Search The Archives

Saturday, November 12, 2016


For Immediate Release
Friday, November 11, 2016

Media Contact:

Vice President-Elect Mike Pence Named Presidential Transition Team Chair; Immediately Institutes Vice Chairs of Presidential Transition Team Executive Committee, Additional Presidential Transition Team Members And Staff Leadership For Transition Team
(New York, NY) - President-elect Donald J. Trump today announced that Vice President-elect Mike Pence will serve as Chairman of the Presidential Transition Team, and that Dr. Ben Carson, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, USA (Ret.), Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions will join the team’s Executive Committee as Vice Chairs.
President-elect Trump also announced that the following leaders will join the Presidential Transition Team Executive Committee:
Congressman Lou Barletta
Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi
Congressman Chris Collins
Jared Kushner
Congressman Tom Marino
Rebekah Mercer
Steven Mnuchin
Congressman Devin Nunes
Anthony Scaramucci
Peter Thiel
Donald Trump Jr.
Eric Trump
Ivanka Trump
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus
Trump Campaign CEO Stephen K. Bannon
“Together this outstanding group of advisors, led by Vice President-elect Mike Pence, will build on the initial work done under the leadership of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to help prepare a transformative government ready to lead from day one,” stated President-elect Donald J. Trump. “The mission of our team will be clear: put together the most highly qualified group of successful leaders who will be able to implement our change agenda in Washington. Together, we will begin the urgent task of rebuilding this nation - specifically jobs, security and opportunity. This team is going to get to work immediately to Make America Great Again.”
President-elect Donald J. Trump today also announced that Chief of Staff to U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, Rick Dearborn, will join the Presidential Transition Team as Executive Director. 
Richard Bagger, Executive Director of the Presidential Transition Team during the preparation phase, will return to the private sector but will remain with the Team as an Advisor, as will preparation phase General Counsel Bill Palatucci.
Joining Dearborn on the Presidential Transition Team’s Staff Leadership lineup are:
Kellyanne Conway, Senior Advisor
David Bossie, Deputy Executive Director
Stephen Miller, National Policy Director
Jason Miller, Communications Director
Hope Hicks, National Press Secretary
Dan Scavino, Director of Social Media
Don McGahn, General Counsel
Katie Walsh, Senior Advisor
The Vice President-elect has tapped his three senior advisors, Nick Ayers, Josh Pitcock, and Marc Short, to work alongside him in this process. 
“President-elect Trump will bring about fundamental change in Washington, and these are the right people to make that happen,” added Vice President-elect Pence. “This team of experienced leaders will form the building blocks of our Presidential Transition Team staff leadership roster, and will work with elected officials and tireless volunteers to prepare our government for the transfer of power on January 20th.”

Tuesday, November 8, 2016


November 8, 2016

Despite liberal media and politicians who decry that requiring any form of identification is "racist" or violates some distorted view of people's Constitutional Rights, we present to you a list of things where identification (ID) is required.  Please take notice that several of the items on the list are explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States or State Constitutions, as well as items that may be implied by Constitutional interpretation or judicial ruling.  The argument that requiring identification (ID) to vote is one of the more absurd arguments to make, given the rather legnthy and non-inclusive list that we are providing below.  There are undoubtedly hundreds more items we could add to this list.

Please take a peek, and given the extensive nature of things that actually do require identification that are likely much less significant than electing a person to the highest political position in our Nation, we would love to hear your feedback on this matter.  Perhaps it's time to to review how the United States handles voting, and more specifically, voter fraud.

With the increased amount of early voting this election cycle, rumors abound of multiple cases of voter impersonation, dead people voting as well as some other more wild conspiracies that we simply can not validate. However, we do know based on several undercover investigations that there were issues with voter fraud, or at the very least, attempts to conduct voter fraud in the 2016 Presidential Elections.  Should we start to require ID at the polls?  It might be a good time to start re-thinking what we consider "discrimination" at the polls.

