Democrats Hypocrisy on Illegals Being Dropped Off In Sanctuary Cities

The Hypocrisy Is Real — Dems Fear Trump Might Follow Their Sanctuary City Drop Off Policy by Wayne Dupree
Cory is the “King of emotion.” How crazy is this? The projection Booker emanated from this interview was enough to put down a cow. Democrats have told America they won’t work with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to round up illegals in these sanctuary cities, thus, making it unsafe for everyday Americans. Democrats have been trying to divide us with their uncanny ability to block Trump from protecting America’s borders.
Dems say busing illegals to sanctuary cities would be illegal and too expensive. I have a solution to those objections. Since California, Oregon, and Washington are sanctuary states, we could tell the illegals to enter through California, give them a starting point.
They will travel there on their own without us having to buy them. That eliminates the cost and liability of busing them. Let them know if they are caught outside of a sanctuary state they will be immediately deported without prejudice. We could pull all border agents from California and deploy them elsewhere to further secure our border in other areas until the wall is complete. It’s a win for us, a huge win for Democrats and a win for the illegals. Of course, you know this is sarcasm.
I wonder just how hard it would be to keep them in those sanctuary cities, though. They won’t move to someplace that is hostile to them if they can avoid it, I think. Obviously, the Democrat-run big cities are where they should be sent and have so far proved to be the most welcoming. I wonder how that would change if they were required to accept illegal aliens who would be made to reside there permanently. Aren’t there certain residential restrictions placed on those who come here on student visas? Why can not similar restrictions be placed on illegals?
We may get an answer to these questions before the end of this week. POTUS has said in a tweet on Saturday PM this issue has been studied in detail in the WH. He also said he had the “absolutely legal right” to move these people to sanctuary cities whether those cities want these folks or not.
I am just speculating but maybe what should happen is if these caravan members migrate from their initial sanctuary and are subsequently recovered by INS, ICE, or whatever they are calling themselves now, or other Federal agencies or state, county or local departments, they should be immediately be conveyed to the nearest sanctuary city where they should be “redeposited” as it were for the new place to care for.
Another solution would be for them to be seized if they have left their initial sanctuary and transported by boat to their nation of origin, where they can begin the journey north all over again.
Oh, and those illegals in sanctuary cities? Let’s be sure to let Catholic or Lutheran Social Services know about them and demand they take these newcomers under their respective wings to care for them, the same as the ones they sponsor who enter by other means. Read More: Political Insider

Saturday, April 13, 2019

USCIS Strengthens Guidance for Spousal Petitions Involving Minors

WASHINGTON—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced additional guidance regarding the adjudication of spousal petitions involving minors, following up on the agency’s February update to its policy.
The guidance, published as an update to the USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM), instructs officers to conduct an additional interview for certain I-130 spousal petitions involving a minor. Generally, the bona fides of the spousal relationship are assessed in person by USCIS when the alien spouse applies to adjust status, or by the Department of State when the alien spouse applies for an immigrant visa. However, I-130 spousal petitions involving a minor party warrant special consideration due to the vulnerabilities associated with marriage involving a minor. As such, USCIS is modifying its policy to require in-person interviews at this earlier stage for certain I-130 petitions involving minor spouses.
“As part of our continued efforts to strengthen guidance for spousal petitions involving minors, we have instructed USCIS officers to conduct an additional in-person interview earlier in the immigration process for certain petitions that warrant additional scrutiny,” said USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna. “While USCIS has taken action to the maximum extent possible to detect and closely examine spousal petitions involving a minor spouse, Congress should address this issue by providing more clarity under the law for USCIS officers.”
Interviewing earlier at the I-130 petition stage provides USCIS with an additional opportunity to verify information contained in the petition and assess the bona fides of the claimed spousal relationship. USCIS officers will now conduct interviews for the following I-130 spousal petitions as part of the adjudication of any I-130 spousal petition where:
  • The petitioner or the beneficiary is less than 16 years old; or
  • The petitioner or the beneficiary is 16 or 17 years old and there are 10 years or more difference between the ages of the spouses.
While there are no statutory age requirements to petition for a spouse or be sponsored as a spousal beneficiary, USCIS published guidance earlier this year detailing factors that officers should consider when evaluating I-130 spousal petitions involving a minor. USCIS considers whether the age of the beneficiary or petitioner at the time the marriage was celebrated violates the law of the place of celebration. Officers also consider whether the marriage is recognized as valid in the U.S. state where the couple currently resides or will presumably reside and does not violate the state’s public policy. In some U.S. states and in some foreign countries, marriage involving a minor might be permitted under certain circumstances, including where there is parental consent, a judicial order, emancipation of the minor, or pregnancy of the minor.