Activities that Require Showing ID:

  1. *Purchasing a Firearm (2nd Amendment Right)
  2. Purchasing Alcohol (Required by State Law)
  3. Purchasing Tobacco (Required by State Law)
  4. Operating a Motor Vehicle (Required by State Law)
  5. Fishing (Required by State / Local Statutes)
  6. Cashing a check (Required by Institution Policies; Also usually a thumbprint)
  7. *Seeking Employment (Once job is offered)
  8. Boarding an Airplane (FAA / Federal Policies)
  9. Boarding a Cruise Ship (Federal Statutes / Cruise Line Policies)
  10. Renting a Motor Vehicle (Institutional Policies)
  11. Registering for School / College (Institutional Policies)
  12. Purchasing a Cell Phone (Institutional Policies / FCC Statutes)
  13. Verifying Facebook Accounts (Institutional Policies)
  14. Verifying YouTube Accounts (Institutional Policies)
  15. Applying for Credit Cards / Lines of Credit (Institutional Policies)
  16. Sending Cash via Wire (Federal Statutes / Institutional Policies)
  17. Renting a Canoe (Institutional Policies)
  18. *Obtaining Prescription Medications (State Statutes / Institutional Policies)
  19. Adopting / Fostering a Dog or Cat (Institutional Policies)
  20. Obtaining a Hunting License (State Statutes)
  21. *Getting Married (County / State Statutes)
  22. Going to Physician (Institutional Policies)
  23. *Apply for Social Security Benefits (Federal / State Statutes)
  24. Apply for Medicaid (State Statutes)
  25. Apply for Unemployment Benefits (State Statutes)
  26. Obtain Health Insurance (Institutional Policies)
  27. *Obtain a Mortgage (Institutional Policies / County Statutes)
  28. *Rent a Home / Apartment (Institutional Policies)
  29. Rent a Post Office Box (Federal Statutes / Postal Regulations)
  30. Donate Blood (Institutional Policies)
  31. Purchase Certain Over The Counter Medications (State Statutes)
  32. Hotel Room Reservations (Institutional Policies)
  33. Entering R-Rated Movies (Institutional Policies)
  34. Entering Casinos (State Statutes / Institutional Policies)
  35. Returning Store Merchandise (Institutional Policies)
  36. Applying for Professional Licenses (State Statutes)
  37. Criminal Background Checks (State / Federal Statutes)
  38. *Holding Sanctioned Rally / Protest (State / Local Statutes)
  39. *Running for Political Office (Local / State / Federal Statutes)
  40. Purchasing Certain Video Games (Institutional Policies)
  41. *Registering as a Lobbyist (Federal Statutes)
  42. Applying for Food Stamps / EBT (State Statutes)
  43. Collect Lottery Winnings over $500 (State Statutes)
  44. Purchasing Lottery Tickets (State Statutes)
  45. Obtaining a Library Card (Local Statutes)
  46. *Registering a Business (Local Statutes)
  47. Writing a Check At a Merchant (Institutional Policies)
  48. *Serving on Jury Duty (County / State Policies)
  49. Applying for Building Permits (Local Statutes)
  50. Financial Transactions over $5000 (Institutional Policies / Federal Statutes)
  51. Pawn Shop Transactions (Institutional Policies / Local Statutes)
  52. Outpatient Testing / Medical Procedures (Institutional Policies)
  53. Establishing Electric Services (Institutional Policies)
  54. Establishing Landline Phone Services (Institutional Policies)
  55. Establishing Water / Sewer Services (Institutional Policies)
  56. Establishing Gas / Oil Heat Services (Institutional Policies)
  57. Seeking Emergency Room Services (Institutional Policies)
  58. Registering a Motor Vehicle or Boat (State Statutes)
  59. Learning To Fly (FAA Statutes)
  60. Opening a Bank Account (Institutional Policies)
  61. Establishing a Retirement Account (Institutional Policies)
  62. Obtaining Auto Insurance (Institutional Policies)
  63. Getting Documents Notarized (State Statutes)
  64. Becoming a Notary Public (State Statutes)
  65. *Filing a Lawsuit (State / Federal / Municipal Court Regulations)
  66. Joining Most Social Clubs / Organizations (Institutional Policies)

Activities That Do Not Require ID:

  1. Breathing
  2. Sitting
  3. Riding on a Bus
  4. Eating
  5. Blinking
  6. Voting for President of the United States

*Indicates an activity either specifically guaranteed by Constitutional Rights or implied rights via law, judicial ruling or Constitutional interpretation.

FACT CHECK (Unclear Decision As of Now):  From

"The reality is that, if photo ID requirements are going to be struck down, it would probably be either under the guarantee of legal equality under the Fourteenth Amendment, or under one of two provisions in the 1965 Voting Rights Act which seek to assure voter equality. It actually was after the Twenty-Fourth Amendment had been ratified, in 1964, that the Supreme Court struck down poll taxes for voting in state elections (in the 1966 case of Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections); it did so under the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection guarantee.
And what is at least implicit in the Harper decision (and made explicit by later Supreme Court rulings) is that it would also violate the Fourteenth Amendment if a state were to charge a fee for a photo ID card when such a card was required for voting. The Court said in the Harper ruling: “To introduce wealth or a fee as a measure of a voter’s qualifications is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor.”
The Twenty-Fourth Amendment, it should be pointed out, was used by the Court in a 1966 decision (Harman v. Forssenius) to strike down a Virginia law — applied to federal elections — requiring the payment of a $1.50 poll tax or, alternatively, offering notarized proof that the voter lived in the state. The Amendment thus did provide a real remedy against poll taxes in federal elections — something that Congress had been trying, unsuccessfully, since 1939 to do by simple legislation.
More recently — and, particularly, within the past year — the campaign in state legislatures to impose conditions on the right to vote have been based on the more respectable argument that fraud in voting had become a serious problem, and ways had to be found to combat it. Indeed, the state legislators who turned to a photo ID requirement as an anti-fraud device had been encouraged to do so by the 2005 report of a federal Commission on Election Reform on which former President Jimmy Carter served as co-chairman. The commission, though, said that such a photo ID card should be available to any voter for free.
Opponents of the new photo ID requirements for voters have challenged the argument that these were necessary to combat fraud, since — the challengers insist — there is very little evidence of fraud in voting anywhere.
But those challengers also have to accept the reality that the Supreme Court has not rejected the anti-fraud rationale. Indeed, just three years ago, in the case of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Court upheld Indiana’s photo ID requirement for voters in that state. The Court said that, while Indiana had not brought forth strong evidence that voter fraud was a problem that could be cured by a photo ID requirement, the Court was willing to accept — as a general proposition — that fraud in voting does occur, and that states must be free to respond to it.
During the past year, perhaps at least partly encouraged by the Court’s decision upholding the Indiana law, five states adopted new photo ID requirement, and that idea was also considered in a dozen other states. Louisiana was one of the states adopting such a requirement, and that is the state law that the Justice Department in late December challenged.
The Department did so under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, arguing that the Louisiana requirement fell more heavily upon minority voters because data gathered in the state showed that minority voters were 20 percent more likely than white voters to lack an ID card issued by the state motor vehicle department.
With Louisiana vowing to fight this rejection in court, the controversy over the expanded use of the photo ID requirement is sure to continue as this year’s elections unfold across the Nation.
Lyle Denniston is the National Constitution Center’s Adviser on Constitutional Literacy. He has reported on the Supreme Court for 53 years, currently covering it for SCOTUSblog, an online clearing house of information about the Supreme Court’s work.

Saturday, November 5, 2016


This is a list of the current Presidential line of succession, as specified by the United States Constitution and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 as subsequently amended to include newly created cabinet offices. The succession follows the order of Vice President, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, and the cabinet, which currently has fifteen members, beginning with the Secretary of State.
KeyEligible Democrat (D)
Eligible Republican (R)
Not eligible
No.OfficeCurrent officer
1Vice PresidentJoe Biden (D)
2Speaker of the House of RepresentativesPaul Ryan (R)
3President pro tempore of the SenateOrrin Hatch (R)
4Secretary of StateJohn Kerry (D)
5Secretary of the TreasuryJack Lew (D)
6Secretary of DefenseAsh Carter (D)
7Attorney GeneralLoretta Lynch (D)
Secretary of the InteriorSally Jewell (D)[a]
8Secretary of AgricultureTom Vilsack (D)
9Secretary of CommercePenny Pritzker (D)
10Secretary of LaborThomas Perez (D)
11Secretary of Health and Human ServicesSylvia Mathews Burwell (D)
12Secretary of Housing and Urban DevelopmentJuli├ín Castro (D)
13Secretary of TransportationAnthony Foxx (D)
14Secretary of EnergyErnest Moniz (D)
15Secretary of EducationJohn King (D)
16Secretary of Veterans AffairsBob McDonald (R)
17Secretary of Homeland SecurityJeh Johnson (D)
  1. Jump up ^ Not a natural-born citizen (acquired U.S. citizenship by naturalization)
    and thus ineligible for the Presidency.
Cabinet officers are in line according to the chronological order of their department's creation, or the department of which their department is the successor (the Department of Defense being successor to the Department of War and the Department of Health and Human Services being successor to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare).