Arizona Legislature struck down state law prohibiting schools from promotingHomosexual Behavior

American Post-Gazette
Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E in Arizona
April 12, 2019


The Arizona Legislature has once again caved to political correctness--this time it will dramatically and negatively affect our kids.

By a 19-10 vote in the Senate and a surprising 55-5 vote in the House, SB1346 struck down state law prohibiting schools from promoting homosexual behavior. What is so bad about our schools not promoting homosexual behavior? Here's the actual language from the now-defunct 1991 law:
"No district shall include in its course of study which:
1.  Promotes a homosexual lifestyle.
2.  Portrays homosexuality as a positive alternative lifestyle.
3.  Suggests that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex."

Nowhere in that language does it disparage anyone, call anyone names, make fun of anyone, or bully anyone. It's simple and straight forward: Our taxes should not go to the education of our children to promote in any way, positive or negative, a homosexual lifestyle. It's neutral. The law did not require schools to demean anyone's lifestyle choices. But you would never know that from the unhinged Left at the Arizona Capitol.

Newly elected State Superintendent of Public Instruction Kathy Hoffman (a Democrat, to no one's surprise) didn't even have the ink on her signature card dry before she called for the law to be struck down, whining that so many children and their families have been harmed by it. How were they harmed? Schools weren't calling out kids who claimed publicly or privately that they were LGBTQA+. That's not what the law prescribed. Again, the law simply stated that when discussing/teaching about AIDS in school, teachers couldn't positively promote a homosexual lifestyle; teachers had to remain neutral. It didn't require teachers to badmouth gays.

Speaker of the House Pro Tem T.J. Shope, a Republican, sponsored the amendment that struck down the "offending" language. Which begs the question: Was Mr. Shope one of those children who was harmed? Inquiring minds want to know.

And the Ice Cream Man on the Ninth Floor couldn't sign the bill fast enough. Gov Doug Ducey signed the bill within minutes of it landing on his desk--breathless to get out of the way of another attack from #Red4Ed, no doubt.

Common sense and history tells us where this is going. We all know where this is going. With the prohibition promoting a homosexual lifestyle gone, you know damn well that liberal teachers across the state will now promote homosexual lifestyles in their classes (and all the other deviant lifestyles). "It's ok, little Bruce and Lance, you can have sex with each other. It's ok, little Amanda and Chelsea, your sexual affection for each other is now endorsed by the state of Arizona." And worse, they will use this as a hammer against any Christian student or parent who even dares to question the veracity of such teaching. Make no mistake, that's what the Left's real goal is: destroy Christians. The party that booed God in their 2012 Presidential Convention has set their sights even lower: legislate Christian beliefs out of the public square. And where better to start than in our schools. They've already kicked prayer out of schools. They are determined to get rid of the Pledge of Allegiance. The Bible is forbidden on most campuses. But, oh yeah, let's teach impressionable kids it's ok to have homosexual sex at virtually any age and if you bigotted Christians complain, we will use the power of the state to shut you up.

So thanks to you 41 shameless, morally baseless Democrats, and you 33 spineless Republicans for bringing our state and our culture ever more close to "ripening in iniquity." You've handed the Godless Left a club to beat morality down.

For the Love of Life, Liberty and Property,
Samuel Adams