MR KIRBY: (First few minutes of transcript omitted here... this starts at the point of the announcement of Secretary of State trip to Antarctica)

And then speaking of COP22, I think you’ll see a travel announcement from us shortly about the Secretary’s upcoming travel. He will leave on Monday, the 7th of November. His first stop will be Antarctica, where he will have a chance to visit with the scientists and researchers both at McMurdo Station as well as the South Pole. He’ll be the first Secretary of State and the most senior U.S. Government official to ever travel to Antarctica, and he’ll be there from the 10th to the 12th of November. Follow-on stops on this trip include Wellington, New Zealand for bilateral discussions on the 12th and 13th; on the 14th he’ll be in Oman; on the 15th, United Arab Emirates. We go to Morocco on the 15th and 16th for COP22, and then he goes on to Peru for the APEC conference on the 17th and 18th before returning home. So it’s a long trip, lots to cover. But we’ll keep you guys posted as the schedule continues to firm up.

QUESTION: Can I just ask very briefly on the trip and Antarctica? I mean, he’s not going directly there, is he? He’s got to stop beforehand, right? In New Zealand?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, several stops.

QUESTION: Well, in New Zealand, though. I mean, he’s – you can’t just fly --

MR KIRBY: I thought you were talking about fueling.

QUESTION: No. No, I’m just saying you can’t just fly from Washington to Antarctica.

MR KIRBY: No, you can’t.

QUESTION: Right. So --

MR KIRBY: That’s impossible.

QUESTION: Right. So --

MR KIRBY: It can’t be done.

QUESTION: -- he’s leaving – where --

MR KIRBY: So we are – we’re going to --

QUESTION: He’s going to Christchurch or is he going someplace else?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, so we’ll be stopping in Christchurch, but really the first stop in Christchurch will just be to follow on.


MR KIRBY: We’ll go back to Christchurch for bilateral meetings.

QUESTION: And then what – okay, so he’s going there. What’s he going to – what’s the purpose of going?

MR KIRBY: Of Christchurch?

QUESTION: No, Antarctica.

MR KIRBY: So I think McMurdo Station is the largest research station of the U.S. Antarctic Program, as well as surrounding areas on Ross Island. And he’ll also visit the U.S. Government’s Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. There he’ll have a chance to meet with scientists and researchers that are studying a wide range of subjects in the extreme south, including, of course, climate change. He’ll also get a chance to see firsthand part of the recently established Ross Sea region marine protected area which we announced a week or so ago, the world’s largest marine protected area, which is 1.5 million square kilometers or about – nearly 600 square miles. So this visit will be hosted by the U.S. National Science Foundation, which manages the U.S. Antarctic Program. So it’s a chance to really see firsthand what’s going on with climate change research.

QUESTION: But it’s – climate change and ice?

MR KIRBY: Of course, yeah.

QUESTION: Has he voted?

QUESTION: He will be – he’s leaving on Monday, so he’s not – so he’s --

MR KIRBY: Wait, wait, let’s just – go ahead. Stay on --


QUESTION: Is the scheduling of this designed to keep him out of the country during the election?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)


QUESTION: Well, I mean, I remember the last --

MR KIRBY: I mean, will it? Yes. But is there some sort of design to keep him out of the country on Election Day? No. I mean, the Secretary has been wanting to get down there for a long, long time, and frankly, this schedule was very literally driven by the weather. As a matter of fact, as I understand it from the briefings that we got last week from scientists, that we are – that you wait much longer in the year and it’s extremely difficult, if not impossible, to travel down there.

QUESTION: And then – but so do you know, has he voted?

MR KIRBY: I understand that he has voted.

QUESTION: In Massachusetts?

MR KIRBY: I – assuming it’s still his home state. I can check on that, but I know that he has voted, yeah.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: Is he physically going to go from the Amundsen station to the spot, the actual spot of the South Pole? Do you – are you aware of that?

MR KIRBY: Yes. So it’s a – it’s – you go to Christchurch, it’s about a five-hour flight to McMurdo. We’ll spend the night there because of just the time it takes to get there and acclimatizing. And then we’ll get up the next morning and it’s about a three-hour flight from there to the pole. There’s an actual research facility at the pole.

QUESTION: So he’ll go outside and go to that marker for the South Pole?

MR KIRBY: I’m assuming so.


MR KIRBY: I don’t know, but the research – as I understand it, the research facility itself is just a few hundred meters from the actual pole, so we’ll --

QUESTION: Yes. You still have to go outside to get there, though.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. I’m assuming you have to go outside to get there.


MR KIRBY: But the research facility’s right there, so we will be on the South Pole.

QUESTION: Do you know if the foreign minister of New Zealand is going to be going with them, or --

MR KIRBY: He will not be.

QUESTION: So there’s no real like technically diplomatic component to the trip. I understand there’s a climate change --

MR KIRBY: The purpose for the South Pole is to talk to researchers and scientists --

QUESTION: Got you.

MR KIRBY: -- largely about climate change research.

QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?

QUESTION: Well, can I just ask about Antarctica?


QUESTION: Just what – I mean, what specifically does he hope to achieve with this visit and how much is it going to cost U.S. taxpayers for him to go look around --

MR KIRBY: I will see if we can get you an estimate. I don’t have that. But I think any basic understanding or attempt to understand climate change, you have to understand what’s going on both in the Arctic and the Antarctic, especially with melting glaciers and ice and the sea level rise that can come from that. And as an individual who has literally championed climate change research and awareness for decades now, the Secretary is and will remain committed to increasing the awareness and education of the public about this. And he himself feels it’s important – particularly in the wake of us entering into force now the Paris Agreement, and in advance of the COP22 discussions which will all be about implementing the agreement, that it’s important for him to see firsthand what we’re learning about the environment down there on the South Pole and what information we can then glean from the research to make better, smarter policy decisions. Because that, in the end, as you’ve heard the Secretary talk about – that’s really the answer here, is energy policy, and he believes it’s important to go down there and see that for himself.

QUESTION: Because there’s some criticism that this trip is basically the Secretary wants to knock Antarctica off his bucket list and he’s doing it sort of on taxpayer expense.

MR KIRBY: Where’s the criticism coming from or – I haven’t seen that. Have you?

QUESTION: I – I’ll send you some, yeah. I mean, it’s --


QUESTION: It just --

MR KIRBY: I don’t know how there can be criticism of this when we haven’t even announced the trip, but --

QUESTION: Well, you just did. The criticism obviously came in the last 10 minutes. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: It must have come in the last five minutes. But nevertheless, Nick – nevertheless, you’ve traveled with the Secretary. I think you know how packed his schedule is, and he wouldn’t be making this trip – or any other trip, for that matter – if he didn’t think it was important to advancing issues that are important to our national security and our foreign policy. And climate change is – and it’s not just the State Department that said that; the Pentagon has said it’s a national security imperative. And that was a study two, three years ago. So given all the stakes for the planet, particularly for sea level rise, but – by melting ice, the Secretary believes this is an important trip to make and it’s some – and it’s a place that he’s been wanting to go for a while now. It is largely weather-dependent and that has restricted our – somewhat our ability to be able to get down there, plus you want to get down there when there’s research going on that is the most relevant to what we’re trying to learn, and this is a good time to go.

Wednesday, November 2, 2016


November 2, 2016

While the case of Vincent Foster may be 25 years old, none the less, it is still talked about as a case that was tainted from the start.  After looking at the documents in the FBI Vault, I must admit, there are more questions than there are answers as to why Vince Foster, who by all accounts, appears to be an All-American Family Guy and hard worker.  He loved his family, loved his job as an attorney, all up until the point where he decided to become one of the lead attorneys for the White House under the Bill Clinton Administration.

Taking a look at some of the questions being asked, makes a person take pause.  After reading the full report (links below) one can't help but think that the Clinton Administration in 1993 was pulling the same stunts they are now (manipulating the Attorney General of the United States thereby squashing FBI efforts to investigate high crimes).  My opinion, the Clintons have been engaged in extremely shady, and coercive actions to manipulate the lead Law Enforcement agency to avoid prosecution.